Firstly I did search and I know there was another comprehensive thread around here on this subject that seems to have disappeared . If someone can find it i'll delete this thread .

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what is working for people and at what boost / whp .

I will start by posting my leading timing map which is working well for me at the moment . . I have never adjusted the timing while on the dyno to see what works best so I'm open to criticism and sugestions for improvement .

If you post your maps can you also post the following info :

Boost : 11psi to 6500 tapering down to 8.5psi at 7500
Kit : Greddy turbo with upgraded coldside
Power : 306 whp @ 7400
Torque : 248 lb/ft @ 5500
Timing split under boost : typically 12 degrees
Octane : 98 (equivalent to 93 in US i believe)



Latest map

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=165409&stc=1&d=1290805130

you should post up the trailing map too

you should post up the trailing map too

pretty much summed up when I said - 13 degrees split

This is my first iteration of timing. I have only begun to play with this when I had to shut down for a while. I will not but up and running for three weeks as I am out of town next week and the following.

This map is based on load and not MAP. I have not seen a published timing map based on load, so I dont know what is right or wrong on this map.

Feel free to discuss.

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=137621&d=1240537407

This is my first iteration of timing. I have only begun to play with this when I had to shut down for a while. I will not but up and running for three weeks as I am out of town next week and the following.

This map is based on load and not MAP. I have not seen a published timing map based on load, so I dont know what is right or wrong on this map.

Feel free to discuss.
]

I have more advance in the midrange leading to similar up top . Would be interesting to see a dyno of your setup . What max loads are you seeing ?

165-170, but was quite rich. In the mid 10s.

I intended the midrange to be very safe until I could get an idea where I was. I have an innovate accelerometer that I intended to use to tune the timing, but I think that is going to go into my Baja. I guess I need to either get a g-tech or try to use the datalogs to figure acceleration.

WAIT! I thought you were running a map based timing map? That is a load based map. What are you using now??

Wish my car was running.

Always have run a load based map - I originally had a piggyback that was map based but only used it to modify the tune .

My midrange timing was similar to yours originally but i advanced the timing after discussions with MM - ensureing i ran rich till i got it sorted . My EGTs came down as a result ...

I'll post some stuff up here on Sunday evening - I'll be at the Dyno Sunday afternoon.

you finally going to dyno your car ?
Cool man - what psi are you planning to run ?

Who said anything about MY car???? ;)

ahhh ya big pussy - what gives ?

Work man - I don't get my software R&D-ed by me tuning the crap out of my car; I get it by tuning others and having them say nice things about me and my mad programming skillzzzzz yo-g-dogg-hommie.

Brett do you mind if I bring up the issue of EGT's relating to ignition advance in here?

If not, looking at Scanalyser I note only that there is CAT temp. Reckon this would be sufficient?

Cheers

Andrew

I cannot see why cat-temp won't work - but again I'll know for sure on Sunday.

Brett do you mind if I bring up the issue of EGT's relating to ignition advance in here?

If not, looking at Scanalyser I note only that there is CAT temp. Reckon this would be sufficient?

Cheers

Andrew

The temp reading you get from scanalyser measures the temp at the manifold not the cat . I know this because my cat sensor is removed completely and i still get a reading ......

The temp reading you get from scanalyser measures the temp at the manifold not the cat . I know this because my cat sensor is removed completely and i still get a reading ......

my guess is that it comes from the front o2 sensor..

as i have moved a bunch of stuff around, and the cat temp should have changed, but it did not.

and that is a good thing. :)

beers :beer:

I think you are both talking about the same thing right? Would this not be a good way to measure EGT's ?

I think it is a very good way to measure them... remember the number is not as important and the changes as you work timing around a little bit.

Here are the factory Dwell - and the Dwell Changes I have made to date.

This is why I am prety sure that both the AP and the ProTuner are both not TRULY measuring dwell in MS - since the factory map is way above 5ms.

Since we know the factory ignition is about 3-3.8ms; I just modifyed it by 130-150% and smoothed it some. It works great on PunisherRX8's car.

Also the Yukon coils have an 8ms cap on them - so you will never be able to get them to run longer than that.

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=137711&stc=1&d=1240679475

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=137710&stc=1&d=1240679475

Once I get to the Dyno - I'll be able to adjust these some more - the goal is too keep backing the dwell down until I lose some power / get misfires... that will tell me for the car they are on - what is the minimum dwell I can get away with.

Thanks for posting this here as well . This is the first time the factory Dwell maps have been experimented with openly so very keen to hear how you get on .

From another thread - posting it here for future ref.

I had asked Kane if the factory dwell of 595 = 5.95 ms ...


I did too - but some areas made me think.

1) The int-x setting for the factory ignition = 3.0 to 3.8 ms dwell.

2) Jeff scoped the PCM and saw a 3ms signal.

3) 3 - The PCM Troubleshooting manual has some information about the ignition characteristics which seem to indicate the 3-4 ish MS Dwell Times since the entire ignition sequence takes just under 5ms including discharge at idle.

Then look over at the PCM info - and at full voltage at idle we see 1200-1100 ish... so IMO is is a scalar of some kind.

My bad... LOL I answered the wrong thread.

ok just looking up what scalar means LOL

ok just looking up what scalar means LOL

http://www.charleschillout.com/English_Motherfucker_Do_You_Speak_It.jpg

That was mean....

Here

In physics, scalar fields can be used to ascribe forces (which are usually vector fields) to a more general scalar field, the gradient of which describes the force.

http://www.charleschillout.com/English_Motherfucker_Do_You_Speak_It.jpg

cracked me up :lol:

I will still pay a few hundred bucks for the electronic guy who can get my RPM "BEEEP" to change to "SHIFT MOTHERFUCKER!!!!" In Samuel Jacksons voice.

/\ that would be cool - except when your mother in law is in the car ...............

