- Member ID
- #4208
- Messages
- 1,991
- Likes
- 458
Daily drivers with performance
- Thread starter antarctica24
- Start date
The conversation isn't exactly hypothetical; direct-injection engines definitely get buildup. You even stated exactly why in your post, as I've highlighted. The question is not about whether we do/don't get buildup, it's about how much buildup are we seeing. The fact that you're seeing the same mileage, even if it's low by comparison, does favor the thought that buildup isn't going to be as bad as people seem to think it will be.
On the flip-side, the vehicles driven more frequently and for longer periods of time at operating temperatures tend to lend themselves to having less buildup.
On the flip-side, the vehicles driven more frequently and for longer periods of time at operating temperatures tend to lend themselves to having less buildup.
OP
Thread Starter
#23
- Member ID
- #1040
- Messages
- 669
- Likes
- 344
Thread Starter
#23
Oh no I'm with you there on the long driving. I completely agree that the more you drive the less I would expect it to be. I think the mileage is low because I have a heavy foot 
but is has been consistent since I bought the car. In fact in changing tires I recently went to a 50.00 tire and the mileage went up by .2 mpg.
but is has been consistent since I bought the car. In fact in changing tires I recently went to a 50.00 tire and the mileage went up by .2 mpg.So I dragged your post here to a more applicable area. I quoted your post so you can come back and read it later.
I tune both of my ST's and a Fusion. You'll see me post in quite a few tuning/performance-related threads because I am one of the only self-tuning members that is willing to discuss it. Feel free to try and discredit me all you want, I can assure you 100% that if you spend a few moments researching that you will return later to understand why your wrong. You may not admit it outright, but you're going to be able to see what you posted when asserting your 'knowledge'.
I can't make this any simpler-you are wrong.
I tune both of my ST's and a Fusion. You'll see me post in quite a few tuning/performance-related threads because I am one of the only self-tuning members that is willing to discuss it. Feel free to try and discredit me all you want, I can assure you 100% that if you spend a few moments researching that you will return later to understand why your wrong. You may not admit it outright, but you're going to be able to see what you posted when asserting your 'knowledge'.
I can't make this any simpler-you are wrong.
From Mishimoto on this very forum:
"Although the ST is a MAP-based vehicle, the MAF unit is still in place to read temperature. Our intake design will need to incorporate a MAF flange to accept the factory unit. An easy task completed for many of our intake systems."
Direct from COBB on the other main ecoboost based vehicle the FoST
http://fordstnation.com/cobb-tuning/2189-cobb-initial-focus-st-r-d-findings.html
Unless you don't think COBB is a reputable tuner:
"Intake R&D Results (Stage1) Welcome to Speed Density, or, in other words, this is not a MAZDASPEED3! The factory air metering system uses three MAP (Manifold Absolute Pressure) sensors and does not incorporate the MAF (Mass Air Flow) sensors found on many of today’s modern vehicles."
"I'm thinking you really should have to have some kind of proof of your expertise before being allowed to just chime in on this forum" - You.
"Although the ST is a MAP-based vehicle, the MAF unit is still in place to read temperature. Our intake design will need to incorporate a MAF flange to accept the factory unit. An easy task completed for many of our intake systems."
Direct from COBB on the other main ecoboost based vehicle the FoST
http://fordstnation.com/cobb-tuning/2189-cobb-initial-focus-st-r-d-findings.html
Unless you don't think COBB is a reputable tuner:
"Intake R&D Results (Stage1) Welcome to Speed Density, or, in other words, this is not a MAZDASPEED3! The factory air metering system uses three MAP (Manifold Absolute Pressure) sensors and does not incorporate the MAF (Mass Air Flow) sensors found on many of today’s modern vehicles."
"I'm thinking you really should have to have some kind of proof of your expertise before being allowed to just chime in on this forum" - You.
I would be more curious as to why the OCI was so short; oil technology has come a long way and changing oil while the additive package is still not used up is not only wasteful, it actually is a wear accelerator. To be fair though, it is probably an almost immeasurable amount of added wear.
Mathematically, 160k at a reasonable 10k OCI @ $30 a pop is $480. At 2k intervals that cost skyrockets to $2,400. Not my money or concern, just food for thought.
Mathematically, 160k at a reasonable 10k OCI @ $30 a pop is $480. At 2k intervals that cost skyrockets to $2,400. Not my money or concern, just food for thought.
I would like to see his valves too.
