Gollum

Likely because you DON'T have a "VE" table anywhere. You have an "AFR" map as your only "fuel" map (that you've posted or shown me). There's an ignition map, but that's unrelated. So once the AFM is maxed out, the ECU likely takes that reading as it's "max flow" reading and the AFR table adds fuel on top at higher RPM where necessary. This means that in WOT beyond max AFM flow you're only operating on RPM scale, like an alpha-n would at WOT.

"Your" might be a bit misplaced there. I've always used include AFR target with my setup, so I'm not exactly clear on what stupid_fast was getting at when saying "air flow would be consistent". Maybe he's seeing or meaning commanded pulse width, which WOULD be similar with VE == VE areas all other variables staying constant. But that last bit you said was the point of what I was getting at. Everything is just an approximation, and the idea of a VE table being "accurate" is a relative term. What matters at the end of the day is how the car drives with the tune.

From my experience (granted this isn't my career, so there's that out of the way) there's no such thing as a true VE table. Considering this ECU seems to act like a MAF system in the lower airflow regions, and an alpha-n style of handling of high flow areas, there's no reason it needs to be a true VE table, but it does need a way to account for fuel beyond the capability of the AFM. I'm just pointing out that even in a perfect speed density setup, VE tables rarely if ever look like what the actual VE of the engine is. There's a myriad of reasons you use the VE table to adjust for other aspects that cause the math to not work perfectly. Idle is a great example. Who cares what the VE actual is? Looking at the curves, it's never "correct". You set the VE to what it needs to be in order to get the engine to idle nicely, because idle is an inherently unstable condition. Are your injectors perfectly linear? No. Is your fuel pump and pressure perfectly linear? No. Are the variances in expected thermal transfer ideals and reality? Yes. Unless you can put ALL your sensors INSIDE THE CHAMBER with absolutely ZERO unintended environment impact, you're going to need "non math-scientific" adjustments to get the results you want.

As much as the block can handle But really, I know this isn't EXACTLY like a K head in any sense of the word, but if we let the four cylinder crowd bench race for us, I think 600hp on pump gas at around 16-18psi wouldn't be unreasonable. Going beyond that you'd better have done some serious prep to keep bores round and such.

Consider that people have made 600+ hp on the factory manifold. Ported, yeah, but I think for your goals the inlet restriction will be largely inconsequential. You MIGHT see some issues at high RPM if you can get towards the top of the turbo's pressure ratio map. Otherwise, I bet you won't notice. And keep this in mind... Pressure in the manifold can actually be MUCH higher than inlet boost pressure before significant power is lost.

Ignition For Boost: I knew my ignition table was "not good" for raising boost. I'd made zero attempt at fixing this in any way as of yet. Well I found myself working on my dash in tunerstudio with some time to kill so I freshed up my knowledge on how much timing to pull, how people attack low versus high boost scenarios, and so on. I decided that for me, using a .75 degree timing pull per psi, while maybe a touch aggressive, would be a good place to start to see how the map looks and then responds at mild boost increases. Also, I'd found from a couple of sources that in many engines, the 0-4psi range you can essentially ignore timing pull compared to atmospheric. So I generated a quick excel calculator to normalize my data, and adjusted my 100-300kpa cells using 150 as my "normalization point" since the engine runs well with those current figures. Some of the timing figures end up sub 5 degrees, even at or under zero in the 300KPA region. This also got me thinking about how I'm not going to be running that much boost, ever, I should hope. If anything I'd be using overboost protection anywhere near that range. Even 250 was a bit much, but seemed valuable to have a "just in case" safe dead zone where I can pull timing if I ever get there. So after adjusting the values of my table, I then rescaled it, so be warned the KPA ranges don't mesh with the first posted graph. At any rate, here's the resulting table: You might also notice I modified/simplified the 10-60kpa range. I wanted to make it more of a "blank slate" for doing some cruise tuning in the coming weeks, and decided to get it closer to a common distributor curve which will also make it really obvious what cells I've changed since they're all even intervals now. I'm not hugely concerned about being 100% perfect here in the cruise space, as it's not uncommon for engines to make the same torque in a huge timing window. I just want to ensure I maximize economy when possible so I'll revisit it when I'm putting more miles on the car.