If I hit 9K in my car with the Mom or Mom in law - the profanity won't be coming from my Tach...

heh - i've hit redline with my MIL in the car - I think she just thought wqe were going into hyperspace for a moment - no biggie .

SO ............... are you saying the whole dwell table is designed to give around 3ms of dwell across the board ?

Kane are you saying that the dwell time in the map INCLUDES some PCM "reaction" time ie a dwell setting of 1200 is likely to be an actual coil dwell period of say 900ms plus 300ms of PCM "reaction" time?

Cheers

Andrew

The short answer is that I don't know - what I do know is that the Yukon's need 5 ms - and the factory dwell is set up at 3-3.8ms at idle.... so

5/3 = 1.666 round to 150% just cause; increase dwell by 130-170% and the car responded well to the changes.

nice info in this thread and thanks kane for posting the dwell time for the yukon coils. I just imputed the settings you made and the car runs fine, but will know more by tomorrow when I get to drive it more.

not to distract the tread but here is a testing of the ls2 coils for dwell
ls2coil test (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6218245369765754251&hl=en)

after some more research I found a discussion on a locked forum (perth rotary)

quoting bumpstart from perth rotary.
"
note what happens at 9000 rpm in wastespark with a 3.5 fixed ECU dwell igniter !
in math -

rpm/ 60 ( secs ) = rev per second

9000/ 60 = 150 rev per second
1/ 150 = 0.00667 of a second per rev
= 6.67 ms for every engine revolution between spark events per coil in sequential ignition application"

now the best charge time for a yukon coil is 5 ms and the spark duration is between 1.5 ms and 2 ms.

6.5 to 7 ms total duration. very close to never fully discharging.

Fundamental misunderstanding in how the dwell table works here.
Fundamental misunderstanding in how the coils fire.
Fundamental misunderstanding in what the Yukon coils "need" for dwell time.

There is so much FUBAR info in this thread I can't even look at it without my head hurting, hence my post here.

Try actually scoping the output before you make such drastic assumptions about how all of this works.
Also, do the math on what the dwell "requirements" are. Don't forget to include what the spark voltage requirement is to jump the gap under operating conditions. You will see why there is no need to concern yourself with dwell settings in an NA application and why it only matters at 300g/sec + from 4200 RPM until 6800 RPM.

Fundamental misunderstanding in how the dwell table works here.
Fundamental misunderstanding in how the coils fire.
Fundamental misunderstanding in what the Yukon coils "need" for dwell time.

There is so much FUBAR info in this thread I can't even look at it without my head hurting, hence my post here.

Try actually scoping the output before you make such drastic assumptions about how all of this works.
Also, do the math on what the dwell "requirements" are. Don't forget to include what the spark voltage requirement is to jump the gap under operating conditions. You will see why there is no need to concern yourself with dwell settings in an NA application and why it only matters at 300g/sec + from 4200 RPM until 6800 RPM.

Cool... uh - thanks for the help.... now all I need is a oscilliscope in order to make a vendors "coil kit" work and or pay $300 bucks to have it tuned by the expert - seems like a fair deal for a plug and play kit. :Wconfused :Wconfused :Wconfused

Cool... uh - thanks for the help.... now all I need is a oscilliscope in order to make a vendors "coil kit" work and or pay $300 bucks to have it tuned by the expert - seems like a fair deal for a plug and play kit. :Wconfused :Wconfused :Wconfused

Look -

A whole bunch of crap has been pushed out onto this board about how this thing works and when it doesn't.
Much of this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the BHR kit is supposed to do and how.

As designed (and for the application for which it was designed), it works exactly as advertised.
If you lack the proper tools to modify the system and the tuning to suit a purpose beyond that which the system was designed to address, than you are shit out of luck.

/\ nice to have you back MM LOL

Look -

A whole bunch of crap has been pushed out onto this board about how this thing works and when it doesn't.
Much of this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the BHR kit is supposed to do and how.

As designed (and for the application for which it was designed), it works exactly as advertised.
If you lack the proper tools to modify the system and the tuning to suit a purpose beyond that which the system was designed to address, than you are shit out of luck.

So the BHR kit is not designed for FI applications that push more than 300 g/sec at or about the torque peak? I coulda sworn that was the point of this ignition.

Looks like we gotta find out this info for ourselves . Who has an oscilliscope and knows how to use it ?

I have the coils and the scope...just don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for exactly :)

Any suggestions ;)

Waits for deluge of .......:lol:

i guess you hook into the low tension wire that goes to the coil and read the pulses :dunno:

That is what the FSM tells you to do - set the DIV to 10 MS and height DIV to 2 volts - then with the car at idle look for the PCM pulse to the coil and it should be at or about 4-5 ms for the whole charge and discharge.

This plus Jeff's earlier posts about ignition dwell is what led me to my widly inaccurate theory I guess...

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=137802&stc=1&d=1240777930

The short version is that I have ZERO desire to learn to tune ignition dwell - I just don't really give a shit - I just want to get it to work; the dwell table I posted does work well for the application it was tuned on; so take that for what it is worth I guess.

the ls2 coils might not need a full 5ms charge time to deliver the required spark but hey are sure not giving everything they are capable of. they were designed to suit a slow reving v8 with plenty of charge time hence 5ms isn't an issue.

the video I posted shows the test where the dwell time is adjusted. not a huge difference between 3.1 and 5ms.

screen shots.
~2.5ms
http://members.iinet.net.au/~landslide/ls2%202.5.JPG

~3.1
http://members.iinet.net.au/~landslide/ls2%203.1ms.JPG

~5ms
http://members.iinet.net.au/~landslide/ls2%205ms.JPG

yukons can be MADE to work with FI / 300+g/sec in the torque curve. They do have more potential, but maybe they do not have an advantage over the ls2 for our application? Do 10 lbs and less guys need the full capacity of the yukons? LS2 may be more compatible for us monkey mechanics that dont tune?
I can see the advantage of the yukons on the na car.
Untill I can get this sorted out I went back to oem for now. Saw my a/f's get a point tenth richer---sigh.
olddragger

Do 10 lbs and less guys need the full capacity of the yukons?

at 5psi on my car I had misfires with the yukons...so for me, yes. I logged over 300 g/s at 5psi. Seems unlikely but, the misfires I had tell me differently.

