x37-47 / 2554-60 / C39 / ST280 - Small Turbo Comparison Thread

[dyn085]

It's always interesting to see timing above MBT.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Tune+]

It's always interesting to see timing above MBT.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

MBT can only be determined on the configuration by actually dynoing and monitoring the results. MBT in a factory calibration is actually pretty close to what I have found to be the case for most small turbo's under 300whp with good fuel, MBT is hardly ever achieved on pump. However that isn't always the case, sometimes it is lower and sometimes it is over it all depends on the customers setup.

On the example I gave above that is actually requested MBT from the factory cal. Almost exactly. 17.56? vs 17.78?.

 

[dyn085]

MBT can only be determined on the configuration by actually dynoing and monitoring the results. MBT in a factory calibration is actually pretty close to what I have found to be the case for most small turbo's under 300whp with good fuel, MBT is hardly ever achieved on pump. However that isn't always the case, sometimes it is lower and sometimes it is over it all depends on the customers setup.

On the example I gave above that is actually requested MBT from the factory cal. Almost exactly. 17.56? vs 17.78?.

MBT is not a function of fuel and it has already been dyno-tested to be correct. Just because someone can't achieve it on their local pump gas doesn't mean that we can add boost and reduce KS input and then go above it. Changing a turbo doesn't change MBT, and going above it is just adding stress. And no, the factory calibration is not going to ask for nearly 18 degrees of timing. People aren't going to understand that today, but maybe in a few years once the cumulative stress finally takes its toll.

I think it's funny that we're still adjusting KS sensors for 'RMM false-knock' when no one on this platform has actually experienced it. The only people ever actually claiming false-knock are select tuners, and I've worked with multiple members to show them why their false-knock was actually not false-knock, despite what they were told. But hey, the more people that are willing to let themselves be kept in the dark, the more it's their fault.

 

[Tune+]

MBT is not a function of fuel and it has already been dyno-tested to be correct. Just because someone can't achieve it on their local pump gas doesn't mean that we can add boost and reduce KS input and then go above it. Changing a turbo doesn't change MBT, and going above it is just adding stress. And no, the factory calibration is not going to ask for nearly 18 degrees of timing. People aren't going to understand that today, but maybe in a few years once the cumulative stress finally takes its toll.

I think it's funny that we're still adjusting KS sensors for 'RMM false-knock' when no one on this platform has actually experienced it. The only people ever actually claiming false-knock are select tuners, and I've worked with multiple members to show them why their false-knock was actually not false-knock, despite what they were told. But hey, the more people that are willing to let themselves be kept in the dark, the more it's their fault.

What makes you think that Ford's OE calibration doesn't have MBT at 18?? It's never hit, nor will it ever be on a factory cal. Also, I'm referring to MBT in regards to tuning, not the MBT for the engine itself. MBT for ones fuel type/turbo/airflow is going to be different for what Ford designates as maximum torque for the engine. No more torque, no more timing, reduce until same results are achieved. MBT for the engine is indeed 18?, which as I stated is never achieved.

Because you brought this up, I would like to get your input on what you think MBT is for the 1.6L regardless of fuel and configuration.

You wouldn't believe how many times customers have said "why is timing so much lower than my previous tuner". I respond with, because it isn't needed. How does the car feel? 10/10 times they say "much better".

Determining rear mount false knock was pretty simple, and like I stated my reducing is very very minor as it isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to seem, just like you stated. I have spoken with other tuners and they are going as low as 8, which is just...well completely dumb. I work with a lot of shops around the world that aren't familiar with tuning the Ford Ecoboost platforms. Then send me over the calibration they are using and having problems with and I go through them, then have a remote session with them showing them their mistakes. They compensate me for my time and that is that. This has been done with even my competition for e-tuning, and I have seen some thing...unspeakable things..

Log raw data with factory engine and mount, log raw data with factory engine and aftermarket RMM, no other variables. Read, compile, adjust. I did mine with a 100% factory car with 10 miles on it, then again with a factory car with 18,000 miles on it. Then installed RMM's on both, and compared. This accounted for "break-in" on the mount, just because.

 

[dyn085]

I'm not near my ATR currently but I'll post post MBT for the OP table when I get back to my computer, though that might be later on tonight. I use mine offline because I'm still on the pro version that was accidentally updated to the regular ATR users (even though it's not much different in what's available to the end-user).

Actually, any ATR user can post the screenshot along with the compensations if they would like.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Tune+]

I'm not near my ATR currently but I'll post post MBT for the OP table when I get back to my computer, though that might be later on tonight. I use mine offline because I'm still on the pro version that was accidentally updated to the regular ATR users (even though it's not much different in what's available to the end-user).

