So went down to Cayuga Friday night after flashing the ECU with the 91 tune to see what the car could do.
First thing I found out was that my reaction times are pretty sad, my best was a .723 :ph34r:
Then my best time was only a 17.335, which marked my only kill of the night of the five paired runs I took (A Honda Civic representing "Th3 Sticker N4tion" :lol:)
One thing I did notice that the track seemed reluctant to give grip, not that the tires or traction control kicked in but I was hardly able to get the car much past 120km/h before I had to haul it down to a stop (On the way home I had to -cough- test the car to see if the tune had bunged something, needless to say the car's top end was much higher than 120km/h)
So am I expecting too much with the mods I've done? (Intake, exhaust, chip on an autobox 2.0 Duratec) or am I missing something?
NefCanuck
Im gonna be taking mine to the strip after I install my 2.5 " exhaust gonna see what it can do . What chip you got ?
zx5power,Jul 9 2007, 09:13 AM Wrote:Im gonna be taking mine to the strip after I install my 2.5 " exhaust gonna see what it can do . What chip you got ?
[right][snapback]243499[/snapback][/right]
Xcal 2 and a 91 tune from FS
NefCanuck
For some reason I thought there was no xcal for duratec guess I was wrong lol good to know , what it run you ?
No, you should be in solid 16s territory for what you have and what you've already put down at the wheels before the X-Cal2. I'd wager with a good launch and everything running perfect you'd be in the low 16s, really.
Also, turn off TC (it horribly bogs you) and brake-torque to about 2000 RPMs or so (I think the stall on the stock torque converter is 2400 or so). If your all-seasons aren't pooched, you should hook and go fairly well.
How much gas was in the tank Daniel? Did Randy firm up your shifts and raise the shift points? The 2.0L will easily pull to redline in 2nd without hurting your accel. rate much.
NefCanuck,Jul 9 2007, 08:06 AM Wrote:So went down to Cayuga Friday night after flashing the ECU with the 91 tune to see what the car could do....... or am I missing something?
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]243496[/snapback][/right]
ECU needs time to learn, if you had flashed it the night before and done some "spirited" driving the same evening you may have gone 1/10 or 2/10's faster the following night at the track....also the first time at the track can be an eye opener. Much different trying to launch on a bunch of hot rubber then on a ususal street/highway. Just IMHO anyway.
NOS2Go4Me,Jul 9 2007, 09:42 AM Wrote:No, you should be in solid 16s territory for what you have and what you've already put down at the wheels before the X-Cal2. I'd wager with a good launch and everything running perfect you'd be in the low 16s, really.
Also, turn off TC (it horribly bogs you) and brake-torque to about 2000 RPMs or so (I think the stall on the stock torque converter is 2400 or so). If your all-seasons aren't pooched, you should hook and go fairly well.
How much gas was in the tank Daniel? Did Randy firm up your shifts and raise the shift points? The 2.0L will easily pull to redline in 2nd without hurting your accel. rate much.
[right][snapback]243506[/snapback][/right]
Okay, so I was right in thinking it was the "
nut behind the wheel" that was partially responsible for the horrific ET's.
Funny thing is that I noticed no difference either way (TC off or on) light never kicked in during the runs when the TC was on and there was no bogging apparent as I was going down the track.
The A/S are barely 6 months old and are rated to 100,000km, so pooched they could not be ;)
Fuel level was about 1/2 as indicated. Now AFAIK the shift points were raised but I didn't actually flash to firm up shift points with the tune until after talking to Torradan (The Xcal 2 interface isn't horribly enlightining on what option does what) so I had only flashed with the base 91 tune at that point and had less than 100km on it by the time I got to Cayuga.
I'll be running around with the reflashed ECU for at least a week before trying again @ Cayuga (and wearing long pants this time, apparently cargo shorts are a no no but I never knew that :rolleyes:)
NefCanuck
SVT ZX3,Jul 9 2007, 09:48 AM Wrote:NefCanuck,Jul 9 2007, 08:06 AM Wrote:So went down to Cayuga Friday night after flashing the ECU with the 91 tune to see what the car could do....... or am I missing something?