What we have experienced in our research when we were developing coils we were running into numerous issues with ls2 coils among others.

There is an issue and those haven't found out what the real solution is. There may be a fix but in the end some will still have issues but not the same type of issues. New ones will surface.

I am sorry for the issues you guys have been having but with my 2 years of exp with different coils and setups you will find the same thing I did; you are on the right track.

I had numerous issues with my car and finding just the right combination to make it work the way it should be.

Now picking up where others left off.

Hence our delay in releasing our coil kits....we are making this in house, no more micro tech and no one can duplicate it. It really is perfect, I am extremely excited to be bringing this to the community, we are waiting becasue we want it to be right and right the first time and not fumble over ourselves with I didn't know that? And I was unaware of those issues...so on and so forth.

Not to mention the fact that you were pushed to the wolves on your own.

I will let you guys find it out for yourself becasue no one seems to believe me anyway, you are on the right track but in the end you will find yourself having another issue when you change the dwell settings.

Cool... uh - thanks for the help.... now all I need is a oscilliscope in order to make a vendors "coil kit" work and or pay $300 bucks to have it tuned by the expert - seems like a fair deal for a plug and play kit. :Wconfused :Wconfused :Wconfused

Rofl


I would post my timing maps and share my knowledge, but I'm just positive someone would shit all over them, so I have no desire to.

Rofl


I would post my timing maps and share my knowledge, but I'm just positive someone would shit all over them, so I have no desire to.

We talked about the changes needed to be made - did you see improvement?

Kane, it will probably be around 24 hours before I can get any information back to you but here's something for you to consider.

At first, I recall that we used a broad 30% increase in the AP values just to see if the issues we were experiencing were in fact dwell related. We kept everything else the same as our control. A 30% increase did seem to correct any spark blow out on the turbo RX8. I have been using an adapted version of those settings with adjustments made to back the dwell off in the lower and upper RPM range where a stronger spark isn't needed.

Why do timing threads turn into crapfests?

This was particularly non-enlightening.

The way I see it, if the experts want to keep all the secrets to themselves, I am COMPLETELY ok with that. They deserve that and our respect. But us bumblefucks want to figure some of this shit out for ourselves. I suggest that be respected as well and leave the misdirection, intentional or otherwise, out of the discussion.

Kane, it will probably be around 24 hours before I can get any information back to you but here's something for you to consider.

At first, I recall that we used a broad 30% increase in the AP values just to see if the issues we were experiencing were in fact dwell related. We kept everything else the same as our control. A 30% increase did seem to correct any spark blow out on the turbo RX8. I have been using an adapted version of those settings with adjustments made to back the dwell off in the lower and upper RPM range where a stronger spark isn't needed.

30% increase by multiplying the map by 1.3 or .7? :eyetwitch

30% increase by multiplying the map by 1.3 or .7? :eyetwitch

I am pretty sure it would be 130%.

Interestingly enough - Flashwings post is the first truly concise post here that actually answers my question exactly!

Add some validation and life would be good.

I am pretty sure it would be 130%.

Interestingly enough - Flashwings post is the first truly concise post here that actually answers my question exactly!

Add some validation and life would be good.

i thought so as well, however bothered by Jeff's "fundemental misunderstanding of the factory dwell table" quote, I scared myself by finding out the OEM map numbers could be represented basically by the crank angle charging needs to start at multiplied by a scalar


but i'll just make it "5" and be done with it :eyetwitch

kane i swept up a little. let me know if ive missed a spot. bhr and fluid- unless you have facts to add to the search these folk are on stfu the lot of you

Interestingly this thread was supposed to be about timing and not Dwell . Not that i'm bothered with that as at least SOME information has come out of the ensuing crapfest ....

all apologies to brettus- let me know if there is anything else i can sweep up for you.

Fortunately, since I'm not financially tied to any of the coil solutions at this point ... Don't you and Ray hold some kind of patent, or have at least applied for one?

Don't you and Ray hold some kind of patent, or have at least applied for one?

Yes. I have patents, trademarks and copyrights on MANY things.
Very few of them make me any money.

From another thread - posting it here for future ref.

I had asked Kane if the factory dwell of 595 = 5.95 ms ...

This seems logical and would be my guess.

So then, the BHR coil dwell is too high for peak performance?

Ugh.

Take a look at the OE dwell table. You will see that the value for idle is around 1100.
Do you really believe the OE dwell request is for 1.1 seconds at idle?
If your alternator output is low, it jumps to 1.4 seconds!!!!
Do the math.
The dwell table is not in milliseconds.
The OE coils are special.
The LS2s have the widest dwell range imaginable.
However, this is not rocket science and all you Secret Squirrel nut cases need to get your heads out of your asses and stop acting like I owe it to you to spoon feed you.

THAT'S IT!!! Screw you guys, I'm reinstalling my Mazsport Coils since it's the best system EVAR!!!

So I guess that was a "no" on the diversification of labor idea...

THAT'S IT!!! Screw you guys, I'm reinstalling my Mazsport Coils since it's the best system EVAR!!!
Dummy, you never owned a Mazport coil set:):lol:

Interestingly this thread was supposed to be about timing and not Dwell . Not that i'm bothered with that as at least SOME information has come out of the ensuing crapfest ....

poor timing...to watch

dwelling on my poor timing...

hah

So I guess that was a "no" on the diversification of labor idea...

What do you mean? That I do all the labor and you read about it?

Yes. I have patents, trademarks and copyrights on MANY things.
Very few of them make me any money.

Funny how that works...moar money to get the damned things most of the time...

And if anyone gets anything outta the whole thing...its the attys...