Actually, any ATR user can post the screenshot along with the compensations if they would like.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Sneaky Sneaky haha.

BTW, Optimum power is not enabled on factory cal's.

Here is what you asked for, there is no compensation for ECT, and -2.5 for Lambda during WOT.




HUGE EDIT, thought I was still looking at the Fiesta map... That was for mustang, here is 2015 Fiesta ST

Still no ECT comp at full temp, and lambda is -2?, again this is on OP which is never enabled.

You stop when you don't make any torque. Also, I usually drop 2? under before sending the customer off so its not at peak 100% of the time.

 

[dyn085]

You're correct that OP is not enabled on the OEM calibration but it's still what Ford measured as MBT at optimum power with high-octane fuel. It's enabled on mine but I was willing to do the legwork to make it work and it still just weighs in like any of the other HDFX tables. Again, it's been dyno-tested to be accurate.

ECT compensations-

Lambda compensations-

I could post the FoST and Fusion tables but, just like the normally-aspirated Mustang tables, they would be completely moot to the discussion.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Tune+]

You're correct that OP is not enabled on the OEM calibration but it's still what Ford measured as MBT at optimum power with high-octane fuel. It's enabled on mine but I was willing to do the legwork to make it work and it still just weighs in like any of the other HDFX tables. Again, it's been dyno-tested to be accurate.

ECT compensations-

Lambda compensations-

I could post the FoST and Fusion tables but, just like the normally-aspirated Mustang tables, they would be completely moot to the discussion.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

HDFX 1 is the final table being used on the factory cal, and if you look at the OE MBT tables HDFX 1 is actually higher than OP. OP was intended for VCT request so it is going to be different than standard VCT non-OP request. Because OP isn't enabled, and even it was the difference is very minor, it is best to use the data how they actually run it. Again, they are knowing that MBT would never be achieved in a factory configuration.

As I posted, there is 0 ECT comp, and -2 (-1.90) Lambda comp.

That is a Ecoboost Mustang MBT table, Cobb doesn't support GT's so it is very well a boosted application and not N/A.

 

[dyn085]

HDFX 1 is definitely not the final table being weighed and anyone that wants to see for themselves can simply log their HDFX Weight % to see where they stand. I would be more than willing to see that proven. Here's a shot showing what's happening at the upper rpm range at WOT for the actual HDFX tables being used. The timing ceiling in this shot is not MBT.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Tune+]

HDFX 1 is definitely not the final table being weighed and anyone that wants to see for themselves can simply log their HDFX Weight % to see where they stand. I would be more than willing to see that proven. Here's a shot showing what's happening at the upper rpm range at WOT for the actual HDFX tables being used. The timing ceiling in this shot is not MBT.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Sorry, that was my mistake. Again, when I typed I was looking at Mustang. HDFX1 is final. However on Fiesta it doesn't matter, 1-7 are almost identical if you have a look on your end. So even though it is blended 6/7 it is still pulling the same data.

 

[dyn085]

Which is exactly my point.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Tune+]

Which is exactly my point.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Your point of? You said MBT wasn't near 18?, well on OP it is 16.5? and on HDFX it is 17.5?. Again referring to higher rpm, which is all that was shown in this thread. So, I guess we have different definitions of what "Near 18?" means?

 

[BronxBomber]

funny how this thread had been dead for a month and "We The North" & I asked a few questions and in under a day, 4 additional pages. I like it. Lots of good technical info that I'm sure the majority of us can't comprehend, but good to see the activity none the less. Helps us technical noobs make better decisions.

 

[dyn085]

Your point of? You said MBT wasn't near 18?, well on OP it is 16.5? and on HDFX it is 17.5?. Again referring to higher rpm, which is all that was shown in this thread. So, I guess we have different definitions of what "Near 18?" means?

I totally understand why you're the only tuner that won't let your customers share datalogs because I've seen plenty of them (though I never disclose them on the forum for respect of the members). You're going to say what you're going to say and that's fine because I'm not really concerned with it. You have your fan base and that's cool. We, as a community, are very misinformed and most don't really understand what they're looking at anyways. You've already explained that you are able to run more timing than any of the other tuners, constantly get confused between Mustang ATR and FiST ATR, think false-knock is prevalent enough to reduce KS sensitivity across the board, and seem to think you know exactly what other tuners are softening their KS sensor to when it's not something that can be logged.

Interestingly, if other tuners were de-sensitizing the KS sensors to the degree that you claim then why can't they hit the same timing that can supposedly be hit without moving MBT? Reduced sensitivity means more advance and less reductions so, theoretically, their horrible tuning practices would cause them to hit MBT sooner and easier if their borderline timing was raised enough...

