Brettus

iTrader: (2)

/\ is maf calibration the same ?

thewird

After arghx7 wanting to see the mapping, I took a look myself. AND OH, LOOK WHAT I FOUND... There is nothing wrong with my car, the fuel map for the stage 1 is off the charts. I even re-downloaded a copy of the map from the site to verify. So the map is bad, period.

Could someone with a different model year compare? (mines a 2005) I'd like to let Cobb know about this but would like to know if there is any other screwy map so they can fix all of them.

arghx7, I don't think you can see the maps. I can't even look at maps that aren't from my model year. Closed source much?

Stock


Stage 1


thewird

JinDesu

iTrader: (2)

Mine's setup different (06 AT), but closer to stock than yours

dannobre

iTrader: (3)

That's very lean..WTF were they thinking?

myriadshalaks

iTrader: (1)

that's not right. mine doesn't look like that.

why it would be so different across years? that makes no sense.

JinDesu

iTrader: (2)

When did you sign up for accesstuner? Was it recent? I received my version about 3 months ago, if that could be used as information.

05rex8

iTrader: (7)

mine is way different....am I looking at the right thing?
mine is 05 MT USDM

thewird

I got it 1-2 days ago. I barely looked at it until today. I don't think that would be related though since I haven't edited anything with the AccessTuner yet. I only used it to view the maps today.

Your graph is in AFR, mine is in lambda. It actually looks the same. To see it the same...

Edit --> configure options --> Disable Standard units.

thewird

05rex8

iTrader: (7)

got it, thanks

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

wow - that is seriously f'd up !!!!

05rex8

iTrader: (7)

yeah really...
what gets me is I ran this map for a couple months before I went turbo
I never really looked that hard at it in racetuner and didn't have my wideband installed yet
I never looked at the afr on the AP display either, always left it on water temp

Flashwing

Holy mother of god.

94% + load from 6000 to 8000 rpms calling for 14.7:1. Yikes! Granted that whole setup depends on a properly setup MAF curve and injector scaling but still...

Either way your best bet is to start with a stock tune and make the adjustments based off of the data you are collecting. I wouldn't bother starting with the COBB map.

kersh4w

iTrader: (3)

i posted the awesomeness of the cobb stage 1 map a few months ago.

DO NOT USE IT.

JinDesu

iTrader: (2)

I guess people really need to double check their stage 1 maps; mine looks a lot like stock, but I did verify that back when I first got the maps. That's why I was so confused in this thread, thinking he should have had the same map as mine.

Huey52

iTrader: (2)

I ran the Cobb Stage One for a short time awaiting a MazdaManiac update and was not at all impressed. Even your butt dyno will tell you something's not quite right.

TeamRX8

iTrader: (25)

6500 -7500 from 0.94+ loading seems a bit off (what are the mating timing values then) but otherwise I don't see how you'd be pulling the extra high AFR readings unless something else is wrong

back when I was beta testing for Cobb my car ended up in the mid-high 14s after making some intake mods. It ran that way without issue for several months before I detected it, but this was with higher than pump gas octane. It was about a month later that they were able to tune it back in the low to mid 13s which dropped HP and TQ a few points, that's when the 220 rwhp graph was generated in Aug/2007.

Again, I still don't see how you're seeing anything 15+ unless other things aren't up to snuff. Without seeing a number of data log values both OE vs Stage 1 it'd be just a guess.

JinDesu

iTrader: (2)

Pretty sure Cobb stage one isn't really any sort of tuning. It's mostly the same as stock (if you compare between the two) besides modifying slight parameters such as fuel cutoff and fans. You should be considering the Cobb stage one as a baseline, sort of like MM's baseline tune that he provides his customers. Just not as personalized (which doesn't explain why kersh's and wird's maps are so lean in comparison).

@Team - I know that when my Lamba is 1 (AFR = 14.7), sometimes I reach above 15 AFR. I assume this is because the airflow fluctuates in, and sometimes the increase causes the AFR to hit 15. If you look at his map in the range of 6500 rpms-7000 rpms under the load conditions of 94% to 125%, his Lamda is 1, effectively giving him the same AFR as my low load areas and idle. In fact, the Lambda in that general area is ridiculously high. In comparison, my Cobb map (which is richer than his stock one in this range, it appears) is hitting 0.68-0.67 in that region.

thewird

The mating timing values are pretty much the same as stock for the leading, were just smoothed out a bit at high RPM. The bigger difference is in the trailing split which was drastically reduced from about 15 to 5. Lower split makes more power (also increases EGT). I don't think there is anything wrong with their timing changes.

The logs are in the first post. Its obvious from the maps, that its the maps problem. Why are you still saying there is something else is wrong when its obvious its the map? Also, others have now chimed in and reported similar results.

I might disagree a little bit that the stage 1 map isn't ment to be used. It's advertised as 5.5% increase in HP and a 6.7% increase in torque. I'm sure a lot of owners buy it and run it off the stage 1 indefinitely because they think that is the gain they are receiving. If you look at the map notes, its supposed to be running around 12.4 AFR. If you then look at the fuel map targets (or the logged AFR's), its nowhere near that.

My guess is that the map was originally created on the 2004, and then copied to a 2005 map. Someone screwed up and possibly copied the wrong map. This obviously needs to be corrected so other owners don't damage their engines who don't know any better. That is why I asked others to post their maps from other model years to verify this.

Now I wish Cobb wasn't so stringent only being able to touch the map for your car. Would make things a lot easier to look at the different model years. Could someone post a 2004 MT fuel map for stage 1? Or even the later years 2006+

thewird

TeamRX8

iTrader: (25)

Not all of those values are off badly IMO. Sorry if you object because I'm not on the ZOMG team. I tried to share my actual experience with Cobb and running higher than expected AFRs under high load operation rather than some theoretical BS I read on some forum.

Can you datalog your high load AFR for us using the original factory non-Cobb map? It would be interesting to see if you're getting the low 11 AFR values expected with it.

thewird

Sure, I'll plug in my wideband I use for tuning. Could someone tell me what the effect of disconnecting the stock o2 sensor is?
'
thewird

Flashwing

If you unplug the O2 sensor in the mid-pipe or cat it won't do anything but throw a code unless you shut off that sensor with the AP.

kersh4w

iTrader: (3)

i went back to my factory map and my AFRs went back down to high 11s, low 13s under full WOT.

TeamRX8

iTrader: (25)

disconnecting the main O2 sensor defaults the PCM to open loop, it will throw a CEL but not fault the system into limp mode etc.

TeamRX8

iTrader: (25)

they may ahve leaned it out some over the latest flashes, I'm remembering from a number of years ago

https://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php...77&postcount=6

note the there are some critical intake valve operations taking place between 6500 - 7500 rpm, the tuning may not seem normal in these areas depending on how smooth you want those power transitions to be