Better Fuel Management using the eManage
01-16-2006, 10:57 AM
#1
Consiglieri
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: yourI'mgirl
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better Fuel Management using the eManage
Here’s the teaser:
The way GReddy configured it, only about 16% of the total fuel delivered under WOT is under your complete control. The rest is under direct control of the PCM. This means that you might see swings of about +/-15% of the total fuel delivered due to LTFT. MazdaManiac and I have developed a way, using the emanage, to give total control of about 78% of the total fuel delivered under WOT. This means that you could expect to see swings of only +/-4% due to LTFT adjustment. You can buy the emanage for $289. Interested? Read on.
Disclaimer: Please be aware that all of the values and figures that I quote here are based on MY tuned maps!! Yours will be different than this! But, you should be able to follow this same process to put your fuel under almost complete control. So far, this technique has only been tested on my car. MazdaManiac has done some initial testing with promising results, but he’s in the midst of moving and can’t play as much as I have been able to. I don’t want anyone to think that this is an easy/reliable/safe thing to do! I spent many hours data logging and analyzing to make sure I wasn’t running into trouble. If you want to run your emanage this way, you should take the same precautions. IF YOU DON’T HAVE A WB02 SENSOR, DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS CONVERSION! INSTEAD, PROMPTLY REMOVE YOUR HEAD FROM YOUR *** AND INSTALL ONE.
While some of us GReddy owners have had success with the eManage, others have not. I believe the primary reason for lack of good performance is simply a lack of understanding and a lack of willingness to learn about and tune your car. That being said, I also feel that GReddy could have done a better job of configuring the fuel management while still using the eManage.
While it is a piggyback unit, the emanage has the capability to drive one set of injectors all by itself, independent of the PCM. This is accomplished by using the SubInjector map. The emanage will fire these injectors totally independently, while the Additional Injection map simply increases the dwell that the PCM specifies. For example, if a particular cell value in the SubInjector map is 20%, the injector will fire at a duty cycle of 20% regardless. If a cell in the Additional Injection map reads 20%, the duty cycle specified by the PCM is increased by 20%. So, if the PCM wanted 50% duty cycle, the net result would be 50%+(20%*50%)=60%.
The high-power 8 has 3 sets of injectors: P1 (280cc), P2 (390cc) and S(390cc). The way GReddy wired the turbo setup, the P1 and S injectors are driven by the Additional Injection map. The P2 injectors are driven using the SubInjector map *and* the Additional Injection map. When I was tuning my original maps, I found that I had a lot more success tuning using the Sub map. So, MazdaManiac and I had the idea to try to migrate 100% of the fuel needed by a boosted Renesis over to the SubInjector map. We decided that using the P2 injectors under control of the Sub map would make the most sense because the PCM uses the P2’s very sparingly (you’ll see how in a few minutes). This move, along with severing the P2 injectors from the PCM, would give you nearly complete control of all the fuel that is needed for the turbo. And, the best part is, the PCM doesn’t have **** to say about it!! Tunability is greatly increased, AFR’s are flat as a board, and the LTFT becomes almost a non-issue!
As an aside, I also swapped my P2 injectors for some of the P2’s from the standard power (auto transmission) Renesis. I got them from Paul and MazMart (*forum vendor plug*) for $250. I highly recommend dealing with MazMart. They are really top-notch guys. These are drop-in replacements and bring the P2 capacity from 390cc to about 490cc. You can do this migration without upgrading your injectors as long as you are careful! I wouldn’t do it running more than about 6.5psi, and I would also !strongly! recommend logging your P2 duty cycles to make sure you aren’t above 85%-90% duty cycle after conversion.
The first step towards making this work was to spend a lot of time logging the injector duty cycles. I simply tapped into the harness and ran the signal into the pulse input of my profec e-01. Since I knew what the emanage was doing, I could simply subtract the contribution of the duty cycle that was coming from the emanage to find out what the PCM was doing. The figure below shows a smoothed version of what I found.