Update: MAT Air Density Table So I wrote a bit of a write up on this topic here: http://www.msextra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=131&t=58903&start=20#p538309 And the short of it is that I was having different AFR in different gears with all environment variables being the same. (pulls done in similar time frame so Baro/Temps were the same, same stretch of road, same MAT temps at cruise before start, same CLT). This was more than a little troubling, because it was A LOT. My AFR in 5th was about .8 of an AFR point leaner than 3rd gear. I'd also only been having detonation in 4th and 5th (go figured). After a bit of research, I modified my MAT table. Provided base map looks like this: First off, I don't know who on earth has intake air temps in the -40's.... And sadly, this table (and possible MS in general) maxes at 300F, which I fear I might go over in some circumstances. We'll see. Here's where I'm at now: My theory as to why this was necessary has two aspects that need to be considered. 1: The higher the load on the engine (as applied by road/dyno/etc, not KPA load) and thus slower it revs, the more time intake temps have to transfer temps from the manifold/piping/cylinder head.Thus, the further upstream your IAT is from the valves, the more difference is likely to be created in higher loads. 2. The higher the IAT temps are at your sensor, the less likely they'll radically rise before reaching the valve. On this second point: Temperatures change faster when there's more difference, it's just basic laws of energy transfer. The closer the temperatures get, the longer it takes to transfer a given degree of Fahrenheit (or other scale/unit you like). If your cylinder head is at 250 degrees, and your intake is at 230 degrees, and your IAT/MAT temps are at 80 just after your intercooler, you can BET MONEY that the temps inside the chamber will be MUCH higher. Conversely, if your air temps are at 170 because you don't have an intercooler (like me), then less heat will be added. The idea of adding this "ideal gas law" modifier into your tune to compensate for inlet temps is definitely important, but I think it's short sighted to use the actual "theoretical perfect" as provided. No engine will ever operate like this unless you have temp sensors IN the chamber, or at least have everything ceramic coated with your temp sensor in the intake manifold with some way to prevent heat soak of the sensor. The downside (maybe upside) to doing this, is that my VE table was way off again. So here's the updated VE: That table only has minimal auto-tune on it to get it into the ballpark. Don't use it, or think about it, or judge it. I'm just posted it to compare against my above table to showcase what a huge difference the MAT curve can make. Edit: Oh, and I guess I should mention, now my AFRs are within .1 of each other between 3rd and 5th (for the most part, other small variances of course).

What's your plan to smog it? Still has the SR right? With any luck we'll have good news in a week and it will be a non-issue.

Progress continues on. Oil AND fuel pressure are wired in now, so I'm officially down to once ADC left on MS3X. Been working on a racepak inspired dash. Otherwise been putting miles on the car as much as I can.

You going to be running factory EFI? In and case it sounds like you've got realistic goals and such. Keep looking around here and you'll likely find answers to most your questions. Also never hesitate to reach out to our more active members.

Yeah I understand. For what it's worth I think a stock turbo motor is at about 94VE peak starting to trail off at 5300 or so and dropping down as low as 65-70 by redline. Improving top end flow with a better cam, valve unshrowding, and bowl clean up will help immensely. And thus hitting your projected 225whp at 10psi would be much easier. Though I don't think that's beyond reason with what you've mentioned.

Boost can creep in low and high boost situations depending on the airflow profile of the engine and size of wastegate. Using matchbot (Google it) I think you're going to last at about 50% wastegate actuation from 4-7krpm. This is assuming the wastegate port is about 1" or 25mm and using the turbine flow map found here: http://turbochargerspecs.blogspot.com/2013/02/garrett-gt28rs-gt2860rs-62-trim-360-hp.html?m=1 Learn to use matchbot. It's extremely useful.

At those power and boost levels creep shouldn't be an issue. The .64 AR is likely fine until you're pushing near the 300whp level.

Who says I'm limited by pump gas I'll be running E85 by next winter. I'll actually be doing initial tuning in the next couple months. I have no doubt I'll be able to run flat tops on E85. Now, what kind of boost I can manage on CA 91 octane remains to be seen.

Ha! Not only am I making it work, but it's working WELL. I'm actually kinda eager to find a flat top F54 bottom end.... Which was my plan all along. 9.5:1 is probably about right. And no, didn't even touch the short side radius. I plan on doing a more thorough street port on it down the road, and have someone cut the seats for larger valves. That'll probably happen if/when I drop it onto a block with flat tops. Or if I can't find that, I'll by some aftermarket flat tops with the same pin height as factory. I think the main reason this combo "doesn't work" for so many people's experience is that the ideal timing gets SO LOW at peak torque. I've had pinging at 4-5k at only 18 degrees advance... yet still making about 200 ft/lbs to the wheels at 7psi boost. So though that's a lot less timing than the factory curve, people running non-programmable ignition end up having to pull so much timing out of the base timing at the distributor that yes, there's no power in the engine. But so far, I'm definitely at least matching the torque/power I'd get from a P90...

