bradyzq

Careful here. The "HP rating" of an intercooler tends to be based on the cross-sectional area of the charge air portion of the intercooler. It has pretty much nothing to do with the length of it, or its ability to cool the charge air. So, a 1000hp rated vertical flow intercooler may be of equal volume to a much lower HP-rated horizontal flow intercooler. So, HP rating is not necessarily proportional to intercooler volume AND, in my experience, intercooler volume, though it seemingly should have a significant impact on lag, in reality, doesn't mean that much. To be clear, I'm not disputing the fact that one can oversize an intercooler.

Sweet!

When you say audible knock, do you mean through the headphones when listening through the Adaptronic? Or when listening only with your ears? Has your knock threshold been tuned in the Adaptronic? Regardless, low 20's seems low, especially at only part throttle. It makes me think your base timing mght be off. And/Or, you're running very lean. Do you have high compression and a mild or stock cam? Do you still have the distributor, or are you running wasted spark coils? If you still have the distributor, is the advance locked? Sorry for all the questions, but it seems to me that there may be an issue beyond tuning that must be pipointed first.

What isolators (between carb and intake manifold) did you use? I have the dual o-ring style, but they're significantly smaller than the carb outlet or intake runner diameter!? I am running A TWM intake and 40DCOE18 carbs.

Looks reasonable. Are there any timing trim/compensation tables acting on this main map?

Lazeum, I have a theory that if you can't feel AFRs that go as lean as into the low 20's at WOT high RPM, then, well, they aren't really going that lean. Your car should hardly even run at those AFRs, let alone pull hard! Where is your wideband located? If it's in the tailpipe for testing, do you have a dual outlet? I've seen one pipe on a dual tip outlet read free air while the other one right next to it read the correct afr. And you couldn't tell from puting your hand in front of each outlet. They felt like they had the same flow! Might there be an exhaust leak ahead of the sensor that somehow manifests itself at that point due to some wacky harmonics? Or something of the sort.....

Do you drive your Z on the street at all? If so, beware of Braille batteries, and other tiny batteries. I know old Zcars don't ask much of batteries and charging systems, but I've seen nothing but problems with Brailles on cars that may see short drives. Maybe they were defective, or maybe they just have minimal reserves. Either way, do your research!

So, let me get this straight. To clarify, even if you switch "Barometric Correction" to "None" from "Initial MAP Reading" and set "Default baro(kPa)" to 100, the MS still checks baro when in ITB mode? If the answer is "Yes," then WTH were the MS developers thinking?? If the answer is "No," then we can move on to the MAP sensor thing, which I explained badly. The idea is to keep the stock internal MAP sensor, but recalibrate the MS2 to think it's a 1 Bar sensor. That way, the picky ITB mode will never see boost. Basically, at atmospheric pressure, your indicated MAP will be 40ish kPa. Since you say the latest alpha code permits changing the MAP-Alpha-N switchpoint, you should be good to go, albeit with an odd, underscaled load axis. You would need to repopulate the fuel and spark tables to reflect this. But the load axis in ITB mode is a weird hybrid anyways, so that's no biggie. The most annoying thing would be having to always multiply the MAP by 2.5 in your head when logging or viewing data.

Great that the MAF looks like it will work out! I too have seen weirdness with MAF placement and dyno fans have also caused issues at lower flow (like idle and low RPM running). The voltage range on the MAP sensors are pretty much always 0-5Volts regardless of their rating. Offsets may vary a bit, but that's about it. So, yes it would run, but not without rescaling your load axes, the whole point of it being that you could get a max load under boost that is 100 or less, so ITB mode would work.

Hmm, hadn't thought about boost being an issue. Sorry! I guess you are in the unlucky minority. Been there..... MAF is definitely a good solution, but trickery _might_ work too. There may be a hole in this idea that you could drive a truck through, but at the moment I can't think of it: Turn off, or adjust according to the "new" MAP sensor output, any baro compensation, then tell ECU you're running a 1 bar MAP sensor. ITB mode should then work. It's kind of a weird load scale anyways, so it might not be too hard to deal with. The only issue I can think of is that the switchpoint is not adjustable in MS2, just MS3. So, I'm not sure if the Alpha-N portion would ever activate.....

You can also try ITB mode instead of blending manually. This results in only one load axis that autotune understands.

Not that you were necessarily referring to my "slow" comment, but in case you were, and to clarify in general, with the MS2 autotune, you can choose to have the ECU update the fuel map automatically, but it will do it in small steps. Or, you can get only WBO2 readings in all cells, with no live changes to the fuel map, then after ask the ECU to calculate the full change needed in each cell. This can be done in either Tunerstudio, or with VE analyze in Megalog Viewer.

Also, when using Autotune, it is slow to change the mapping. I've found that it's better to uncheck "update controller" and simply log while driving slowly through as many cells as you can, then update the controller manually. If you're getting resets, try using the noise filter on the crank trigger input. You should be able to see the trigger waveforms in Tunerstudio, and will get hints as to what the noise is. Do you know what the reset/sync reason is? You can log that.

