Coil Dwell Settings with ProTuner & AccessPort
08-23-2009, 05:03 PM
#54
No, if everyone would just apply this to everything, we would be in much better shape.
I know this is an Internet forum and, therefore, way over-stocked with geeks, nerds and math-tards, but we are talking about a car and all the incredible approximations that go into making it what it is.
Figuring out the math is not about coming to conclusions. Its about setting a baseline upon which you can build. It doesn't matter what the actual numbers are as long as you can repeat the effect.
08-23-2009, 05:16 PM
#56
Quote of the DECADE.
No, if everyone would just apply this to everything, we would be in much better shape.
I know this is an Internet forum and, therefore, way over-stocked with geeks, nerds and math-tards, but we are talking about a car and all the incredible approximations that go into making it what it is.
Figuring out the math is not about coming to conclusions. Its about setting a baseline upon which you can build. It doesn't matter what the actual numbers are as long as you can repeat the effect.
No, if everyone would just apply this to everything, we would be in much better shape.
I know this is an Internet forum and, therefore, way over-stocked with geeks, nerds and math-tards, but we are talking about a car and all the incredible approximations that go into making it what it is.
Figuring out the math is not about coming to conclusions. Its about setting a baseline upon which you can build. It doesn't matter what the actual numbers are as long as you can repeat the effect.
08-23-2009, 05:22 PM
#57
But it is totally useless information, apparently. Because, when I explained it, all I got was puzzled looks from everyone involved.
It wasn't that they were being misled. Its just that they were being led to somewhere they hadn't seen before and couldn't make believe they understood the path.
People don't want to understand things. They want the things they don't understand to be changed and conformed into things that they do understand.
This is the real reason I don't like explaining things to people - all they will do is argue until the thing that was explained is made to look like something else that they can explain away.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 08-23-2009 at 05:25 PM.
08-23-2009, 05:33 PM
#58
I ,for one, DO like to understand things . You could accuse me of being too lazy to go and get dwell scoped for myself which would be fair .
But I did not really have any compelling reason to do that other than - I might need the info one day if I go for higher boost etc.
Could you point me to your previous explanation and I'll try see if it makes more sense to me now ...
But I did not really have any compelling reason to do that other than - I might need the info one day if I go for higher boost etc.
Could you point me to your previous explanation and I'll try see if it makes more sense to me now ...
08-23-2009, 05:43 PM
#59
Hmmmmmm.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
I will second that Brettus. I absolutely want to understand things. I tried a while ago to understand a few things but got shot down for it... wrong question in the wrong thread!
The problem I see is that not everyone understands the same things in the same way. Simple as it is, I had never thought of this problem in this way "deviation from a known standard"
The problem I see is that not everyone understands the same things in the same way. Simple as it is, I had never thought of this problem in this way "deviation from a known standard"
08-23-2009, 05:48 PM
#60
Deviation from a known standard would not have worked if the theory put forward earlier in the thread were correct ( about a 2ms Base with a modifier table) . That is why it is dangerous to assume that theory unless you have evidence to back it up . IE scoping the results before and after .
08-23-2009, 06:13 PM
#61
Hmmmmmm.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Deviation from a known standard would not have worked if the theory put forward earlier in the thread were correct ( about a 2ms Base with a modifier table) . That is why it is dangerous to assume that theory unless you have evidence to back it up . IE scoping the results before and after .
I had never seen or read about the 2ms base theory until post #34 from atl8. But I have to say that it doesn't sound right to me as its way to variable for something that is very precise. On the other hand, a_ahlan's post makes very good sense, seems very logical, is backed by experience and findings from MM.
Reading back on a_ahlan's post I now have a question about spark duration
Cheers
Andrew
08-23-2009, 06:42 PM
#62
I did a little test on that theory a few months back (but forgot about it when alt8 brought it up again) . Set dwell to 0 at 2000 rpm just to see if the engine would run ................. It died as rpms approached that rpm so I dismissed the theory .
08-23-2009, 06:48 PM
#64
I often leave things that work alone. There are plenty of things that don't work that you can geek about.
08-23-2009, 06:55 PM
#65
I'll even go one further -
If a man-made device works, why spend extra machine cycles trying to reverse-engineer it if you can just ask the guy that built it how it works?
But - be prepared for him to give you an answer like "It just does".
There are a surprising many things in this world, built by experts, that just work because they do.
Sure, you can dissect the physics, but you will be no closer to any true understanding once you have.
Much of it is incidental.