Be aware that this is under WOT and that the P2 duty cycle changes a lot according to the gear that you are in, but what is pictured above turned out to be a useful approximation.
Knowing this, it is possible to compute the total fuel delivered due to the addition of the emanage. Before cutting the P2’s loose, the equation looks like:
[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)]
The first term is the contribution of the P1’s since they are at 100% all the time. The second term is the contribution of the S injectors (‘S’ is the linear function from my duty cycle logs). The third term is the contribution of the P2’s due to the AddInj map. The fourth term is the contribution of the P2’s due to the SubInj map.
This results in a fuel surface that looks like this BEFORE cutting the P2’s loose from the PCM:
The next step is to simply convert all this fuel to the P2 injectors. Do this by 1) defining a new SubInj map that goes from 1500RPPM to 9000RPM and 2) dividing the above 3D surface by 390cc (if you are still running the 390cc P2’s. I used 490cc.) and interpolating to find the new P2 duty cycle. This results in a SubINj map that looks like:
The AddInj map is ALL ZEROS.
I ran this map for a week or so with no problems. In reality, I developed a couple of intermediate maps. I started by switching over 50% of the fuel, then 75% and 90%. Since things went so well, I went ahead and did 100% of the fuel to the P2’s.
The next step was to literally cut the line from the PCM to the P2’s (*gulp*). You can find the wiring diagram in the service manual. Since I am controlling the P2’s all by myself now, I also have to account for the fuel delivered by the PCM through the P2’s. The total fuel required by the severed P2’s under your complete control is found through the following formula:
[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)+P2]
The fifth term is required since I am driving the P2’s without the PCM. Notice how the fuel surface now increases linearly, even in the non-boosted range. This is because the PCM used to control the P2 injectors this way. I am accounting for the non-boosted fuel that I am now responsible for, having severed the P2’s from the PCM.
The SubInj map for MY 490cc P2’s looks like this:
Again, the AddInj map is all zeros. The duty cycle does get pretty high in the lower right corner, but, I can’t hold that kind of boost up there anyway. NOTE THAT THIS MAP IS FOR MY 490cc INJECTORS. If you were to use this map with the standard P2’s, you would be running lean.
OKAY! So, I have been running the P2’s under my COMPLETE control for a few days now. The PCM doesn’t seem to know the difference. No CEL’s so far. My AFR is flat as board around 11 - which is a little richer than the maps that I started with under the GReddy way. This is probably due to variation in the P2's that I installed. They are likely a little higher than 490cc just due to manufacturing variation. The Mazda specs let the injector capacities vary by as much as 15% - which is one more reason that [soapbox] NO ONE MAP WILL EVER WORK FOR EVERY CAR, REGARDLESS OF THE MANAGEMENT YOU USE! If it doesn't adapt like the PCM does, it can't work for every 8. [/soapbox]
While I haven’t done much tuning yet, initial results are that the tuning is much easier and more reliable using this configuration. As I mentioned before, I took the total fuel under my direct control from 16% to 78% using this technique. The variation that I could see from LTFT adjustment went from +/- 15% to +/-4%. Not too shabby. Also, I retained all the nice PCM functionality (like the knock sensor), I have a $289 solution, and its operating in semi-standalone mode, one step closer to taking full control, without the cost or complexity.
I don’t really want to post the maps here yet. I’d like to have some discussion first. If you are interested in trying this, I’d suggest contacting MM or me for some coaching first. I’m just afraid that someone will F it up and end-up hosing their motor.
Lastly, many thanks goes to MazdaManiac. While my car was the testbed, this was a collaborative effort.
The way GReddy configured it, only about 16% of the total fuel delivered under WOT is under your complete control. The rest is under direct control of the PCM. This means that you might see swings of about +/-15% of the total fuel delivered due to LTFT. MazdaManiac and I have developed a way, using the emanage, to give total control of about 78% of the total fuel delivered under WOT. This means that you could expect to see swings of only +/-4% due to LTFT adjustment. You can buy the emanage for $289. Interested? Read on.