Since it was bothering me trying to track rows and clumns on a picture, and I knew I had the original xls shared somewhere on my fileserver, I dug it up and put it up on google sheets. If you have a google/gmail account you can make a copy for yourself and modify/mark/note to your heart's content. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTiMRW_q9winvoPB7G4bQ42Br6aX8fVZRrag9IElIJi52ArTcQxYnWwxfn94x2VHYLA9Z7EawEqelMo/pubhtml

Here's a useful after/before tune diff: And a scatter plot which gives you a good idea of the weight of the cell data (I've removed off-throttle and transient data) Another interesting way to look at data, Pulse Width by Duty Cycle, colored by AFR. Same off-throttle and transient data remove as above. The logs: 2019-03-10_13.44.08.msl.zip Tune Resulting tune: Gollum-Tune.zip

Drove about 30 miles today. About 8 miles of freeway and lots of various back roads, all the while auto tuning. While I was about 7-8 miles from home still I heard a new and obvious noise during a higher RPM pull. My immediate concern was oil pressure loss and cam damage. I drove easier on it the rest of the way back and the closer I got to home the more I suspected the fan clutch. Get home, pull hood... Clutch fan is noticably difficult to spin. Eh, oh well. The resulting map has some obvious holes, and there's some holes actually MADE by auto tune, so I'm a bit curious about that. We'll see what more long term results say. That said, the under boost region is WAY better and stays very close to target AFR now. I'll likely end up smoothing based off of this and then seeing if the holes reappear. I'll post logs and the new tune file in a bit.

Shouldn't be a problem at all. MOST people making 200whp on factory longblocks without issue. But you'll likely end up wanting to ditch the factory EFI. You've modified the top end enough that the factory curve won't work well at all, and most people don't have the patience/interest in learning how to hack the factory EFI and retune it. Once you've got a good tune, whatever your choice there, you should be able to make 200whp on about 8-10psi without issue considering the top end improvements. As far as "limits", your limit will be detonation for a given boost/fuel/tune combo. A factory bottom end will hold 400hp all day as long as there's no overheating and/or detonation issues. So as long as the tune's good, the bottom end is pretty reliable. You might choose to just always fill with 110 octane and run a large radiator. You might choose to do some common cooling mods to improve rear cylinder temps. You might opt for a fancy ECU with per-cylinder trimming so you can keep detonation prone cylinders a bit softer. Everyone always asks the famous "how do I make 300hp with a L28ET?", and the answer always boils down to "add boost, tune well". These things won't explode in a fit of rage because of a power/torque level though. It's generally large amounts of abuse on a bad tune, using pump gas and lots of boost, or revving the nuts off of it when you didn't build it for that, which generally do them in. Handle the tuning aspect, and you can make as much power as you venture into solving secondary issues for (which generally all boil down to heat management).

I'm one of those odd people that will likely never sell their S30, but I also didn't buy it because it was a dream car. I got into Z cars because they were cheap(er) and were as close to a blank canvas as you can get. Any engine fits, and they're small enough that they generally handle well unless you ruin them. But if you held a gun to my head, I guess my ideal S30 would be some Frankenstein between a BRE 240Z and a Daytona Coupe. Ideally a modern spaceframe like the new FFR models, with tires for days. As fond as I am of the L motor, the Coyote has been my dream of a perfect V8 for 8+ years now, and it's only getting better with each passing iteration. In reality, I'm actually far more likely to build a FFR Daytona than build that S30, mostly because of required time and tool investment. I'm not a chassis designer, and as much fun as that sounds, would likely get to the desired results faster by letting others do the heavy engineering lifting. Though I guess an idea I've had in the back of my mind for 15+ years now, would be to just plop a S30 body onto a FFR chassis... Which seems like a shame, because it's not like the Daytona is ugly. Maybe I'll order TWO kits....

Yeah, I bought my first S130 under the same hope/expectation. That all went up in flames, sadly. I really wish they'd go back to a rolling smog year, but this is at least something. Back to your regularity scheduled sign-in thread.

Welcome! Keep and eye on this state bill, your car might be smog testing exempt soon. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB210

Hmm, looking at the thread again, I think 8.5 @ +4 might be tough to fit up front on a S130. That 4.9" of backspace is going to get you extremely close to the strut tube up front. In the back, that much backspace would be fine, especially with more compact coil overs. So if you're wanting 8.5" instead of 9" or 9.5" you might be better off with the -10, even though that's going to also need rolling if you're pushing a 245 wide tire onto it.

FricFrac went with 9.5 all around, but felt 255 was too tight up front, and went with 235 instead for the front, but still on 9.5 up front. The one person who mentions issues in the thread is slownrusty (yasin) who says they're tough to fit on a really low car. On a mild lowering you're likely find, but if you're dropping it a lot then fitment gets really tight. All this is to say that a 8.5" should fit in either a +4 or -10, but I'd err towards the +4 since inward fitment on the S130 wasn't really the tight spot. But let me dig through when Christ and I tested them on my S130 and verify the suspension clearance.

9.5 in back, and 9.0 in front, with 255/40 in back and 245/40 in front. Rolling performed.