He seems to miss the point that DI carbon build up is caused by PVC fumes with no fuel to clean them off the valves.
This is why oil catch cans are so popular, to try to keep the oily part of PCV fumes out of the intake.
Any way, his conclusions rarely seem rooted in fact.
He seems to miss the point that DI carbon build up is caused by PVC fumes with no fuel to clean them off the valves.
This is why oil catch cans are so popular, to try to keep the oily part of PCV fumes out of the intake.
Any way, his conclusions rarely seem rooted in fact.
OP
Thread Starter
#31
- Member ID
- #1040
- Messages
- 669
- Likes
- 344
Thread Starter
#31
OK, This is getting old for sure, but for those on this forum that really want to know, and I really hate to do it to you here it goes.
You, Hijinx and now VAfist, have all said that our car is a MAP based tune. You have said that based on an article from the oracle of tuning COBB, "http://fordstnation.com/cobb-tuning/2189-cobb-initial-focus-st-r-d-findings.html" he says our car is a speed density tune, not does not incorporate a MAF sensor. Dyn085 has said that based on his extensive self tuning experience and data logging experience, that bolt-ons such as FMIC, Exhaust and Air Intakes make no difference in the power of our cars without tuning (You have continually said this all throughout this forum including in this post).
Let's looking at some weird and challenging information
First, my experience.
https://www.procharger.com/gallery/2002-pontiac-trans-am
I attended both the EFI101 Accelerated Certification Program and EFI Advanced programming course. Prior to tuning the Trans Am. I not only tuned that vehicle, but I built that engine and based on its tune made 26 mpg and still made that power and passed NC inspection with real 02 sensors. So I did not buy HP Tuners and start futzing around with the computer and then call myself a tuner. I understand what Speed Density Tuning is and I understand what MAF tuning is and I completely understand what Volumetric Efficiency is. But we will come back to that in a second.
As for Bolt-ons not making power on our car,
I drove 2 hours on Saturday to National Speed located at 6779 Gordon Rd, Wilmington NC. Their phone number is 910-332-5901. Should any one wish to question the above dyno graph they can call Keith.
Let's break it down. What I had on the car prior to the tune, this is the only Engine related modifications done.
MAP FMIC
MAP 3" Exhaust
MAP Charge Pipes
Uninstalled Stock BOV, and Installed TurboSmart BOV before Throttle in Charge Pipe
Completely removed Sound box from, car, I know what you all say its for, but its gone.
Installed Velossa Tech Design Big Mouth Intake
Installed CP-E Air Intake
Stock Downpipe
There were 3 runs each, each one was without 1 HP and 1 TQ on the run 2. 199HP and 223TQ. That is more than the reported stock dyno numbers of 183/212.
So either Dyno085
1. The parts you installed on your car were not good enough to make a difference
or
2. You do not know how to data log.
You can justify whatever you want to justify, the numbers above speak for themselves.
The number 5 run was part of a second set. I had gone with the intentions of not changing any of the tune, but Keith and my install friend say why not just put the Cobb Shelf Stage 1 tune in to see what it does. If you don't like it you can put it back.
My hesitance is the reliability of my car, I need my car for my job, and with now 160,000 miles on the car, just being careful. I cant afford for this to break today. But, I reluctantly agreed to the Stage 1 shelf tune.
There were 3 pulls, all within 1 HP and 1 TQ. 5 was the best. 198HP and 251TQ.
Now, to be fair to everyone, I have not followed the Stage path to upgrades. But in my opinion, 80% of the increase is coming from the installation of the 3" exhaust.
Now that we have that covered, its time to dispel this MAP, MAF thing.
http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/sstp-1004-eletronic-fuel-injection-maf-map-sensors/
DYN085, Hijinx, and VAFIST, you all need to read this article along with anyone who wants to understand how these cars function.
MAF is Air Density Tune (this is dynamic tuning)
1. adjust on the fly
2. if you unplug this from your car (based on the article from cobb because we don't use it, your car should run fine, which it wont).
MAP is Speed Density Tune (this is static tuning)
1. adjust based on tables
2. is absolutely meaningless below 8-10PSI
3. Because Cobb says we have 3 lf these and that the MAF is irrelevant, if you were to unplug this sensor, your car would not run, which is hogwash. You could unplug all of these and the would run up to a point.
80% of drivability happens below 3000 RPM and less than 10lbs of boost. Data logging boy should know that. If you are driving the car without putting the throttle to the floor you could drive this car without a map sensor and the car will function.