Disclaimer: Please be aware that all of the values and figures that I quote here are based on MY tuned maps!! Yours will be different than this! But, you should be able to follow this same process to put your fuel under almost complete control. So far, this technique has only been tested on my car. MazdaManiac has done some initial testing with promising results, but he’s in the midst of moving and can’t play as much as I have been able to. I don’t want anyone to think that this is an easy/reliable/safe thing to do! I spent many hours data logging and analyzing to make sure I wasn’t running into trouble. If you want to run your emanage this way, you should take the same precautions. IF YOU DON’T HAVE A WB02 SENSOR, DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS CONVERSION! INSTEAD, PROMPTLY REMOVE YOUR HEAD FROM YOUR *** AND INSTALL ONE.
While some of us GReddy owners have had success with the eManage, others have not. I believe the primary reason for lack of good performance is simply a lack of understanding and a lack of willingness to learn about and tune your car. That being said, I also feel that GReddy could have done a better job of configuring the fuel management while still using the eManage.
While it is a piggyback unit, the emanage has the capability to drive one set of injectors all by itself, independent of the PCM. This is accomplished by using the SubInjector map. The emanage will fire these injectors totally independently, while the Additional Injection map simply increases the dwell that the PCM specifies. For example, if a particular cell value in the SubInjector map is 20%, the injector will fire at a duty cycle of 20% regardless. If a cell in the Additional Injection map reads 20%, the duty cycle specified by the PCM is increased by 20%. So, if the PCM wanted 50% duty cycle, the net result would be 50%+(20%*50%)=60%.
The high-power 8 has 3 sets of injectors: P1 (280cc), P2 (390cc) and S(390cc). The way GReddy wired the turbo setup, the P1 and S injectors are driven by the Additional Injection map. The P2 injectors are driven using the SubInjector map *and* the Additional Injection map. When I was tuning my original maps, I found that I had a lot more success tuning using the Sub map. So, MazdaManiac and I had the idea to try to migrate 100% of the fuel needed by a boosted Renesis over to the SubInjector map. We decided that using the P2 injectors under control of the Sub map would make the most sense because the PCM uses the P2’s very sparingly (you’ll see how in a few minutes). This move, along with severing the P2 injectors from the PCM, would give you nearly complete control of all the fuel that is needed for the turbo. And, the best part is, the PCM doesn’t have **** to say about it!! Tunability is greatly increased, AFR’s are flat as a board, and the LTFT becomes almost a non-issue!
As an aside, I also swapped my P2 injectors for some of the P2’s from the standard power (auto transmission) Renesis. I got them from Paul and MazMart (*forum vendor plug*) for $250. I highly recommend dealing with MazMart. They are really top-notch guys. These are drop-in replacements and bring the P2 capacity from 390cc to about 490cc. You can do this migration without upgrading your injectors as long as you are careful! I wouldn’t do it running more than about 6.5psi, and I would also !strongly! recommend logging your P2 duty cycles to make sure you aren’t above 85%-90% duty cycle after conversion.
The first step towards making this work was to spend a lot of time logging the injector duty cycles. I simply tapped into the harness and ran the signal into the pulse input of my profec e-01. Since I knew what the emanage was doing, I could simply subtract the contribution of the duty cycle that was coming from the emanage to find out what the PCM was doing. The figure below shows a smoothed version of what I found.
Be aware that this is under WOT and that the P2 duty cycle changes a lot according to the gear that you are in, but what is pictured above turned out to be a useful approximation.
Knowing this, it is possible to compute the total fuel delivered due to the addition of the emanage. Before cutting the P2’s loose, the equation looks like:
[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)]
The first term is the contribution of the P1’s since they are at 100% all the time. The second term is the contribution of the S injectors (‘S’ is the linear function from my duty cycle logs). The third term is the contribution of the P2’s due to the AddInj map. The fourth term is the contribution of the P2’s due to the SubInj map.