I got into the wrong profession...

:eyetwitch


However, this is not rocket science and all you Secret Squirrel nut cases need to get your heads out of your asses and stop acting like I owe it to you to spoon feed you.

Its certainly is not rocket science...more a touch electrical engineering, stabbing and poking charged terminals with conductive objects...and playing with fire...

Oh...and nuts...cant do any of that without your nuts handy...

What do you mean? That I do all the labor and you read about it?


Or release time-lapse videos...your damn right thats what i want! Get back into your dungeon and get to blowing your shit up for my amusement and knowledge...

:spank:

Kane,

I work with Ignition computers as I'm involved in conversion of Diesel engines in to NGV (Natural Gas). In the software I use to program the stand alone ignition computer, the dwell value can be adjusted in - % percentage. Basically 100% would mean dwell will be same duration as the spark duration. 110% means the coil will take 10% longer to charge and then provide spark with the same duration.

Looking at my SPT dwell map, could the map be battery voltage vs % time of dwell? That would mean 1208 might be 120.8% and 395 might be 39.5% of spark duration.

Hmmm - could be. But the scale on the 3D graph would be off....I am kinda at the point where I don't know what it is - I just know how to make it better...... not the best plan but it does work.

Kane,

I work with Ignition computers as I'm involved in conversion of Diesel engines in to NGV (Natural Gas). In the software I use to program the stand alone ignition computer, the dwell value can be adjusted in - % percentage. Basically 100% would mean dwell will be same duration as the spark duration. 110% means the coil will take 10% longer to charge and then provide spark with the same duration.

Looking at my SPT dwell map, could the map be battery voltage vs % time of dwell? That would mean 1208 might be 120.8% and 395 might be 39.5% of spark duration.

Wow. There it is. (EDIT - Sorta. Its not a direct % of available spark time, but crank rotation time.)

So after months of speculating and even erroneous input from people who are actively involved in RX-8 calibration testing and development, it took a professional ignition calibrator's input to figure out what I managed to figure out in my garage in 10 minutes with a cheap scope meter.

I'm not picking on you, a_ahlan. You are just sharing what you know.
But its just sad that all of the whiners in this thread just couldn't be bothered with the R&D, just because they knew someone had already figured it out.
It was more worthwhile to complain about it. :icon_no2:

So after months of speculating and even erroneous input from people who are actively involved in RX-8 calibration testing and development, it took a professional ignition calibrator's input to figure out what I managed to figure out in my garage in 10 minutes with a cheap scope meter.


Always nice to remind people that you knew the information and kept that knowledge away from BHR customers who hadn't subscribed to your service for months. All your claims of not being able to share your hard work turns out to mean 10 minutes alone with a scope meter.

You've made your point. I'm sure the relatively small hit to BHR's rep as a company that exhanged information freely with the RX-8 community about products was well worth it. Hard to put a value on that.

Not quite as hard to put a value on the subscriptions you picked up.

Um you guys do realize this thread is about IGNITION TIMING MAPS right? Why is there far more arguming on dwell than there is on timing maps? Get it on track or start a new thread.

I will still pay a few hundred bucks for the electronic guy who can get my RPM "BEEEP" to change to "SHIFT MOTHERFUCKER!!!!" In Samuel Jacksons voice.

LMAO best post in the thread :lol:

It cracks me up the shit I read and hear people talk about.. I mean don't get me wrong I've done a lot of stupid shit. As far as the LS2 coils I did my own setup with them and I'm thinking I'm set at 3.5ms.

When I set at a idle and rev my car it misses at like 4k and 5k but when you drive it...there is no miss.. I've turned and boost a few dozen times to 14psi and those coils have no misses what so ever when I'm driving.. I can cruise at the 4k or 5k without a miss but can't no load rev that high...stead that high. If I just hit the throttle and rap it out for the sound there is no miss.

By far I like the LS2 coils way over the OEM...it only took me 2 weeks till I had miss fires like no other on OEM that is.

:uhh:

^ the usual ;)

Where did he come from anyways :)

lol :)

I was looking for " OUTANOWHERE" :)

Damn...I'm bored :)

oh i know what you were implying....I was thinking the same thing myself after I read his post. I was hoping someone else would answer it. :lol2:

Outannowhere

Just totally fabulous I've become everyone's favorite person to talk about. But yeah I popped in outtanowhere. What's the problem?? did you guys all want to trash the coils and talk about the coils and forget this thread says timing and not coils?? I'm so glad my 2 cents is welcome here...I mean who would want to be part of a website that has nothing but a$$h0lE's who think there better then everyone else. I know it's hard to be kind and a decent person..so it's ok I'll let it slide.

/\ it's all in good fun man - stick around you'll get the hang of it .

You are kinda sensitive given your opinions ;)

Welcome to the internet :)

I'm in yer thredz, getin my feelinz hurt!

As RG said, I'd love to see more discussion on Timing :D:

My timing could do with some work - I walked in on my daughter and her boyfreind last night ----- EEEEK !!!!!

^UH OH!!!!!!!! L to the ULZ!

My timing could do with some work - I walked in on my daughter and her boyfreind last night ----- EEEEK !!!!!
Glad I had a son.;)

My timing could do with some work - I walked in on my daughter and her boyfreind last night ----- EEEEK !!!!!

ACK! A couple more years and I'll have to start intimidating boyfriends....:evil_laug

IGNITION timing, friends. Keep the random comments from out of no where to a minimum.

IGNITION timing, friends. Keep the random comments from out of no where to a minimum.

Yeah what he said lol. But anyways as far as timing last time I played with it this was my map...not really set for power but it works and last time I dyno'd at 8 psi I was hitting 305 and had a pour tune...now I'm pretty well tuned to 14 and you can definably tell a huge difference between 8 and 14 so I'm guessing I'm 350+ oh and I have the 3.9 gears as well

updated my latest map in first post . Seems to work well to 11.5psi

a BUNCH of questions, but I'll start with "Why are you stopping at ABSload 180%?"