The MAP sensor is used to accommodate pressure readings outside of the what the MAF will read. As I have said before, but probably didn't completely qualify, if you have a Normally Aspirated Car, No Turbo, No Supercharger, and you were to put a small turbo on the car and were making less than 7lbs of boost, and if the air was cold enough up to 10lbs of boost, the MAF sensor will adjust and accommodate without any tuning. Ford and GM are both diligently working on a sensor that will read up to two atmospheres worth of air.
I am in no way saying COBB is not the authority in Tuning these car and the others they support. I am saying the guy in this article in 2012, did not know what he was talking about. He clearly was not the tuner for COBB and begged to work on the car. The other aspect about this COBB article is it is a marketing article and should not be taking seriously as to how cars and their computers function.
This car, our car, the entire Ecoboost line uses the MAF sensor for all calibration under somewhere around 10lbs of boost. The MAF runs in open loop until it maxes out its reading capabilities, and then goes to closed loop and starts to dump fuel. Then as boost climbs, which would a very small amount of time that we drive, and relies on the Tables to determine what the fuel and timing curve should be, when you come out of boost and are back below 10lbs or so, the MAF takes over. THIS IS FUEL INJECTION ENGINE MANAGEMENT 101 from about late 1980's.
The Cobb article also states that adding a aftermarket Air intake adds turbulence and that is why they don't add power. I don't even know where to go with this comment. Air flow dynamics 101, Has anyone ever heard of the word combination smooth transition? Like maybe going from pipe to pipe, when porting heads, 45 degree eblows instead of 90 degree. The corrugated pipe from the factory does nothing but create turbulence. The aftermarket pipes smooth out turbulence. The reason they don't add power is because the MAF is programmed to read x amount of air based on the diameter of the tube. When you increase the tube size allowing for more air, you have to change the VE tables to accommodate. You can lie to the VE table and change the scale across the entire table, but option 2 is to go with a different MAF sensor, which is available in some applications. If the MAF sensor knows there is more air their then it will be able to read it.
I applaud you for doing your own tune, that's great. But going around here pushing your inexperience and arguing with others because you think your right is just causing confusion for others. Based on the dyno reading, based on the superstreet article, based on every car made from 1986 forward, you just don't know what your talking about and continually reposting your noise, does not make you right.
Hijnx, I still love you man, congrats on the 12 runs and getting home.
You, Hijinx and now VAfist, have all said that our car is a MAP based tune. You have said that based on an article from the oracle of tuning COBB, "http://fordstnation.com/cobb-tuning/2189-cobb-initial-focus-st-r-d-findings.html" he says our car is a speed density tune, not does not incorporate a MAF sensor. Dyn085 has said that based on his extensive self tuning experience and data logging experience, that bolt-ons such as FMIC, Exhaust and Air Intakes make no difference in the power of our cars without tuning (You have continually said this all throughout this forum including in this post).
Let's looking at some weird and challenging information
First, my experience.
https://www.procharger.com/gallery/2002-pontiac-trans-am
I attended both the EFI101 Accelerated Certification Program and EFI Advanced programming course. Prior to tuning the Trans Am. I not only tuned that vehicle, but I built that engine and based on its tune made 26 mpg and still made that power and passed NC inspection with real 02 sensors. So I did not buy HP Tuners and start futzing around with the computer and then call myself a tuner. I understand what Speed Density Tuning is and I understand what MAF tuning is and I completely understand what Volumetric Efficiency is. But we will come back to that in a second.
As for Bolt-ons not making power on our car,
I drove 2 hours on Saturday to National Speed located at 6779 Gordon Rd, Wilmington NC. Their phone number is 910-332-5901. Should any one wish to question the above dyno graph they can call Keith.
Let's break it down. What I had on the car prior to the tune, this is the only Engine related modifications done.
MAP FMIC
MAP 3" Exhaust
MAP Charge Pipes
Uninstalled Stock BOV, and Installed TurboSmart BOV before Throttle in Charge Pipe
Completely removed Sound box from, car, I know what you all say its for, but its gone.
Installed Velossa Tech Design Big Mouth Intake
Installed CP-E Air Intake
Stock Downpipe
There were 3 runs each, each one was without 1 HP and 1 TQ on the run 2. 199HP and 223TQ. That is more than the reported stock dyno numbers of 183/212.