Tank => filter => pump => filter => carb => carb => carb => FPR => return This is what you have suggested, but with your hard line immediately above and parallel to the carbs removed. It may be redundant anyways. You Paint skills far surpass mine, BTW.

Cam timing? The torque peak RPM seems a bit low for your cam. And, regarding the wideband O2 sensor, you can install it after the header collector so you don't have to damage your ceramic coating. Just make sure the flanges or slip fit connections aren't leaking. Did you ever rev past 6000RPM on the dyno?

To combine the above suggestions even further, you can choose to install a bung extender/heat sink like this one. http://www.diyautotune.com/catalog/innovate-motorsports-hbx1-heatsink-bung-extender-3729-p-73.html Thread it into the original too-close bung, then thread your wideband into it. Send the narrowband emulation wire to your ECU, and everybody's happy.

Before you get into tuning it, confirm that what the XDI thinks the timing is, is the actual timing. You'll have to get the voltmeter going, and also check the timing with a timing light. Then you'll have to factor in any offset between the 2 in all future timing calculations. You'll have an offset if your crank sensor or your trigger wheel is not exactly where it should be. It's easy to be half a tooth off, and that would be 3 degrees offset right there.

I would not suggest that at all. Do you need the meth for extra fueling? At your power levels, I don't think so. And if you do, it's not going to effectively reach the combustion chamber. Do you need it for knock resistance? With your E85 mix, probably not. Even if you do, water's octane rating is infinity. Try finding something higher than that! So why use meth at all? It's a dangerous fuel that burns with an invisible flame (until something else catches fire too.... then you'll know!) I suggest water injection only, and only post intercooler. Hypothetically, if you succeed in reducing the air temp below ambient before the intercooler, the intercooler will actually HEAT the air back towards ambient. Additionally, the water/meth mix will likely fall out of suspension on its way through the intercooler, thus being way less effective in the combustion chamber if it ever gets there. If I was a turbo compressor wheel spinning at 100,000RPM, I would NOT like to have droplets of liquid sprayed at me. When they hit the blades, it can't be good for the compressor wheel....

It's easy, at least in my mind...... You see, you need a front-engined, rear-drive, normally-aspirated, carbed, gas-powered 2 seat tintop sportscar. There is no doubt about this whatsoever. The second you change any of these elements, it becomes a completely different car. You have MANY perms and coms until you exhaust your choices. Turbo(s), blower, EFI, 4 seat, 4-door, wagon, convertible, front-wheel drive, all-wheel drive, diesel. Then there's the whole street car vs. dedicated race car (or rally, autox, road race, etc.) Yes, it's a disease, and I think most, if not all of us here, have it.

Correct. I have not dynoed any stock 280Z/Xs, but looking around the net saw that 120-130HP was average. At 140 you're in Tony D territory! Regarding stock 280ZXT horsepower, we're saying the same thing. I realize that most dyno sheets out there are from chassis dynos rather than engine dynos, but 280Zedx doesn't mention which. If 280Zedx made 225 at the wheels, would you think that 30whp difference (255-225) is good bang for the buck considering that one is a race engine with a cam and is running 2 more psi on a bigger blower, not to mention no distributor? I don't! There should be a bigger gap between the 2. That's why I am sticking to my guesstimates. All I'm trying to do here is potentially reduce your expectations for 6psi (and, I suppose 8-8.5psi) on a stock engine. PLEASE show me I'm wrong! I'd love to be, because it would mean you're blasting around in a much quicker car than I would have thought. And, after all, isn't that the goal?

Have you had a chance to take a look at the wastegate yet? It seems to me that the symptoms you're describing could be caused by a wastegate that is ever so slightly open at rest. I'm not familiar with stock 280ZXT wastegates, but I imagine there is a threaded rod from the canister to the valve. If not, then a bendable one.

Your handwaving may be closer than you thought, sadly at the crank though. I just looked up 280Zedx and saw the post where he mentions his car (or engine, not clear in the post) dynoed 225hp and 245 lb*ft torque. IMO/E, a stock 280Z should be at about 140HP at the crank, not wheels. Perfection at 6psi should yield 140 * (6+14.7)/14.7 = 200ish HP at the crank, minus parasitic blower losses plus stuff I didn't calculate.... Note that stock a 280ZXT is 180HP at the crank on similar boost for comparison, but probably on lower compression. That's my version of handwaving! Not trying to dump on your project at all, just saying that pulley juggling may be needed if you have a power goal of 225 at the wheels.

2.7TT. mmmmmm. I like that engine. I've tuned a couple to 700 AWHP, and many over 600. A couple converted to big single turbos.... You can do whatever you want, as long as you are/have someone who can do your manifold/pipework.

Here's mine:

Exactly what I was hoping you'd say. Well done!