/\ cuz that is all I could fit in my screenshot LOL The maps go to 200% but the most i see is around 180-185 ...

Latest timing map - showing 200% load area this time because I am seeing 200% in a couple of places now .


http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s255/brettus_rx8/timing2.jpg

Is that leading?

How hot are your IATs? and is your knock sensor f-ing with you?

And this is how it looks like in a road log
Note : double all the load % . Dudelogger has a funny habbit of reverting to 100 when you hit 200%

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s255/brettus_rx8/timing3.jpg

Is that leading?

How hot are your IATs? and is your knock sensor f-ing with you?

yep , leading .
Has been awhile since i logged IATs but last time I checked I was running about 15C above ambient after a hard run and our ambients have been around 15c while i've been doing this tuning .
Never seen the knock sensor do anything - so far .

Mine is actually really close to what Brettus is running. Which is kind of impressive considering I've been bumbling around with it adjusting back and forth. I"m on like revision 75 of my tune :)

Id put some back in there up top.

Mine get to about 17-18 at torque peak and get up to 22-24 after toward redline... gives it some more powa...

/\ wow - really ? how much powa ?

how do your EGTs look ?

I spoke to a old school rotary tuner here about timing and he thought i was running way too advanced . How come the Renesis can take it ?

EGT's are pretty cool 1400-1600 or so.

Powa-wise.... well I gave Chickenwafer the same timing changes...

Id put some back in there up top.

Mine get to about 17-18 at torque peak and get up to 22-24 after toward redline... gives it some more powa...

On good fuel.
Around here, 1° or 2° more at the torque peak than what he is running will ping.

Its all a balancing act. There is more power to be had from 1 AFR point leaner than 1° of timing.
If the EGTs are good, I'd only bump the <175% up a good margin. That is where this timing table is lacking.
A whole bunch of resolution is being wasted on the 150% - 200% range.
Wasting half of the table's resolution from 100% - 200% isn't productive. I do all of that in 4 columns and save the rest for drivability and transition.

On good fuel.
Around here, 1° or 2° more at the torque peak than what he is running will ping.

Its all a balancing act. There is more power to be had from 1 AFR point leaner than 1° of timing.
If the EGTs are good, I'd only bump the <175% up a good margin. That is where this timing table is lacking.
A whole bunch of resolution is being wasted on the 150% - 200% range.
Wasting half of the table's resolution from 100% - 200% isn't productive. I do all of that in 4 columns and save the rest for drivability and transition.



Thanks for the input

On good fuel.
Around here, 1° or 2° more at the torque peak than what he is running will ping.

Its all a balancing act. There is more power to be had from 1 AFR point leaner than 1° of timing.
If the EGTs are good, I'd only bump the <175% up a good margin. That is where this timing table is lacking.
A whole bunch of resolution is being wasted on the 150% - 200% range.
Wasting half of the table's resolution from 100% - 200% isn't productive. I do all of that in 4 columns and save the rest for drivability and transition.

I keep forgetting about bad gas... been spoiled I guess.

I keep forgetting about bad gas... been spoiled I guess.

Yeah. Most of the 91 here in PHX is really 89.

How does the ECU handle settings between tuning points if you lower the resolution for the 100-200 load areas? Does it stay on the previous setting until it reaches the next setting point or will it scale between them depending on which it is closer to?

It interpolates...

It interpolates...

Ahhh perfect. So if I wanted to change this its as simple as plotting the scale that i have now and simply using whatever reference points on that scale that the new resolution needs :)

Would it be possible for someone to please post their Turbo timing maps up in excel format.

Also I'm not to excel savvy so would it be asking to much if someone could work on a Timing worksheet with Leading, Trailing and a Split table, that allows to adjust the leading & trailing by chaning the split values? THIS WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY GREAT!

hey am luis i have a rx8 whit a t70 turbo 1000 cc inj en ultimate greddy and a brand new but is runnin way rich how can i lower the injection until i get it tunne

/\ t 70 -greddy e-mangle - no tune !!!!! oh dear
If you can't alter the e-mangle settings yourself all you can do is put the stock injectors back in and stay out of boost till you get a tune .

what posessed you to put that monster turbo in there - any pics ?

Would it be possible for someone to please post their Turbo timing maps up in excel format.

Also I'm not to excel savvy so would it be asking to much if someone could work on a Timing worksheet with Leading, Trailing and a Split table, that allows to adjust the leading & trailing by chaning the split values? THIS WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY GREAT!

Can you meet with me and Nuke this weekend? I can give you all the help you need.

/\ t 70 -greddy e-mangle - no tune !!!!! oh dear
If you can't alter the e-mangle settings yourself all you can do is put the stock injectors back in and stay out of boost till you get a tune .

what posessed you to put that monster turbo in there - any pics ?

Same size as the Esmeril kit pretty much.

/\ t 70 -greddy e-mangle - no tune !!!!! oh dear
If you can't alter the e-mangle settings yourself all you can do is put the stock injectors back in and stay out of boost till you get a tune .

what posessed you to put that monster turbo in there - any pics ?


Here this is the T-70 turbo from Esmeril kit

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/Luckycat_2009/IMG_1063.jpg

Same size as the Esmeril kit pretty much.

oh yeah , forgot . What possesed Esmeril to put that monster turbo in there ? :p:

bigger is better? ;)

stop going below the belt Jedi and stick to the subject at hand - oops that came out wrong ....

oh yeah , forgot . What possesed Esmeril to put that monster turbo in there ? :p:

If I can't say anything nice...

How is this for a base FI timing? Isn't it too safe?

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=164631&stc=1&d=1289137909

Shouldn't be too bad for a starter, what are your IAT and EGT's with that timing?

IAT 15-25 above ambient 40-45 right now. Don't know about EGT. Any concerns about them (timing related)?

How is this for a base FI timing? Isn't it too safe?

