adhdesigns

Like Puffwagon said I was logging rpm against throttle position. The throttle position axis for some strange reason labeled itself "Load". Anyway it let me see where and how often I see the high loads and hopefully I don't throw away my fuel economy. We will see. I took it for a run today. No complaints and I'm pleased with what I noticed. Need to drive it some more. Cheers folks

So I had a look at one of my latest data logs and here is my intake VCT table So it seems like load when I'm normally driving doesn't get above 0.6. Above that clearly I can paste the 0.9 row. Or perhaps just adjust the 0.7 row by splitting the difference between the 0.6 and 0.9 rows. It's interesting that they didn't bother with a 0.8 row. There is quite a ramp up between the 0.7 and 0.9 rows. I will try this one out today and report back soon. Cheers for the help Roland and Puffwagon.

Hi Everyone, I've been mucking around with pcmtec for a little while now and I've been really pleased with the results. I started by getting injectors right (turns out that aftermarket ones aren't actually the same as stock ones) by changing the injector slopes to match actual. Then new extractors and the associated changing of the AUF0061 values using LTFT data logging. Somewhere around the middle of this process the intake manifold gasket failed without me noticing - fixed that - LTFT stays within 2% between petrol fills. Very happy. Love driving this car. Now to the question.... Lately I was watching a Haltec video about tuning the VCT in a Nissan "something or another" in which they have a two stage Cam solinoid and they showed how to get the most out of that situation (trigger it after 5000rpm) and get more area under the torque curve. At the end of the video they suggested that there was even more to be gained from VCT in our Barras. Ok great, how do we do that!? I've had a look for any info on the forums and I haven't found much on the topic. Someone suggested there was possible power from a few degrees change -which way? The only thing that I have found is a note that Roland made in 2021 to someone who had done a barra swap into their land cruiser who was saying that torque was low - Roland suggested adjusting "the VCT intake timing and set it up as per the full throttle timing at part throttle, this will remove the pseudo EGR (exhaust gas re circulation) that Ford use to dilute the intake charge. You'll make sightly more torque but you'll find that it definitely uses more fuel at cruise." So now looking at this table has only left me with more questions. Is the highest load scale really the best timing for the cam? Or has ford limited the power output to save the engine? Can I just leave the settings below the first 3 rows and copy the top down over what is left? How can I test the outcome I only have the roadDYNO. I'm very interested in your ideas.

So I gave it a go today after getting fuelling within .99 months now. It ran without much noticeable difference. It did run hotter though. Head temp was 10 degrees hotter and water was about the same. Driving fueling was generally 1.05 Idle fueling was 1.10 but the wideband was showing the LTFT and stft were still on top of these. I was surprised to see the higher temps because others have noticed a cooling affect. If LTFT and STFT are working should the base map really need to be changed? If I did would I be likely to see the cooling affect that others have seen?

Now I'm considering (when I get my new regulator) what happens when I fill her up with e85. Can I just change the fuelling from 14.6396 to 9.733 in this section and see what happens?

So I've got my wideband going now. From the Injector scaling topic I've been able to fix an over-fuelling issue that was present due to a larger fuel-pump that I installed last year - with the bigger surge bucket that the FGs use (probably a good upgrade... if I had done something about the standard regulator at the same time - I asked the seller if the pump would affect fuelling, they told me not to worry, I guess they wanted to sell the product more than anything else). I also am using a fuel pressure sensor and I included it in my datalogging - I would recommend this to everyone. What did I find? The standard fuel regulator and perhaps the hole in the return cannot keep the pressure down to the 2.7 bar that it is rated for. This was the case until about 80% throttle and over 2500 rpm. Then pressure started to decrease to the correct 2.7 bar after this - though not until 4000 rpm did the pressure get down to the 2.7 bar. The pressure did not drop past this pressure (the regulator is probably working ok for the normal type of fuel pump). Before these points where the car usually operates the pressure stayed at 3.05 bar. I've ordered an adjustable regulator and I 'm thinking of setting it at 3.05 bar. Puffwagon and Roland and probably others that I have missed were able to point me in the correct direction (using the injector scaling topic) for how to fix the Low and High slopes. I guessed that the Breakpoint wont really change as well as the PW minimum as these are physical attributes that are related to how fast the solenoid moves. I used Puffwagon's idea of using LTFT to tune the slopes. Someone pointed out the the low slope will be fairly much the only thing operating at Idle and LTFT in this area was .95 so I increased (multiplied) the slope by 1.05 (5% more than standard). Now my LTFT are spot on in this area of the Map. After this most of the map (where fuel pressure is 12% over) with a LTFT of .88 - I scaled the LTFT by 1.07 (7% more) because the Low and High slopes are added to get the final increase. Guess what... Now my LTFT is basically spot on (1s everywhere in the map until fuel pressure starts to drop). Very happy. Thanks guys.

Thanks Roland for that great article. Also your warning about going rich with the e85. For years I've been reading other's observations that an engine works better on a rainy day and their subsequent attempts at replicating these results in various ways. It was interesting that they were able to identify that a ratio of 1:1 of fuel and water had excellent efficiency outcomes. I wonder if we could just put a piggy back ECU running a water injector into the intake manifold at this ratio would get us some good results? Or, perhaps a better choice, I wonder if one of the sensors in the car could be reconfigured as an output with the PCMTEC custom OS? This could be used to trigger a driver box running stand alone injector hardware. Roland are you talking about this in a separate topic?

That sucks, Puffwagon could you please share just a little of that hectic info. Maybe small chunks at a time?

Ignore the question about spark I've just read the nfo: spark tables from Roland. Dyno time seems to be the best answer for this question. I would still like to hear from Jay and anyone else who have their NA on e85.

Thanks Puffwagon and Jay, Very interesting and useful information I'm still wondering how the ECU decides when to pull timing? Is it just going to be slowly advancing/ retarding it's timing until knock is detected, repeat, repeat? How does WOT affect the timing? There must be a reasonable way to safely determine the best timing/ Vs torque for e85 Vs 98? Jay I am wondering if you have any more to say about your experience with e85? How long have you been running your car on e85? Are you only running it on e85? Are you using a wideband to make sure of your fueling? Did you have to watch your knock detector? What are your thoughts on the whole experience?

Thanks for info Roland. When you say full MTB timing, how would I set that up?

Hi guys this might seem like wrongness but I would like to have a go at getting a NA Barra to work on e85. I've seen some guys getting e85 to work well with NA with other types of cars showing some performance gains (Always of interest - I'm sure - to us all.) I also have other reasons for getting this to work in my car. I think that I understand what is needed to get it ready to tune. Workshop (one car), custom os, E85 sensor, e85 compatible pump. What else do I need to get or do to make this happen?