So either Dyno085
1. The parts you installed on your car were not good enough to make a difference
or
2. You do not know how to data log.
You can justify whatever you want to justify, the numbers above speak for themselves.
The number 5 run was part of a second set. I had gone with the intentions of not changing any of the tune, but Keith and my install friend say why not just put the Cobb Shelf Stage 1 tune in to see what it does. If you don't like it you can put it back.
My hesitance is the reliability of my car, I need my car for my job, and with now 160,000 miles on the car, just being careful. I cant afford for this to break today. But, I reluctantly agreed to the Stage 1 shelf tune.
There were 3 pulls, all within 1 HP and 1 TQ. 5 was the best. 198HP and 251TQ.
Now, to be fair to everyone, I have not followed the Stage path to upgrades. But in my opinion, 80% of the increase is coming from the installation of the 3" exhaust.
Now that we have that covered, its time to dispel this MAP, MAF thing.
http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/sstp-1004-eletronic-fuel-injection-maf-map-sensors/
DYN085, Hijinx, and VAFIST, you all need to read this article along with anyone who wants to understand how these cars function.
MAF is Air Density Tune (this is dynamic tuning)
1. adjust on the fly
2. if you unplug this from your car (based on the article from cobb because we don't use it, your car should run fine, which it wont).
MAP is Speed Density Tune (this is static tuning)
1. adjust based on tables
2. is absolutely meaningless below 8-10PSI
3. Because Cobb says we have 3 lf these and that the MAF is irrelevant, if you were to unplug this sensor, your car would not run, which is hogwash. You could unplug all of these and the would run up to a point.
80% of drivability happens below 3000 RPM and less than 10lbs of boost. Data logging boy should know that. If you are driving the car without putting the throttle to the floor you could drive this car without a map sensor and the car will function.
The MAP sensor is used to accommodate pressure readings outside of the what the MAF will read. As I have said before, but probably didn't completely qualify, if you have a Normally Aspirated Car, No Turbo, No Supercharger, and you were to put a small turbo on the car and were making less than 7lbs of boost, and if the air was cold enough up to 10lbs of boost, the MAF sensor will adjust and accommodate without any tuning. Ford and GM are both diligently working on a sensor that will read up to two atmospheres worth of air.
I am in no way saying COBB is not the authority in Tuning these car and the others they support. I am saying the guy in this article in 2012, did not know what he was talking about. He clearly was not the tuner for COBB and begged to work on the car. The other aspect about this COBB article is it is a marketing article and should not be taking seriously as to how cars and their computers function.
This car, our car, the entire Ecoboost line uses the MAF sensor for all calibration under somewhere around 10lbs of boost. The MAF runs in open loop until it maxes out its reading capabilities, and then goes to closed loop and starts to dump fuel. Then as boost climbs, which would a very small amount of time that we drive, and relies on the Tables to determine what the fuel and timing curve should be, when you come out of boost and are back below 10lbs or so, the MAF takes over. THIS IS FUEL INJECTION ENGINE MANAGEMENT 101 from about late 1980's.
The Cobb article also states that adding a aftermarket Air intake adds turbulence and that is why they don't add power. I don't even know where to go with this comment. Air flow dynamics 101, Has anyone ever heard of the word combination smooth transition? Like maybe going from pipe to pipe, when porting heads, 45 degree eblows instead of 90 degree. The corrugated pipe from the factory does nothing but create turbulence. The aftermarket pipes smooth out turbulence. The reason they don't add power is because the MAF is programmed to read x amount of air based on the diameter of the tube. When you increase the tube size allowing for more air, you have to change the VE tables to accommodate. You can lie to the VE table and change the scale across the entire table, but option 2 is to go with a different MAF sensor, which is available in some applications. If the MAF sensor knows there is more air their then it will be able to read it.
I applaud you for doing your own tune, that's great. But going around here pushing your inexperience and arguing with others because you think your right is just causing confusion for others. Based on the dyno reading, based on the superstreet article, based on every car made from 1986 forward, you just don't know what your talking about and continually reposting your noise, does not make you right.
Hijnx, I still love you man, congrats on the 12 runs and getting home.
This is gold. Now Braden doesn't know what he's talking about and begged to be the Cobb ST tuner due to his inexperience? Awesome. Pure, unadulterated awesome.
Feel free to comment on the datalog I sent you along with how your 15 hp/11 tq (over someone else's baseline, not even your own) is a good justification for the cost of the parts (because mine aren't 'good enough') along with why others are tuned but have no aftermarket parts are making more power than you.