If a man-made device works, why spend extra machine cycles trying to reverse-engineer it if you can just ask the guy that built it how it works?
But - be prepared for him to give you an answer like "It just does".
There are a surprising many things in this world, built by experts, that just work because they do.
Sure, you can dissect the physics, but you will be no closer to any true understanding once you have.
Much of it is incidental.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 08-23-2009 at 06:58 PM.
08-23-2009, 07:17 PM
#66
Deviation from a known standard would not have worked if the theory put forward earlier in the thread were correct ( about a 2ms Base with a modifier table) . That is why it is dangerous to assume that theory unless you have evidence to back it up . IE scoping the results before and after .
"Perfect is the enemy of good" and all that jazz.
08-23-2009, 07:22 PM
#67
Hmmmmmm.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
I'll even go one further -
If a man-made device works, why spend extra machine cycles trying to reverse-engineer it if you can just ask the guy that built it how it works?
But - be prepared for him to give you an answer like "It just does".
There are a surprising many things in this world, built by experts, that just work because they do.
Sure, you can dissect the physics, but you will be no closer to any true understanding once you have.
Much of it is incidental.
If a man-made device works, why spend extra machine cycles trying to reverse-engineer it if you can just ask the guy that built it how it works?
But - be prepared for him to give you an answer like "It just does".
There are a surprising many things in this world, built by experts, that just work because they do.
Sure, you can dissect the physics, but you will be no closer to any true understanding once you have.
Much of it is incidental.
I can sleep at night knowing that when I have understood something, there is a much lower chance that what I did wont result in unexpected outcomes.
08-23-2009, 09:16 PM
#68
There are also a great many things in this world that we take for granted purely because people have said why does something do what it does.
I can sleep at night knowing that when I have understood something, there is a much lower chance that what I did wont result in unexpected outcomes.
I can sleep at night knowing that when I have understood something, there is a much lower chance that what I did wont result in unexpected outcomes.
I also see merit in what MM is saying about the "just do it" attitude because if we always had to know the answers before we did stuff then we would never do it in the first place .
08-23-2009, 09:39 PM
#69
Hmmmmmm.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
08-26-2009, 11:41 PM
#70
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: michigan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the factory NA dwell map posted by auzoom in the first post, the value in all the fields at 9k rpm is 395. I divided 395/9000 = .04, then add 2, and it's 2.04ms dwell at 9k, not 2.4.
08-26-2009, 11:48 PM
#71
Sorry if I'm being a total ignoramus (I'm trying hard not to be!), but I'm really trying to figure out where my math is wrong..
According to the factory NA dwell map posted by auzoom in the first post, the value in all the fields at 9k rpm is 395. I divided 395/9000 = .04, then add 2, and it's 2.04ms dwell at 9k, not 2.4.
According to the factory NA dwell map posted by auzoom in the first post, the value in all the fields at 9k rpm is 395. I divided 395/9000 = .04, then add 2, and it's 2.04ms dwell at 9k, not 2.4.
from the above discussion it would seem that this theory is incorrect however ........
08-27-2009, 12:00 AM
#72
Hmmmmmm.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
In his example if you take the line of 12.75v, at idle the table shows 1208. He then believes there is a base dwell of 2000.
So you have:
1208 + 2000 = 3208 (3.2ms)
For 9000rpm By that logic it would be
395+2000 = 2395 (2.395ms).
I think its wrong though. Kane has shown the manual stating the base dwell is 3ms for the OEM coils.
I am running strong now using the "deviation from a known standard" calculation. Not that its hard to figure but I will post up the Dwell map I am running when I get home tonight.
EDIT: Geez I am slow at responding! ^^ what Brettus said.
Cheers
Andrew
So you have:
1208 + 2000 = 3208 (3.2ms)
For 9000rpm By that logic it would be
395+2000 = 2395 (2.395ms).
I think its wrong though. Kane has shown the manual stating the base dwell is 3ms for the OEM coils.
I am running strong now using the "deviation from a known standard" calculation. Not that its hard to figure but I will post up the Dwell map I am running when I get home tonight.
EDIT: Geez I am slow at responding! ^^ what Brettus said.
Cheers
Andrew
08-27-2009, 12:28 AM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: michigan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In his example, he cites 1208/1000 (1208 is derived from the map value of 12V @ 1k rpm). This gives you 1.2ms, which is then added to the base value. Right? Ugh. Nevermind.
Is there any evidence of this 2ms base dwell time, or is it just an assumption?