]

Considering that most of us run another 10 degrees (ish) than that table it does not seem to serve a lot of purpose to run quite that retarded . :dunno:

guess i am running lots more timing that others?
OD

Considering that most of us run another 10 degrees (ish) than that table it does not seem to serve a lot of purpose to run quite that retarded . :dunno:

Considering that the REW runs 9° at peak torque and it is one point of compression lower than the MSP...

/\ post your timing map and well do a comparo ;)

/\ post your timing map and well do a comparo ;)

The OP actually posted my base timing map. Not too pleased by that, but, whatever.

As a datapoint, peak cylinder pressure at 350 g/sec of flow on the Renesis happens in 20° of crank rotation on 91 RON/MON. Since we want that to happen at about 15° ATDC...

The OP actually posted my base timing map. Not too pleased by that, but, whatever.
...
I'm the OP and I don't have access to any of your maps so I can't see how you could possibly be upset by the map I posted ?

I'm the OP and I don't have access to any of your maps so I can't see how you could possibly be upset by the map I posted ?

I meant the map posted above by SC-ed. That was in the materials made available to paying customers of the Calibration Seminar.

I see . Not too much given away . Or is there ......

Interesting to see what you do at NA peak loads . Same as what my tuner did with my 8 a few yrs back .

I meant the map posted above by SC-ed. That was in the materials made available to paying customers of the Calibration Seminar.

And people wonder why the most worthwhile services after a while can no longer be offered.

Yeah what he said lol. But anyways as far as timing last time I played with it this was my map...not really set for power but it works and last time I dyno'd at 8 psi I was hitting 305 and had a pour tune...now I'm pretty well tuned to 14 and you can definably tell a huge difference between 8 and 14 so I'm guessing I'm 350+ oh and I have the 3.9 gears as well


Thanks for posting this!

Anyone have any comments on the timing for this? I may consider using it...

Thanks for posting this!

Anyone have any comments on the timing for this? I may consider using it...

He's running 4° ATDC at the torque peak and 10 PSI.
That is probably a bit too conservative.

And people wonder why the most worthwhile services after a while can no longer be offered.

Which is why I couldn't hand out any of the really useful stuff.
I'm sure someone recorded it, though. It'll end up on YouTube.

He's running 4° ATDC at the torque peak and 10 PSI.
That is probably a bit too conservative.

but otherwise it looks good? I'm a fan of being conservative... I will be primarily running on 91 octane as well.

but otherwise it looks good? I'm a fan of being conservative... I will be primarily running on 91 octane as well.

She is covered in sores. And she is missing a leg. And she is dead.
Otherwise, she looks good!

Honestly, do you know what you are looking at? Did you compare the net timing of that Int-X display to the timing grid above? Do they even look remotely similar to you?

She is covered in sores. And she is missing a leg. And she is dead.
Otherwise, she looks good!

Honestly, do you know what you are looking at? Did you compare the net timing of that Int-X display to the timing grid above? Do they even look remotely similar to you?


no, I don't fully understand what I'm looking at, which is why I'm asking you if it's a good map. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking at all.

no, I don't fully understand what I'm looking at, which is why I'm asking you if it's a good map.

Then, let me ask you - If you can't tell if it is a good or bad timing curve, why do you need to know? The information is of no use to you.

Then, let me ask you - If you can't tell if it is a good or bad timing curve, why do you need to know? The information is of no use to you.

As I stated before, I'd like to use a new timing map for my car, and as a baseline for when it goes on the dyno for additional tuning. It's also a good way of learning how a good map looks versus something that doesn't, so that I can begin to make adjustments myself eventually. We aren't all experts here.

As I stated before, I'd like to use a new timing map for my car, and as a baseline for when it goes on the dyno for additional tuning. It's also a good way of learning how a good map looks versus something that doesn't, so that I can begin to make adjustments myself eventually. We aren't all experts here.

Well you saw what MM said earlier . His baseline map is back one page . Use that .

So much for posting maps and having discussions as to why or why not they are good

So much for posting maps and having discussions as to why or why not they are good

So much for reading comprehension.

I'm sure glad I explain stuff so it can get glossed-over and then people can complain that it wasn't explained to them.

whatever.

It is called mechanical advantage and brisance... timing in a vacuum cannot really be "good or bad", for example, some run more ignition with a richer AFR, some do the opposite.

The flame front propogagation varies with each degree of angle, as well as each molecule of fuel and air.

So you asking for a good timing map, would be like me asking for a good touch up paint for my car... sight unseen over the internet without the whole picture it is basically impossible to do. If you know the principles of it, then you can look at others maps and adjust them to your own car; but if you do not - then someone elses basemap is irrelevent to you.

That being said... if you want to play with fire then by all means go ahead. Here is the base map I typically use, on my turbo, east coast gas, east coast temperatures, humidity etc.... but if you think it is apples to apples, load it up and have at it.

Crap Kane beat me to it.

That's the primary issue with looking at individual tables and trying to make determinations without taking into account the rest of the tune. Even so, the effects at the tailpipe will not always be represented as a 1:1 ratio within the map itself. Intellectuality discussing the topic is always a plus but if you're expecting to post a map and be told "yes" or "no" then you're going to be disappointed.

She is covered in sores. And she is missing a leg. And she is dead.
Otherwise, she looks good!




All of your comments make sense, and I understood the concept when I was looking for something that I could use as a base map. The comment by MM, as quoted above, is not warranted as he's suggesting that the map is full of issues, and ultimately is useless.

Anyway - the main reason why I wanted to know if certain maps were 'conservative' or 'safe' is because my current ignition map doesn't really resemble any of yours - so I wanted something as more of a guide/aid to know that I'm on the right track in tuning.

All of your comments make sense, and I understood the concept when I was looking for something that I could use as a base map. The comment by MM, as quoted above, is not warranted as he's suggesting that the map is full of issues, and ultimately is useless.