Feel free to comment on the datalog I sent you along with how your 15 hp/11 tq (over someone else's baseline, not even your own) is a good justification for the cost of the parts (because mine aren't 'good enough') along with why others are tuned but have no aftermarket parts are making more power than you.
OP
Thread Starter
#33
- Member ID
- #1040
- Messages
- 669
- Likes
- 344
Thread Starter
#33
You posted the link
Direct quote from Branden in your link "I’ve introduced myself on this forum before, but for anyone that missed it, my name is Braden and I am an R&D Calibration Specialist at COBB. I am working on the Focus ST, mostly because I begged Trey to let me."
I am assuming you could read.
Tuning your own car like you have done and Branden had done does not make you an expert.
Taking fuel injection management classes as I have done at least allows me to have an understanding of how the system works in conjunction with tuning my own car, making real power allows me to align the class knowledge with practical experience.
This conversation has never been about price vs performance stay on topic.
This conversation has never been about making more power without a tune than those with a tune.
This conversation has always been about you saying that bolting on product without a tune based on your extensive data logging experience and your being the one of the very few people tuning their car makes no power gains. You have said it more than 20 times.
The average real dyno of a stock 2014 ford Fiesta St without modifications is 183/212. (posted more than 20 times on this and other fiesta ST forums)
According to FORD at WWW.FORD.COM the power is 197/202
My REAL NOT VIRTUAL DYNO WITH BOLT ONS WITH ZERO TUNE MADE 198 and 223.
At no time have I ever said anywhere on any forum, at any time in my life that bolting on parts created the maximum HP gains without a tune.
I am and have always been aware that you could put a tune in this car unmodified and get more HP. That was not the point here and you know it.
In order to take the full benefit of any part you would put on a car after 1986 would require a retune to some degree. But that the computer is capable of making some changes on its on, you said that was not true and the dyno graph proves you wrong.
Any professional tuner will agree with this statement. It is not disputed. It is also not disputed that it is possible to install some parts and achieve some gains, while not full gains, yet gains. .001 HP over is a gain. It is not the maximum gain, it certainly is not justified in paying for that gain, but it is gain. You said it was not possible based on your data logging and you were just flat wrong regarding every brand and every part.
Did you use your data logging experience and data log every FMIC and every Exhaust and every CAI? NO you didn't
You took what you put on your car or cars, data logged them and them made a gross assumption about your data.
What your implying by your gross assumption of your data is that anyone putting any bolt on part on their Ford Fiesta ST would not see any gains without a retune.
Your assumptions are 100% false except with the parts you data logged with providing you knew what you were looking at.
I think it is fair to assume that not all parts are created equal, and I know if that were the case, there would not be so many different companies making performance parts for cars.
My statements are true. Maybe the parts you installed really didn't make any gains without a tune and that is how you came to your conclusions. Perhaps you have heard of the Institutional review board and ethics committee. This is used when you are working on your Doctorate to ensure that the data you are collecting and your research are sound. When you get to the point of getting your Doctorate in Data Logging and Tuning, you can submit the type of research you do and see what they say about your gross assumptions and conclusions.
In order for anything you say to be relevant regarding bolt ons do not add any power without a tune, you have to follow the scientific research method, which means,
1. You have question
2. you collect data
3. you test your hypothesis
4. you write your conclusion based on the results of your data not your assumptions
number 4 is important here because that is not what you did
You installed x brand on your car or cars, you data logged, and then you created a conclusion based on limited data, and assumption
in order for your research to mean anything at best, you have to have installed every type of CAI, tested it, every type of FMIC tested it, every type of exhaust, test it, then for each and every type you needed to install and test in every type of scenario with just a CAI and FMIC and Exhaust and then every combination of each brand. We know and you know and Cobb knows they didn't do that.
Professional e-tuners know that as well. That is why they give you a tune, ask you to data log, and send them the log, then make changes back and forth until you get a final tune. There is not one dyno/tuner shop in the country that will take your car, ask you what parts you have on your car, slap a tune in your car, and send you on your way. That is called a off the shelf tune. It is a tune that is in the general vicinity of what should work with a basic set of facts. A custom tune is when you put a tune in a car, run the car on a dyno or data log to see the results and then make changes based on the results.