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]243496[/snapback][/right]
ECU needs time to learn, if you had flashed it the night before and done some "spirited" driving the same evening you may have gone 1/10 or 2/10's faster the following night at the track....also the first time at the track can be an eye opener. Much different trying to launch on a bunch of hot rubber then on a ususal street/highway. Just IMHO anyway.
[right][snapback]243509[/snapback][/right]
Ah, I see... I only had 100km on the reflashed ECU before I got to Cayuga so there was likely not enough data complied to change much (I only did the spirited stuff
after Cayuga because of my poor performance there and thinking that somehow the tune was to blame :P)
I didn't really brake torque to launch. I just went brake -> gas from idle, car launched okay as long as I remembered
not to let the wheels touch the water they put out. Accidentially did that during one run and had the TC on.... hello Slip City :lol:
NefCanuck
I'm going through the same thing with my Xcal2 and 91 tune.
But to SVT_ZX3's point I wonder if the ECU does any "learning" at WOT. My understanding is that the baseline tune remains the same for WOT (A/F, timing, etc) regardless of what the ECU "learns" during day to day driving ... and so if the base line tune was inherently rich (for example) it would stay that way at WOT regardless how much time had elapsed.
My understanding is that you have to do some datalogging to read the settings at WOT, and then adjust the base line tune accordingly, in order to optimize the tune at WOT.
Then again, I could have this all horribly wrong.
NefCanuck,Jul 9 2007, 12:27 PM Wrote:SVT ZX3,Jul 9 2007, 09:48 AM Wrote:NefCanuck,Jul 9 2007, 08:06 AM Wrote:So went down to Cayuga Friday night after flashing the ECU with the 91 tune to see what the car could do....... or am I missing something?
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]243496[/snapback][/right]
ECU needs time to learn, if you had flashed it the night before and done some "spirited" driving the same evening you may have gone 1/10 or 2/10's faster the following night at the track....also the first time at the track can be an eye opener. Much different trying to launch on a bunch of hot rubber then on a ususal street/highway. Just IMHO anyway.
[right][snapback]243509[/snapback][/right]
Ah, I see... I only had 100km on the reflashed ECU before I got to Cayuga so there was likely not enough data complied to change much (I only did the spirited stuff after Cayuga because of my poor performance there and thinking that somehow the tune was to blame :P)
I didn't really brake torque to launch. I just went brake -> gas from idle, car launched okay as long as I remembered not to let the wheels touch the water they put out. Accidentially did that during one run and had the TC on.... hello Slip City :lol:
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]243523[/snapback][/right]
The ECU does not learn any parameters @ WOT, the learning will occur durring day to day driving. Flashing your car right before a run won't change anything than doing it 100km before a run.
AFAIK, Randy adjusts everything by hand for WOT as well as day-to-day driving of the car. That's the whole point of the X-Cal2, otherwise what would be the point? Well, he has a "stock" tune now that he puts out that depends on the options you want... kind of like building something with Lego - you know exactly what piece does, time after time.
As far as the shift firmness, you shouldn't have to play with anything. If it was part of the tune you requested, it should already be set by Randy... no? I know it's a user-adjustable parameter in ther,e but I wouldn't go mucking about without at least firing Randy / Vic(k?) an email first to ask what the safe ranges are and what increment/decrement actually do. They're numeric values but they don't correlate to PSI or anything else directly IIRC. The number is a "setting", each value corresponds to a certain firmness.
Ken - I just re-read your post... I've never heard of people datalogging to get "proper" WOT tunes before from Randy - I'll check into that.
Well, I can tell you this NOS, after reflashing with a number for each shift this time, I can definitely feel and see the difference on the tach.
Left alone the car would continue to shift at around 2,500RPM (IIRC) even when matted. Boosted the shift firmness in all gears by 20% and now the shifts occur much later. Pushed to the floor the car will shift at 6,200RPM now.
Definitely would have made a difference at Cayuga I think...
NefCanuck
Hi Adam ... couple of updates to a number of posts:
AFAIK the user adjustable parameters for XCal 2 are not so much to get a "proper" tune, but more in the sense of "fine" tuning ... hence the ability to datalog as well as the ability to vary the timing and the A/F by a few degrees or by a few percentage points.