Anyway - the main reason why I wanted to know if certain maps were 'conservative' or 'safe' is because my current ignition map doesn't really resemble any of yours - so I wanted something as more of a guide/aid to know that I'm on the right track in tuning.

There have been several maps posted - mine in the first post is probably the least conservative of those but if you look at kanes , mine and the MM base map in the previous page you will see that there are similarities and we know that all of them have worked well for each of us . So enough information is here for you to make a start with . The only one i wouldn't take much notice of is the one you quoted .

Does this help ?

I meant the map posted above by SC-ed. That was in the materials made available to paying customers of the Calibration Seminar.

Did I said somewhere it's your map?
No.
You did.
So don't blame me.
Sorry.

Updated 1st post

Think I'm starting to grasp timing, maybe :)

question though, it seems like there are large steps in all these timing maps. Just as an example take Kanes map on this page. At 4000 rpm the first 5 load columns are all at 43.5 degrees then the next column steps down to 40 degrees. Why is the timing not tapered down for a smooth curve? I see large chunks like this in all the maps shown.

Also what is the mathematical equation for determining timing? Google has failed me here. Seems like if you know peak pressure in the chamber, AFR, RPM, Load, spark duration and heat, you should be able to plug that into a calculation to determine the optimal spark timing?

hehe, the timing math is so bad, I have been working on it for literally years.

We have the basic equations done... the code to run is is almost 120,000 lines.

As for the rest, load determines timing, and it isn't a one-to-one kind of thing, so there isn't a perfectly smooth curve.

question though, it seems like there are large steps in all these timing maps. Just as an example take Kanes map on this page. At 4000 rpm the first 5 load columns are all at 43.5 degrees then the next column steps down to 40 degrees. Why is the timing not tapered down for a smooth curve? I see large chunks like this in all the maps shown.

there are no abrupt changes the way you see them. the PCM interpolates the values for any point in between said cells. so its not a "step", its a steep curve. make transitions steeper where it is acceptable so that you may make finer more controlled transition where it matters for how it drives/driveability


Also what is the mathematical equation for determining timing? Google has failed me here. Seems like if you know peak pressure in the chamber, AFR, RPM, Load, spark duration and heat, you should be able to plug that into a calculation to determine the optimal spark timing?

dude isnt joking, he was working on this at least 2.5 years ago when we were both in hawaii :sad:

it would be simple(in relative terms) to model it mathematically if we had a combustion chamber that only changes shape/volume in 1 geometrical plane, like a piston/cylinder. the complication is that our chamber moves in a fairly complex to define manner, across multiple planes. Oh, and dont forget we have a split ignition factor as well

there are no abrupt changes the way you see them. the PCM interpolates the values for any point in between said cells. so its not a "step", its a steep curve. make transitions steeper where it is acceptable so that you may make finer more controlled transition where it matters for how it drives/driveability



dude isnt joking, he was working on this at least 2.5 years ago when we were both in hawaii :sad:

it would be simple(in relative terms) to model it mathematically if we had a combustion chamber that only changes shape/volume in 1 geometrical plane, like a piston/cylinder. the complication is that our chamber moves in a fairly complex to define manner, across multiple planes. Oh, and dont forget we have a split ignition factor as well

how hard could that be! :lol:

love this car, hate this car!

beers :beer:

how hard could that be! :lol:

love this car, hate this car!

beers :beer:

yeah seriously, wtf kane:cussing:

i dont remember if it was Kane that showed me, or if i found it myself being curious... I've seen models for piston timing. And although I understand the premise, and can follow the math/chemistry/physics when looked at in small managable pieces, it really is stupid complex. And the variables and complexity of piston modeling compared to rotary is like comparing a mouse trap to a 1:1 tracking kilowatt laser rodent removal system:rollingla

HAHA, yeah Paul I think you were there when me and Faille found that first physics paper, not only could I not do the math programmatically, I couldn't even tell what the symbols meant in relation to modeling it programmatically (IE breaking down equations until you get to an Algebra 1-2 type equation).

HAHA, yeah Paul I think you were there when me and Faille found that first physics paper, not only could I not do the math programmatically, I couldn't even tell what the symbols meant in relation to modeling it programmatically (IE breaking down equations until you get to an Algebra 1-2 type equation).

Yeah, like said, I could follow it in principle in managable pieces, as it was familiar math. But even then it had been far too long since my calculus days(Jr/Sr HS) to really grasp it. Breaking that stuff down to algebraic would be I think virtually impossible.

modeling timing advance in any useful way requires proprietary data about the engine and expensive software. Why do you think OEM's spend so much money on this stuff?

as for the whole step change in timing maps... the Rx-8 does not have very high resolution, so that's part of it. You should see newer GM PCM's. The C6 Z06 has 32x32 main timing maps

arghx7, what parameters do we use to define resolution, as in what you refer to as 32X32?

I may be missing how its supposed to be viewed, but AccessTuner is showing me 16X14 cells for the main Ign tables.

I'm just curious though I do not know how one would quantify when the need for more granularity becomes more/less of an issue considering interpolation. I would guess that every motor would have its own unique needs for specific points vs interpolating a curve inbetween

The C6 Z06 has 32x32 main timing maps

Most of which are just filled with repeated values.

As a rule of thumb what amount of timing retardation are people running on boosted renesis engines? 1,2,3 degrees per PSI? Haven't seen the factory map yet so can't tell how retarded you guys are :mdrmed:

As a rule of thumb what amount of timing retardation are people running on boosted renesis engines? 1,2,3 degrees per PSI? Haven't seen the factory map yet so can't tell how retarded you guys are :mdrmed:

what you want to know is in this very thread

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_z5Ru9kCZGF8/THphKohIb4I/AAAAAAAABzU/TmfkPgHiMpo/s1600/facepalm_statue.jpg

what you want to know is in this very thread



Abject laziness rising to its most elevated level.