Im not really saying what you bought is junk. I am saying what you bought and based on your extensive data logging, that the parts you purchased obviously showed no gains, so you took that to mean that every brand of bolt on should show no gains without a tune and that would be incorrect. I screwed up. There is no question. I did not get my car dyno'd before I added any parts, and I did not get my car dyno'd after each part I installed to see which one made the biggest difference. BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT MY CAR WAS NOT MAKING 223 FT TQ from the Factory and so does every one else who owns this car with any common sense. And no one here is claiming on a real dyno that their car made 197 and 202 from the factory. No car ever dynos what it makes from that factory. The FMIC by itself while dropping temps was probably 20% of that increase and the exhaust which has nothing to do with airflow into the engine, probably had 80% to do with that increase.
There is no justification to buying any performance parts. The gains you get even with a tune do not justify the money spent. PERIOD.
You can get a 2008 Cobalt, do a retune and pick up 75hp and 75ft torque , where as here, you have you buy 2900 worth of stuff, just to get 80 ft lbs of torque.
The article you posted from Cobb, written by Branden, I am not questing his ability to tune. I am questioning his ability to tune a 2014 Ford Fiesta ST when he wrote the article in 2012. He was working on a Focus and just coming off of a WRX. The 1.6 was not even out and they are have been design changes since the first Focus ST was released. You are using the MAP tables because at 30lbs of boost you are over 2 atmospheres and he MAF sensor cant read that high. You are making adjustments to the MAP tables because that is where the boost is made. No tuning is required if you are not into boost below 8-10lbs depending on sea level and overall air temp.
Based on your comments, this is a MAP tuned car, and based on Brandens comments, this is a MAP Tuned car, then you should be able to disconnect the MAF and have no problems running your car. Anyone who knows anything about fuel injection management except you, knows that is not the case. You can disconnect the MAP and the car will continue to run. You may not be happy about the A/F above 15psi, but it will run. I am certain at this point Branden is probably an expert on this car and the focus. He was not when he wrote the article and you handed up that article as your basis for your backup. That was your mistake and apparently you didn't even read it and he didn't understand at the time he wrote it. The car has to have both the MAF and MAP to function with over 10PSI as it does today and the MAP sensors are static and relate pressure into voltage so they can do a lookup in a table.
Direct quote from Branden in your link "I’ve introduced myself on this forum before, but for anyone that missed it, my name is Braden and I am an R&D Calibration Specialist at COBB. I am working on the Focus ST, mostly because I begged Trey to let me."
I am assuming you could read.
Tuning your own car like you have done and Branden had done does not make you an expert.
Taking fuel injection management classes as I have done at least allows me to have an understanding of how the system works in conjunction with tuning my own car, making real power allows me to align the class knowledge with practical experience.
This conversation has never been about price vs performance stay on topic.
This conversation has never been about making more power without a tune than those with a tune.
This conversation has always been about you saying that bolting on product without a tune based on your extensive data logging experience and your being the one of the very few people tuning their car makes no power gains. You have said it more than 20 times.
The average real dyno of a stock 2014 ford Fiesta St without modifications is 183/212. (posted more than 20 times on this and other fiesta ST forums)
According to FORD at WWW.FORD.COM the power is 197/202
My REAL NOT VIRTUAL DYNO WITH BOLT ONS WITH ZERO TUNE MADE 198 and 223.
At no time have I ever said anywhere on any forum, at any time in my life that bolting on parts created the maximum HP gains without a tune.
I am and have always been aware that you could put a tune in this car unmodified and get more HP. That was not the point here and you know it.
In order to take the full benefit of any part you would put on a car after 1986 would require a retune to some degree. But that the computer is capable of making some changes on its on, you said that was not true and the dyno graph proves you wrong.
Any professional tuner will agree with this statement. It is not disputed. It is also not disputed that it is possible to install some parts and achieve some gains, while not full gains, yet gains. .001 HP over is a gain. It is not the maximum gain, it certainly is not justified in paying for that gain, but it is gain. You said it was not possible based on your data logging and you were just flat wrong regarding every brand and every part.
Did you use your data logging experience and data log every FMIC and every Exhaust and every CAI? NO you didn't
You took what you put on your car or cars, data logged them and them made a gross assumption about your data.
What your implying by your gross assumption of your data is that anyone putting any bolt on part on their Ford Fiesta ST would not see any gains without a retune.
Your assumptions are 100% false except with the parts you data logged with providing you knew what you were looking at.