This results in a fuel surface that looks like this BEFORE cutting the P2’s loose from the PCM:
The next step is to simply convert all this fuel to the P2 injectors. Do this by 1) defining a new SubInj map that goes from 1500RPPM to 9000RPM and 2) dividing the above 3D surface by 390cc (if you are still running the 390cc P2’s. I used 490cc.) and interpolating to find the new P2 duty cycle. This results in a SubINj map that looks like:
The AddInj map is ALL ZEROS.
I ran this map for a week or so with no problems. In reality, I developed a couple of intermediate maps. I started by switching over 50% of the fuel, then 75% and 90%. Since things went so well, I went ahead and did 100% of the fuel to the P2’s.
The next step was to literally cut the line from the PCM to the P2’s (*gulp*). You can find the wiring diagram in the service manual. Since I am controlling the P2’s all by myself now, I also have to account for the fuel delivered by the PCM through the P2’s. The total fuel required by the severed P2’s under your complete control is found through the following formula:
[(280*AddInj*100)+(390*AddInj*S)+(390*AddInj*P2)+(3 90*SubInj)+P2]
The fifth term is required since I am driving the P2’s without the PCM. Notice how the fuel surface now increases linearly, even in the non-boosted range. This is because the PCM used to control the P2 injectors this way. I am accounting for the non-boosted fuel that I am now responsible for, having severed the P2’s from the PCM.
The SubInj map for MY 490cc P2’s looks like this:
Again, the AddInj map is all zeros. The duty cycle does get pretty high in the lower right corner, but, I can’t hold that kind of boost up there anyway. NOTE THAT THIS MAP IS FOR MY 490cc INJECTORS. If you were to use this map with the standard P2’s, you would be running lean.
OKAY! So, I have been running the P2’s under my COMPLETE control for a few days now. The PCM doesn’t seem to know the difference. No CEL’s so far. My AFR is flat as board around 11 - which is a little richer than the maps that I started with under the GReddy way. This is probably due to variation in the P2's that I installed. They are likely a little higher than 490cc just due to manufacturing variation. The Mazda specs let the injector capacities vary by as much as 15% - which is one more reason that [soapbox] NO ONE MAP WILL EVER WORK FOR EVERY CAR, REGARDLESS OF THE MANAGEMENT YOU USE! If it doesn't adapt like the PCM does, it can't work for every 8. [/soapbox]
While I haven’t done much tuning yet, initial results are that the tuning is much easier and more reliable using this configuration. As I mentioned before, I took the total fuel under my direct control from 16% to 78% using this technique. The variation that I could see from LTFT adjustment went from +/- 15% to +/-4%. Not too shabby. Also, I retained all the nice PCM functionality (like the knock sensor), I have a $289 solution, and its operating in semi-standalone mode, one step closer to taking full control, without the cost or complexity.
I don’t really want to post the maps here yet. I’d like to have some discussion first. If you are interested in trying this, I’d suggest contacting MM or me for some coaching first. I’m just afraid that someone will F it up and end-up hosing their motor.
Lastly, many thanks goes to MazdaManiac. While my car was the testbed, this was a collaborative effort.
Last edited by MadDog; 01-16-2006 at 01:13 PM.
01-16-2006, 11:58 AM
#3
Tim really did all the work. It is very generous of him to include me in the credit - I just took the rebounds.
I want to reiterate - THIS MODIFICATION IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO WILL GIVE DUE DILLIGENCE TO THE PROCESS !!
If you don't have the tools/wits/sensitivity, don't try this.
I expect this will become the way the Greddy kit is shipped sometime in the near future without any compensation from them to Tim.
I want to reiterate - THIS MODIFICATION IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO WILL GIVE DUE DILLIGENCE TO THE PROCESS !!
If you don't have the tools/wits/sensitivity, don't try this.
I expect this will become the way the Greddy kit is shipped sometime in the near future without any compensation from them to Tim.
01-16-2006, 12:00 PM
#4
v e i l o c i t y
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see that the emanage still can do some more serious type of tuning... This is more than what I have thought of. Still waiting for the snow to disappear over here so I can take out my car again...