I've been playing with the timing and A/F parameters over the last couple of weeks, and although it's tough to measure any performance gains (it feels very strong - same as Randy's tune) I have been able to significantly improve my fuel economy and the tailpipe doesn't get so sooty. I'm at the point now where my 91 octane tune, modified ever so slightly be me, gets me a combined city/highway 490 - 510 km per tank - and that's up from my usual 410 to 430 km.
I'm very happy with my tune from Randy ... however, there's no two vehicles going to be identical and then there's differences in altitude, fuel quality, etc ... it make sense that Randy's tunes (and anybody else's provided at a distance) would be conservative, even as they are modifying the stock tune. So I don't think it's a knock against Randy or any other tuner to suggest that even their tunes could be "fine tuned."
BRAKES
Somewhere along the line during '07, they changed the part number for the Focus front brake rotor ... and they do not as yet even have a comparable Motorcraft number. My ZXW, built Nov. 1, 2006, takes the new rotor - quite pricey at 120 each (remember, no Brembo avail) - however, as it turns out I do get a 15% discount at Dixie and furthermore, because I'm also a Ltd. company, I don't pay PST; so I ended up paying 108 each all in. And no, the parts guy had no clue what the difference is between early '07 rotors and the later ones - this was the first he'd heard of it.
It does look however that the pad specification is the same for all '05 - '07 (FMSI #D1044 is the shape) which is the same as Mazda3 and Volvo S40 - so aftermarket pads for our cars should be no problem.
Cheers ........... Ken.
NOS2Go4Me,Jul 9 2007, 10:21 PM Wrote:AFAIK, Randy adjusts everything by hand for WOT as well as day-to-day driving of the car. That's the whole point of the X-Cal2, otherwise what would be the point? Well, he has a "stock" tune now that he puts out that depends on the options you want... kind of like building something with Lego - you know exactly what piece does, time after time.
As far as the shift firmness, you shouldn't have to play with anything. If it was part of the tune you requested, it should already be set by Randy... no? I know it's a user-adjustable parameter in ther,e but I wouldn't go mucking about without at least firing Randy / Vic(k?) an email first to ask what the safe ranges are and what increment/decrement actually do. They're numeric values but they don't correlate to PSI or anything else directly IIRC. The number is a "setting", each value corresponds to a certain firmness.
Ken - I just re-read your post... I've never heard of people datalogging to get "proper" WOT tunes before from Randy - I'll check into that.
[right][snapback]243557[/snapback][/right]
2,500 sounds really low ... my wife's stock Zetec at WOT will shift at what looks to be 5,800 RPM, and I can artificially make it even higher in 1st and second using the shift lever. I can't imagine it being much different for the Duratec.
BTW - if you need anything from Ford for Dunnville, let me know and I can get you a decent discount at Dixie.
NefCanuck,Jul 9 2007, 10:42 PM Wrote:Well, I can tell you this NOS, after reflashing with a number for each shift this time, I can definitely feel and see the difference on the tach.
Left alone the car would continue to shift at around 2,500RPM (IIRC) even when matted. Boosted the shift firmness in all gears by 20% and now the shifts occur much later. Pushed to the floor the car will shift at 6,200RPM now.
Definitely would have made a difference at Cayuga I think...
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]243559[/snapback][/right]
ZTWsquared,Jul 9 2007, 10:01 PM Wrote:Hi Adam ... couple of updates to a number of posts:
AFAIK the user adjustable parameters for XCal 2 are not so much to get a "proper" tune, but more in the sense of "fine" tuning ... hence the ability to datalog as well as the ability to vary the timing and the A/F by a few degrees or by a few percentage points.
I've been playing with the timing and A/F parameters over the last couple of weeks, and although it's tough to measure any performance gains (it feels very strong - same as Randy's tune) I have been able to significantly improve my fuel economy and the tailpipe doesn't get so sooty. I'm at the point now where my 91 octane tune, modified ever so slightly be me, gets me a combined city/highway 490 - 510 km per tank - and that's up from my usual 410 to 430 km.