I think it is fair to assume that not all parts are created equal, and I know if that were the case, there would not be so many different companies making performance parts for cars.
My statements are true. Maybe the parts you installed really didn't make any gains without a tune and that is how you came to your conclusions. Perhaps you have heard of the Institutional review board and ethics committee. This is used when you are working on your Doctorate to ensure that the data you are collecting and your research are sound. When you get to the point of getting your Doctorate in Data Logging and Tuning, you can submit the type of research you do and see what they say about your gross assumptions and conclusions.
In order for anything you say to be relevant regarding bolt ons do not add any power without a tune, you have to follow the scientific research method, which means,
1. You have question
2. you collect data
3. you test your hypothesis
4. you write your conclusion based on the results of your data not your assumptions
number 4 is important here because that is not what you did
You installed x brand on your car or cars, you data logged, and then you created a conclusion based on limited data, and assumption
in order for your research to mean anything at best, you have to have installed every type of CAI, tested it, every type of FMIC tested it, every type of exhaust, test it, then for each and every type you needed to install and test in every type of scenario with just a CAI and FMIC and Exhaust and then every combination of each brand. We know and you know and Cobb knows they didn't do that.
Professional e-tuners know that as well. That is why they give you a tune, ask you to data log, and send them the log, then make changes back and forth until you get a final tune. There is not one dyno/tuner shop in the country that will take your car, ask you what parts you have on your car, slap a tune in your car, and send you on your way. That is called a off the shelf tune. It is a tune that is in the general vicinity of what should work with a basic set of facts. A custom tune is when you put a tune in a car, run the car on a dyno or data log to see the results and then make changes based on the results.
Im not really saying what you bought is junk. I am saying what you bought and based on your extensive data logging, that the parts you purchased obviously showed no gains, so you took that to mean that every brand of bolt on should show no gains without a tune and that would be incorrect. I screwed up. There is no question. I did not get my car dyno'd before I added any parts, and I did not get my car dyno'd after each part I installed to see which one made the biggest difference. BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT MY CAR WAS NOT MAKING 223 FT TQ from the Factory and so does every one else who owns this car with any common sense. And no one here is claiming on a real dyno that their car made 197 and 202 from the factory. No car ever dynos what it makes from that factory. The FMIC by itself while dropping temps was probably 20% of that increase and the exhaust which has nothing to do with airflow into the engine, probably had 80% to do with that increase.
There is no justification to buying any performance parts. The gains you get even with a tune do not justify the money spent. PERIOD.
You can get a 2008 Cobalt, do a retune and pick up 75hp and 75ft torque , where as here, you have you buy 2900 worth of stuff, just to get 80 ft lbs of torque.
The article you posted from Cobb, written by Branden, I am not questing his ability to tune. I am questioning his ability to tune a 2014 Ford Fiesta ST when he wrote the article in 2012. He was working on a Focus and just coming off of a WRX. The 1.6 was not even out and they are have been design changes since the first Focus ST was released. You are using the MAP tables because at 30lbs of boost you are over 2 atmospheres and he MAF sensor cant read that high. You are making adjustments to the MAP tables because that is where the boost is made. No tuning is required if you are not into boost below 8-10lbs depending on sea level and overall air temp.
Based on your comments, this is a MAP tuned car, and based on Brandens comments, this is a MAP Tuned car, then you should be able to disconnect the MAF and have no problems running your car. Anyone who knows anything about fuel injection management except you, knows that is not the case. You can disconnect the MAP and the car will continue to run. You may not be happy about the A/F above 15psi, but it will run. I am certain at this point Branden is probably an expert on this car and the focus. He was not when he wrote the article and you handed up that article as your basis for your backup. That was your mistake and apparently you didn't even read it and he didn't understand at the time he wrote it. The car has to have both the MAF and MAP to function with over 10PSI as it does today and the MAP sensors are static and relate pressure into voltage so they can do a lookup in a table.
That's not the point, man. Factory freaks exist... Between the dyno loading, conditions, and your specific car there's nothing that says that it's impossible for those to be your numbers. Without a stock baseline we don't have anything to compare against and say, "yes, there was an increase." Basically, you're using the tool wrong.
Ah, the personal insult phase.
There have been multiple ST's and other Ecoboost platforms that have dyno'ed a significant amount over stock. None had ~160k, but you've yet to post a single datalog so nobody knows anything about your car/tune but numbers. Good corrected numbers though, lol, I'll bet your throttle closures look awesome.
