Ignition only table?

Moderator: Tom Notch

Post Reply
User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignotion only table?

Post by andy198712 » Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:54 pm

at WOT mine is in and around 95......

i dont really know what would happen, any ideas? interesting point

User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 21790
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Van Alstyne, Texas

Re: Ignotion only table?

Post by Piledriver » Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:04 pm

Steve Arndt wrote:What happens when you hit a cell over 100 Kpa with the map stopping at 100? Does it just continue with the highest known value?
I'm naturally aspirated, and hit well over 105 Kpa during low 90 Kpa barometric conditions. At sea level I would be touching into 115 Kpa cells.
Yes.
On MS it uses the last row for anything beyond it, so for example the leftmost column is your base fuel for cranking.
(use: playing with that, cranking fuel% and base timing is what you tune to make it very stall resistant)

On MS2-extra v3.3+ (may be in 3.21) and MS3 there is an option to do "MAP averaging" (high rate oversampling +averaging) vs. timed sampling, makes tuning MUCH easier, with fixed timed sampling the resonance caused my MAP to go from ~112 KPA to 85 KPA in ~250 RPM, them slowly ramped up to 105 by redline.

MS3 also has a table for timed sampling vs. RPM, haven't tried that yet, as the averaging works peachy.
I, for one, regularly embrace our new robot overlords, as I am the guy fixing the robots...

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignotion only table?

Post by andy198712 » Sun Sep 02, 2012 4:26 pm

good to know, i was worried the world would end if i went off the end of the table rpm wise lol not that my 1200 can rev that far! but will let me fine tune further :)

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignotion only table?

Post by andy198712 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:35 am

38.52MPG!!

UKLuke72
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: Ignotion only table?

Post by UKLuke72 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:07 pm

I've just found this thread, it's made some good reading.
Thanks :)

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignotion only table?

Post by andy198712 » Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:50 am

UKLuke72 wrote:I've just found this thread, it's made some good reading.
Thanks :)

cheers bud! been good, especially with the price of fuel over here!!

UKLuke72
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: Ignotion only table?

Post by UKLuke72 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:14 pm

andy198712 wrote:
UKLuke72 wrote:I've just found this thread, it's made some good reading.
Thanks :)

cheers bud! been good, especially with the price of fuel over here!!
I daren't look anymore, I need it so essentially I'll pay for it end of story :roll:

quick translation from £6.37/imp.gallon = $8.47/US gallon

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignotion only table?

Post by andy198712 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:07 pm

UKLuke72 wrote:
andy198712 wrote:
UKLuke72 wrote:I've just found this thread, it's made some good reading.
Thanks :)

cheers bud! been good, especially with the price of fuel over here!!
I daren't look anymore, I need it so essentially I'll pay for it end of story :roll:

quick translation from £6.37/imp.gallon = $8.47/US gallon

Same! i dont bother to look at the price, costs me about £50 to fill up my beetle, but i try not to notice lol

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignition only table?

Post by andy198712 » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:45 pm

38.58mpg....

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignition only table?

Post by andy198712 » Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:42 pm

37.13 MPG

Been using my eberspacher a bit....

User avatar
supaninja
Posts: 1658
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:48 pm
Location: Houston/Corpus Christi

Re: Ignition only table?

Post by supaninja » Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:14 pm

Awesome numbers Andy, I am jealous!
Image
'65 notch w/ a squirted type 4
http://supaninjanick.wordpress.com/
'68 "Zombie Response Vehicle" Westy
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=140387

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignition only table?

Post by andy198712 » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:47 pm

these are UK numbers and in a slow 1200 bug :lol: i'd happily loose 7-8mpg to have a fast engine!

i've still not even checked the tyre psi's! which is pretty rubbish of me.

found your blog so interesting! i'm thinking of goin the same route with TBi's :)

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignition only table?

Post by andy198712 » Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:41 pm

38.44mpg

Desperate to make 40 lol

Might try the super unleaded...... That or buy a wide band

User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 21790
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Van Alstyne, Texas

Re: Ignition only table?

Post by Piledriver » Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:37 pm

A set of low rolling resistance tires may be in your future, and they DO make them in narrow 15" sizes.

If faced with only putting 2 on, put them on the front (if same or narrower than rears) as driven wheels allegedly have ~no rolling resistance.
(Or at least that was AUDIs theory at one point, came up when they developed the UrQuattros, and they still went JUST as fast as 2WD despite the increased drivetrain losses)

I have just about gotten back to ~35 MPG (US) with my setup (went from MS2>MS3+changing WB setups) and the next step is going to be a 914 5 speed or LRR tires. or both, when the tires are in need of replacement.

Tire pressures and wheel alignment really start to be critical once you are trying for >35 MPG.

14point7.com has a new $99(OK, $105 this week) sealed analog-only flying lead WB system that just came out.
...including sensor.
I, for one, regularly embrace our new robot overlords, as I am the guy fixing the robots...

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1601
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Ignition only table?

Post by andy198712 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:02 pm



this is from cold, no throttle :)

Post Reply