Great work guys!!!
Great work guys!!!
01-16-2006, 12:18 PM
#5
THREAD KILLER
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good news to those who like to tinker with their own systems. It's nice to hear that MazdaManiac still hasn't given up on Greddy Emanage yet. I'll be following the progress of this experiment. Good work!
01-16-2006, 12:23 PM
#6
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Virginia/Maryland
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is some great stuff. We need more people willing to experiment like this. I wonder why Greddy didn't do this to begin with. It seems like a much better way for controlling fuel.
01-16-2006, 12:34 PM
#8
Consiglieri
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: yourI'mgirl
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, thanks for the props, Jeff.
I think the next step is going to be to smooth the transition from vacuum to boost. Now that the LTFT is pretty much a non-issue, I don't care about adding fuel before the temp dongle kicks-in. The tranistion can be a little hairy sometimes - but this was also true under the old GReddy system.
I think the next step is going to be to smooth the transition from vacuum to boost. Now that the LTFT is pretty much a non-issue, I don't care about adding fuel before the temp dongle kicks-in. The tranistion can be a little hairy sometimes - but this was also true under the old GReddy system.
01-16-2006, 12:41 PM
#10
Consiglieri
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: yourI'mgirl
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm working it! I'm working it! Doesn't everyone have a dual 20 inch flat panel display set at 1600x1200? SHEESH! 
Last edited by MadDog; 01-16-2006 at 12:48 PM.
01-16-2006, 01:22 PM
#12
Consiglieri
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: yourI'mgirl
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
okay, display-pansies! DONE!
Now, back to the good stuff:
I didn't want to start turning-up the boost until I had this kind of control of the fuel. Now that I do, the AFR is so nice and consistent! And pretty flat, too! I'm sitting at about 7.5 psi right now, heading towards 9psi. I may put still bigger injectors in. The maximum duty cycle I've seen so far is about 69% just because the lower left corner of the map is not really used because of the boost droop that occurs at higher RPM. I may not need injectors bigger than the 490cc ones I have now. Just have to wait and see.
Now, back to the good stuff:
I didn't want to start turning-up the boost until I had this kind of control of the fuel. Now that I do, the AFR is so nice and consistent! And pretty flat, too! I'm sitting at about 7.5 psi right now, heading towards 9psi. I may put still bigger injectors in. The maximum duty cycle I've seen so far is about 69% just because the lower left corner of the map is not really used because of the boost droop that occurs at higher RPM. I may not need injectors bigger than the 490cc ones I have now. Just have to wait and see.
01-16-2006, 05:05 PM
#17
Consiglieri
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: yourI'mgirl
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW: I have guessed that the reason the N flash doesn't work well with the GReddy is that the N flash puts different emphasis on some injectors versus what the M flash did. This new strategy may also improve the ability of those with the N flash to run the emanage, since you are now in total control of the fuel you want to add.
01-24-2006, 09:34 AM
#18
Consiglieri
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: yourI'mgirl
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just wanted to give an update.
So far, I've been running this strategy for about 2 weeks now with no issues. I have plenty of fuel running 8.5psi on the street. The max duty cycle I have seen is about 75%. This seems to suggest that there might be enough capacity in the stock 390cc P2 injectors to run a little more boost than I previously thought.
Interestingly, my LTFT has gone from about -8% to -4% since I started running the fuel this way. My AFR is about the same as it was before I severed the P2's from the PCM. I'm pretty sure this has to do with the fact that I am trying to approximate the non-boosted operation of the P2's that the PCM would normally have control of. Its not exactly the fuel that the PCM thinks it should be, its just my approximation. So, the LTFT is changing - but not by too much. I guess I did a pretty good job of acting like the PCM!
I'm starting to tune the map a little bit - target AFR=12.0. The tuning definitely seems easier using this strategy. Having a lot more control of the fuel is, of course, a real plus. Under the GReddy way, its was kind of a guessing game which map to tweak and how big the AFR response would be. Seems much simpler now.