There have been multiple ST's and other Ecoboost platforms that have dyno'ed a significant amount over stock. None had ~160k, but you've yet to post a single datalog so nobody knows anything about your car/tune but numbers. Good corrected numbers though, lol, I'll bet your throttle closures look awesome.
OP
Thread Starter
#38
- Member ID
- #1040
- Messages
- 669
- Likes
- 344
Thread Starter
#38
What tool am I using wrong? This was a dyno jet. I am confused here. It is very hard for me to argue that comment. I absolutely screwed up. I didn't test thing before installing the stuff. But please try and remember. I was never, trying to say that you could get meaningful gains without a tune. NEVER. I don't think your retarded so don't take it that way, it was just a REALLY???? comment.
If we look at all of the real world dyno not virtual data available and take an average. There was in increase just from bolt ons if it is even .001, it is an increase and dyn085 went straight for "It is not possible to have any gains with bolt-on's without a tune" He was wrong and more than .001 wrong. Parts are useless without a tune and while a tune is not completely useless without parts, it is sort of. All of this non-sense was to prove a point which I have proven.
On another note, I did learn something yesterday after letting them put the stage 1 cobb shelf tune in my car. It is a lot more fun with 50 ft tq more than stock. I am looking forward to getting my downpipe installed and getting a custom tune done. For the record, I did not do the dyno tune, the guys at National speed, drove my car in, drove it through the tune and uploaded the stage 1 cobb shelf tune. I watched from the other side of a glass.
I also re-learned something else. "Power under the curve" if you look at what I was dealing with before in the other car, the damn thing made 693 at 2500rpm. I am now short 4 cylinders and 5 or more liters in displacement. When you install the bigger turbo using just a 2554R maximum power moves from 1.5rpm to 3RPM. In the grand scheme of things regarding drivability, with the power band moving like that, you were probably right about daily drivability and the high horsepower on this chassis. Your going to spend 80% of your time below 3000rpm which is where this car rides at 80mph. If the 300+ HP was going to be in the 1500-3000 range it would be a different story but you are not riding around with your foot to the floor all the time.
If we look at all of the real world dyno not virtual data available and take an average. There was in increase just from bolt ons if it is even .001, it is an increase and dyn085 went straight for "It is not possible to have any gains with bolt-on's without a tune" He was wrong and more than .001 wrong. Parts are useless without a tune and while a tune is not completely useless without parts, it is sort of. All of this non-sense was to prove a point which I have proven.
On another note, I did learn something yesterday after letting them put the stage 1 cobb shelf tune in my car. It is a lot more fun with 50 ft tq more than stock. I am looking forward to getting my downpipe installed and getting a custom tune done. For the record, I did not do the dyno tune, the guys at National speed, drove my car in, drove it through the tune and uploaded the stage 1 cobb shelf tune. I watched from the other side of a glass.
I also re-learned something else. "Power under the curve" if you look at what I was dealing with before in the other car, the damn thing made 693 at 2500rpm. I am now short 4 cylinders and 5 or more liters in displacement. When you install the bigger turbo using just a 2554R maximum power moves from 1.5rpm to 3RPM. In the grand scheme of things regarding drivability, with the power band moving like that, you were probably right about daily drivability and the high horsepower on this chassis. Your going to spend 80% of your time below 3000rpm which is where this car rides at 80mph. If the 300+ HP was going to be in the 1500-3000 range it would be a different story but you are not riding around with your foot to the floor all the time.
You have an aftermarket FMIC. That, in and of itself, will preserve the timing due to the cooler charge temps. This is factored into our MAP-based tune in the timing compensations. You can qualify it as a gain if you would like but I prefer to consider it a preservation of the original power. I've said this multiple times.
So again, post your datalog showing your throttle closures or at least try to comment on the one that I posted. Your load is going to have the same limits as stock because it's not a MAF-based tune and once you hit them your throttle will close to keep you from making more power. Go ahead, datalog it for yourself.
So again, post your datalog showing your throttle closures or at least try to comment on the one that I posted. Your load is going to have the same limits as stock because it's not a MAF-based tune and once you hit them your throttle will close to keep you from making more power. Go ahead, datalog it for yourself.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WRX to FiST? (for autocross and daily)- Started by AriaFury
- Replies: 5
-
-
2015 Daily driver build project (first project car) -- Started by TalkToTheFiST
- Replies: 18
-