If either of you could point me to the post where a stock timing map is or a post on the degrees retardation per PSI that would be great. You can't though because they are not found within this post. The stock ignition dwell table is here, as well as a comment by MM about how much retard is being run at peak torque and where the resolution needs to be. All the EMS reading I've done seems to show tuning a boosted NA engine requires 1-3 degrees retard per PSI boost and I'm just trying to figure out if that's what people are running or if they are running even more conservative based on the rotary sensitivity to detonation.

Also the comment "Abject laziness rising to its most elevated level." Is just bad English. The word abject already refers to an elevated or extreme state. Next time you flame someone with that one you should say "Abject laziness." or "Laziness rising to it's most elevated state." Less redundant redundancy here.

http://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php?p=3776684&postcount=144

I can't see if the image is still there....


http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=188514

And that one has some info too...

Both found inside of a minute, and one was in the thread..... (although I can't tell if the picture is there since I am at work.

it's there, but was trumped by the jesus facepalm pic :lol:

bumping old thread.
Reason: I have observed such a wide variety of ignition timing lately in different cars with the same set up. Pettit SC cars mainly but one turbo car with approx the same level of boost.
I have seen leading timing anywhere from 8 ( wot at 7.5K and approx 180 load) to 19. I have seen both retarding lead ignition timing with increased rpm, i have seen flat, and I have seen advancing. All the cars perform about the same??
Fuel injectors of these cars and a/f's are about the same. grams per sec of the maf are all about the same. Maf's are not scaled.
What the heck is going on...................????
leading timing from 8 to 19 degrees makes no noticeable drivability or power difference?

Doesn't suprise me too much, the mechanical advantage of a rotary is later than a piston engine, so advancing timing is only really going to make your tune more dangerous for the same AFR.

You have to consider all the factors in play at the time you are datalogging. What you describe is entirely possible with identical maps, but dependent on the exact operating conditions at the time and their overall impact on the final PCM output determination

Yep understand that, the circumstances during these observations where as close as they could be on the street--sans abient temps that were a little different, maybe 10F ? Dunno?
Like Kane said (and I am beginning to understand a little on rotary engines), advancing the leading timing really doesnt result in much except more risk for detonation. It makes me wonder why the wide range is being used? Guess maybe the indivual tuners have different ways of approachs.
I THINK I am beginning to understand that ignition timing settings are not as important in reducing detonation as in recips? I mean they have to be reasonable, but the rotary can tolerant a wider range than recips without giving up much power, if any?
Could a general statement that the reason for rotary engine detonation is more realted to heat/fuel issues than ignition timing? Given ignition system etc is up to par?

The changes in the ignition timing observed were at max TQ/ rpm and above. Below that level--everyones were basically the same.

IAT, baro (which you likely didn't measure), etc., they all interact heavily on the timing map

IMO detonation on a Renesis is more prevalent than most people probably realize. I'm also not entirely convinced that Cobb (or anyone else, including maybe Mazda :lol:) has all of the anti-knock system figured out correctly.

Seems that as you say OD timing within that range will yield the same power . And also I think Team is right - there is a lot more detonation going on in an FI'd engine than most of us realise.

Ignition timing. Flame front propagation velocity.

One has a significantly greater affect on peak cylinder pressure as referenced to crank rotation.
Guess which one it is.

dont they go hand in hand, baring any extremes?

dont they go hand in hand, baring any extremes?

Not in a linear fashion. No.

Lighting the wick is what you do after you make the candle.

Seems that as you say OD timing within that range will yield the same power . And also I think Team is right - there is a lot more detonation going on in an FI'd engine than most of us realise.

I would include NA for those who are squeezing the most from them ...

I would say that because of the relative lack of charge homogeny that occurs in the rotary motor for various reasons under differing conditions, there is almost always some form of detonation going on, purely by definition. This isn't necessarily a primary concern (though I would seek to minimise this as much as possible, which is difficult to do because only experience will teach you what to look for), it certainly speaks to the need to understand how the Renesis breathes before you can address the placement of maximum dynamic combustion pressure.

true that we have a very different combustion chamber that offers challanges. This engine also has to carry the charge a little distance before anything ignition wise occurs ( hopefully). In affect isnt the engine during its intake cycle causing its on charge turbulance and doesnt rely as much on port velocity to do this as recips?
I understand what yall are saying in reference to the difficulty in lighting the charge uniformaly. It seems to me that a 3 sparkplug design would be of help--but I really dont know.
But engine ignition timing in reference to detonation seems to be a wide variable depending on such things as your a/f's ( a/f's do affect flame propergation to a degree--right?), combustion chamber temperature, charge temperature, your octane level of whatever fuel you are running, baro pressure, driving characteristics ( what is being asked of the engine?) and port design? Is that a safe thing to say?

Does pre mix affect the flame? The people I ask tell me different things? Does pre mix affect ignition timing? I am pretty sure at levels like 200:1 is doesnt, but if you go 100--or 50:1 it may to a small degree?
I wonder if pre mix increases the possibility of the intake charge to wet out some? That certainly would affect the flame speed and increase chances of catastopic detonation?
I did read that pre mix can really affect the octane in the gas, especially at the level that some of the dirt bike racers are using. Some of them do run 50:1 for lower rpm tracks. One study done by them stated that at 25:1 the octane rating was reduced from 93 to 79!! I would like to see that report.

But engine ignition timing in reference to detonation seems to be a wide variable depending on such things as your a/f's ( a/f's do affect flame propergation to a degree--right?), combustion chamber temperature, charge temperature, your octane level of whatever fuel you are running, baro pressure, driving characteristics ( what is being asked of the engine?) and port design? Is that a safe thing to say?

Yes. Lambda as we get to see it is deductive. True AFRs cannot actually be known and are an average across the combustion chamber, anyway.

Does pre mix affect the flame?
Does pre mix affect ignition timing?

Yes, in a qualified way.

good to know--thanks. I think I am beginning to understand some things.