I'd still highly recommend this strategy for fuel management. It seems to be a great compromise between piggyback and full EMS. Stay tuned. I'll post more impressions and maps as I tune.
So far, I've been running this strategy for about 2 weeks now with no issues. I have plenty of fuel running 8.5psi on the street. The max duty cycle I have seen is about 75%. This seems to suggest that there might be enough capacity in the stock 390cc P2 injectors to run a little more boost than I previously thought.
Interestingly, my LTFT has gone from about -8% to -4% since I started running the fuel this way. My AFR is about the same as it was before I severed the P2's from the PCM. I'm pretty sure this has to do with the fact that I am trying to approximate the non-boosted operation of the P2's that the PCM would normally have control of. Its not exactly the fuel that the PCM thinks it should be, its just my approximation. So, the LTFT is changing - but not by too much. I guess I did a pretty good job of acting like the PCM!
I'm starting to tune the map a little bit - target AFR=12.0. The tuning definitely seems easier using this strategy. Having a lot more control of the fuel is, of course, a real plus. Under the GReddy way, its was kind of a guessing game which map to tweak and how big the AFR response would be. Seems much simpler now.
I'd still highly recommend this strategy for fuel management. It seems to be a great compromise between piggyback and full EMS. Stay tuned. I'll post more impressions and maps as I tune.
01-24-2006, 10:16 AM
#20
Consiglieri
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: yourI'mgirl
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I am running on - M flash. MazdaManiac is as well.
But, because you have moer complete control of the fuel using this strategy, it should be more insensitive to the flash revision than the GReddy way - barring some kind of bizzare changes in the flash revs.
But, because you have moer complete control of the fuel using this strategy, it should be more insensitive to the flash revision than the GReddy way - barring some kind of bizzare changes in the flash revs.
Last edited by MadDog; 01-24-2006 at 11:13 AM.
01-24-2006, 11:27 AM
#21
If you get a chance, can you throw some CanScan logs my way? Something with RPM, throttle, ignition timing, O2S2 or lambda, coolant temp, etc.
I like the new avatar, Tim. You should put a slash through it, though since you don't have a CEL.
I like the new avatar, Tim. You should put a slash through it, though since you don't have a CEL.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 01-24-2006 at 11:36 AM.
01-24-2006, 11:47 AM
#22
Administrator
Maddog and MM could you take a gander at this thread please? could use some input https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-trouble-shooting-95/how-many-coil-problems-we-having-81408/ thanks,appreciate it!
and good work on the modified fueling- really excellent results
and good work on the modified fueling- really excellent results
01-24-2006, 03:29 PM
#23
Go Texas Longhorns!
Nice results guys. I'm glad you found a solution to the fuel side with the equipment you have on hand.
RG and I got my car driving on the Megasquirt with fuel only control (ignition was still PCM controlled, and we got it working with now CEL either)
How are you guys dealing with the ignition side? This is what really worries me, as far as boost on the Renesis goes. If you going for low boost, maybe its a non issue, but I would still want to back the ignition off a bit to be safe.
I'm not an emanage expert, but what ignition options do you have that the PCM can't fight back on?
RG and I got my car driving on the Megasquirt with fuel only control (ignition was still PCM controlled, and we got it working with now CEL either)
How are you guys dealing with the ignition side? This is what really worries me, as far as boost on the Renesis goes. If you going for low boost, maybe its a non issue, but I would still want to back the ignition off a bit to be safe.
I'm not an emanage expert, but what ignition options do you have that the PCM can't fight back on?
01-24-2006, 03:39 PM
#24
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Virginia/Maryland
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ignition is not a closed loop system. On most cars, the only method the PCM has to learn timing is through the knock sensor. When it experience knock it backs ignition timing at that point by a few degrees. As long as there is no knock though, the ecu should not adapt. I believe this holds true for the Renesis.
01-24-2006, 03:47 PM
#25
Administrator
what it takes away it can also give back- if the knock control gives back to much timing it could leave you with too much advance and send into dangerous situations during boost