Gollum's MS3X Configs, Maps, and even Logs

[Gollum]

Since it seems the FAQ section can't be posted to, the Map sharing thread is effectively dead to new data. So I guess I'll just keep a running thread log of my tune and config as it changes.

 

I started my tune by taking the "example config" tables, and then adjusting to "ballpark" from what I was seeing in other people's threads. Not many people were running a setup like mine, so it was difficult to get close, so I tried to err on the side of safety for most of my maps and I've slowly been edging them closer. My ignition map was far too aggressive to start with, and in some areas still is, but I've been pretty happy with the performance thus far on this combo, despite everyone's warnings of compression, detonation, and not being "good for boost".

 

My setup:

F54 turbo bottom (dish pistons)

MN47 Head (factory through and through for now)

Factory T3 (likely the first thing getting replaced) running on factory wastegate (6-7 psi depending on how it feels today)

NON-Intercooled (one of my defining self-limitations, I'm keeping it this way)

Non-EGR N42 Intake manifold

DIY Autotune Dizzy Trigger Wheel

Bosch Blue 260cc o-ring injectors (Ford T-Bird and others) running sequentially

Pallnet Fuel Rail

Factory fuel pump

Factory fuel regulator

Factory fuel filter

Factory fuel damper still in place

Tuning on CA Pump 91

Flex fuel sensor installed, showing my pump gas indeed is between 9-11% ethanol

D585 LS Coils running COP

 

 

Now, Configs:

(I'm only posting windows of which I've altered settings)

Basic/Load Settings

 

Fuel Settings

 

Ignition Settings

 

Startup/Idle (I don't think I've changed much here other than WUE)

 

Accel Enrich (lot of work to do here still)

 

Advanced Engine

 

 

I've also attached my tune file:

CurrentTune.msq

 

And the last tuning run logs:

2019-03-02_10.38.01.msl.zip

 

NOTE: The above tune file and tables have been updated since that last log, so if viewing in MegaLogViewer the table data won't align properly.

 

I'll likely be updating this regularly over the next few months as I'm making changes often. In no way do I recommend just copy/pasting any of these settings/values without understanding the risks. I make no guarantees for the validity of this data or lack of harm to your engine.

 

[Zetsaz]

I'll be running a pretty similar setup down the road so it's really nice to see this info!

[Gollum]

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.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Gollum

[Gollum]

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

[madkaw]

Cool stuff. I thought that engine combo would have been good for an NA at best, but looks like you are making it work. You figure about 9.5:1? 

We wont even bring up the exhaust liners - lol. I hope you you relieved the short side radius before you put it on, they need some work there- especially for flowing a turbo .

I had a MN-47 that I bought from someone that ran a blow thru turbo and it looked great . 

[Gollum]

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...

[madkaw]

Actually I looked at the engine calculator and it was right around 8.65:1, but a good number for someone with programmable engine control. You won’t get away with flat tops- that’s 10.5:1 - that’s what I’m getting ready to run. That’s based on  41cc chambers, which is what I measured the at. I’ll be at 39cc chambers so I’ll be at 11:1

 

Ive got one more MN47 with some 44mm intakes if your looking. 

[Gollum]

2 hours ago, madkaw said:

Actually I looked at the engine calculator and it was right around 8.65:1, but a good number for someone with programmable engine control. You won’t get away with flat tops- that’s 10.5:1 - that’s what I’m getting ready to run. That’s based on  41cc chambers, which is what I measured the at. I’ll be at 39cc chambers so I’ll be at 11:1

 

Ive got one more MN47 with some 44mm intakes if your looking. 

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.

[Gollum]

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).

Edited March 24, 2019 by Gollum

[Gollum]

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.