[right][snapback]243562[/snapback][/right]
Interesting that you should mention sooty tailpipe because that was one thing I noticed quite quickly when the MBRP was first installed. Its a constant battle to keep the inside of the MBRP looking decent.
Maybe you can explain to me the ins & out of how to datalog so I can maybe tweak my tune to get rid of the sooty crapola that I'm constantly washing out at the car wash. The base tune as it stands is improving on the gas mileage somewhat, but I want to run a couple of tanks with the tune to get a better idea of by how much, of course A/C use is throwing the number askew as well...
NefCanuck
if your having traction problems drop your tire pressure to 15-18 psi, you have an auto so warming up the ties is out of the question.
dont look at reation time, it does no effect your 1/4 time, you could sit there for 5 seconds and still have the same 1/4 time. reation time is only important if your doing heads up racing. and when you at the tree never wait for green, always go on the last yellow.
next time you go down send me a pm, i live 20min from the track so i go as much as possible, and i want to try my new slicks out .
ECU needs time to learn, if you had flashed it the night before and done some "spirited" driving the same evening you may have gone 1/10 or 2/10's faster the following night at the track....
hardk0re,Jul 9 2007, 05:14 PM Wrote:The ECU does not learn any parameters @ WOT, the learning will occur durring day to day driving. Flashing your car right before a run won't change anything than doing it 100km before a run.
[right][snapback]243544[/snapback][/right]
Hmmm, my bad then. :huh: As I disclaimed "IMHO"
kamilk69,Jul 10 2007, 09:34 AM Wrote:if your having traction problems drop your tire pressure to 15-18 psi, you have an auto so warming up the ties is out of the question.
dont look at reation time, it does no effect your 1/4 time, you could sit there for 5 seconds and still have the same 1/4 time. reation time is only important if your doing heads up racing. and when you at the tree never wait for green, always go on the last yellow.
[right][snapback]243588[/snapback][/right]
He's right...reaction only matters if your doing heads up racing. What you want to look at if your 60ft stats...and try to get that lower...lower means your getting traction!! Traction is good on FWD! :lol: :P
And yeah...when Im at the tree, the clutch is popped on the last yellow light!
A few things to discuss re: shift points, and Ken, before I forget... thanks for clearing that up!
Daniel - your shift point for the ATX from 1st-2nd should be ~6250RPMs. I know the tuning software actually uses MPH increments to judge shift points. It would likely be easier to switch to the digital MPH speedo to get an accurate idea of what the stock shift point is and then make adjustments from there based on MPH vs. engine speed. My observed WOT stock 2-3 shift point is ~6000 RPMs. However, even my near-stock 2.0L will pull nicely to redline in 2nd and be over 120 KM/H by the time the shift is "called" by the shift lever.
The soot in the tailpipe is, from my understanding, too rich of a tune. If you're leaning it out WITH A/F readings saying you're ok... that's good. If you're just eliminating soot by adjusting fuel trims without reading A/F, you'll eventually detonate which is really not good. I didn't know you had a wideband installed Ken.
SVT_ZX3 - you're both right. WOT doesn't learn but does benefit from a flash the night before. The ECU only learns at settings between WOT and idle, but not inclusive of WOT.
I welcome corrections on anything I've FUBARed. :)
NOS2Go4Me,Jul 10 2007, 09:25 AM Wrote:The soot in the tailpipe is, from my understanding, too rich of a tune. If you're leaning it out WITH A/F readings saying you're ok... that's good. If you're just eliminating soot by adjusting fuel trims without reading A/F, you'll eventually detonate which is really not good. I didn't know you had a wideband installed Ken.
[right][snapback]243598[/snapback][/right]
Interesting, because I was actually getting the soot from the get go with the car (Only really noticed when the MBRP was instaled and the shiny bits went on) but the soot problem went away when I started using 91 octane about 6 weeks before getting the Xcal 2 and now the soot is coming back again.
Maybe the stock tune was an issue from the get go? :blink:
Now one issue is the fact that my city driving contains a fair amount of short distance driving (work is less than 3km away by car) could that also contribute to the soot? If so why did using 91 on the stock tune clear it up?
NefCanuck