Anyways, best of luck to you and those that are using your tunes.

 

[Tune+]

I totally understand why you're the only tuner that won't let your customers share datalogs because I've seen plenty of them (though I never disclose them on the forum for respect of the members). You're going to say what you're going to say and that's fine because I'm not really concerned with it. You have your fan base and that's cool. We, as a community, are very misinformed and most don't really understand what they're looking at anyways. You've already explained that you are able to run more timing than any of the other tuners, constantly get confused between Mustang ATR and FiST ATR, think false-knock is prevalent enough to reduce KS sensitivity across the board, and seem to think you know exactly what other tuners are softening their KS sensor to when it's not something that can be logged.

Interestingly, if other tuners were de-sensitizing the KS sensors to the degree that you claim then why can't they hit the same timing that can supposedly be hit without moving MBT? Reduced sensitivity means more advance and less reductions so, theoretically, their horrible tuning practices would cause them to hit MBT sooner and easier if their borderline timing was raised enough...

Anyways, best of luck to you and those that are using your tunes.

Your failure to read and comprehend might be the sole reason why you can't follow along. You are right, KS mulitplier can't be monitored but when they tell me what it is they do, and when they send me their calibration it's pretty easy to see what they are doing. Like I mentioned in a previous post other calibrators look to me for help, they are referred to me by others to solve problems. I'm willing to help because in most cases they are never going to come across complex issues often because the amount of vehicles they work with are limited. They can knock a stock turbo car out of the park, but if they are working with an AUX fueling car with a big turbo and high ethanol content they might have issues. I have no problem helping them out, they aren't going to hurt my business at all.

Constantly getting confused on Mustang ATR and Fist ATR, that is cute, especially the part where you think I use ATR. I never have to leave the program to switch between cars and when I'm writing a post I'm answering emails and generating tunes. So within a few minutes I'm looking through 4 or 5 different vehicles. So yes, when replying to a forum to draw it all out in pictures to a nobody I tend to flip through a couple different cars and not give it my full attention to the forum post. Tuning a vehicle takes precedence over proving someone wrong on the internet.

Who ever said other tuners can't hit the same timing as me? The issue I see most is that they run an unnecessary amount of timing. Only time I mentioned it is when a customer says "Why are you running less timing than XXX tuner". So, again your reading comprehension fails you. If you want to pick petty arguments on the internet, I suggest you read as a whole and compile information for an educated post. However, you might be just like me and not think that trying to prove someone wrong on the internet isn't important, which it definitely isn't.

 

[WeTheNorth]

Ok Ok, the question still remains, what are the advantages of one of the other ? If there both the same setup per say. Can that be answered in any way or form? Expect Someone shine a light?

 

[frankiefiesta]

Ok Ok, the question still remains, what are the advantages of one of the other ? If there both the same setup per say. Can that be answered in any way or form? Expect Someone shine a light?

Cyborg has a bigger compressor wheel, much better inlet. Pumaspeed supposedly has more turbine side work done. They both are capable of making power. Both are great budget options. The cyborg has proven its durability. The pumaspeed turbo has not being newer.

Both are better than the stock turbo. That I can tell you. From there, you will have to make a decision.

 

[WeTheNorth]

Cyborg has a bigger compressor wheel, much better inlet. Pumaspeed supposedly has more turbine side work done. They both are capable of making power. Both are great budget options. The cyborg has proven its durability. The pumaspeed turbo has not being newer.

Both are better than the stock turbo. That I can tell you. From there, you will have to make a decision.

Totally hear ya! But why are the numbers on the 37 better? If the SS has a bigger wheel+Inlet? I was going to go with Adam for my tune but now I'm skeptical after reading the banter, I don't feel comfy if I bought the SS variation...

 

[frankiefiesta]

Totally hear ya! But why are the numbers on the 37 better? If the SS has a bigger wheel+Inlet? I was going to go with Adam for my tune but now I'm skeptical after reading the banter, I don't feel comfy if I bought the SS variation...

Some say it's the tuning. I'm not totally sure, I'm not a turbine engineer. Just take a look here. [MENTION=688]Sourskittle[/MENTION] is no tuner by any means, but he pushed his car right up to 290+ whp on v dyno. He is right. Nobody wants to take an interest in a turbo they don't produce/sell/make. The cyborg IS capable of x37 numbers. You need to find that somebody to tune it to its potential. Read this whole page

http://www.fiestastforum.com/forum/threads/2857-Cyborg-Upgraded-Stock-Turbocharger-System/page93

 

[Sekred]

A Compressor map would help, then you could see efficiency and flow ratings .