VR4 RS vs Aspec timing maps
- Thread starter Jazz9
- Start date
Help Support 4GTuner:
ozyvr4
Well-Known Member
That is quite interestting. I did notice when I fitted my Meek chip that the ca felt a little lazy in the mid range rpm.
I thought it was just the cyclone not working.
I thought it was just the cyclone not working.
ozyvr4
Well-Known Member
That fuel table looks like what my wideband was showing, especially @ 12-15psi. Rich!!!!!!!!!!
Please tell me that's not an actual "meek chip" - as in an upgrade from the standard! That's (from memory) stock shitty Aspec 91 octane AFR's! Lazy! Maybe I should get my act together and start offering Aspec chips. I'm not 100% certain but the timing looks a bit more agressive than stock but I'd have to check.
Where did you get the RS maps from?
The load cells are actually based on airflow NOT boost, so that scale is not exactly accurate. But yes, once the scale is exceeded (not hard to do after winding the boost up) the very top load cells are just used for anything over that. You can write in extended maps that give you roughly twice the scale, but half the resolution. You can get around that and make the tables as big as you want but that gets a bit more tricky. You can pretty much do whatever you want if you can get your head around the code and the calculations, I've had an ostrich in my car since before ECM link became cheaper and more mainstream with "lite" options and have built in a lot of features like the extended maps, AC cutout, no lift, using the stock boost guage for knock etc. I started looking at rotational idle but didn't get around to perfecting it/finishing it.
Where did you get the RS maps from?
The load cells are actually based on airflow NOT boost, so that scale is not exactly accurate. But yes, once the scale is exceeded (not hard to do after winding the boost up) the very top load cells are just used for anything over that. You can write in extended maps that give you roughly twice the scale, but half the resolution. You can get around that and make the tables as big as you want but that gets a bit more tricky. You can pretty much do whatever you want if you can get your head around the code and the calculations, I've had an ostrich in my car since before ECM link became cheaper and more mainstream with "lite" options and have built in a lot of features like the extended maps, AC cutout, no lift, using the stock boost guage for knock etc. I started looking at rotational idle but didn't get around to perfecting it/finishing it.
Just so everyone knows, Meek is not a "tuner" all he does is writes chips to suit mods, and throws an existing map on...
We went and got my mates car done at Meeks not so long ago, after we left the car was idling lean on 17/18 AFR and on WOT was too rich the wideband couldnt read it
We ended up taing it to someone else for a fine tune
Not putting Meek down, he's a good bloke and he gets the car running (just like a base map on a/m ecus) then take it to get a proper tune
We went and got my mates car done at Meeks not so long ago, after we left the car was idling lean on 17/18 AFR and on WOT was too rich the wideband couldnt read it
We ended up taing it to someone else for a fine tune
Not putting Meek down, he's a good bloke and he gets the car running (just like a base map on a/m ecus) then take it to get a proper tune
Don't get me wrong - you can't have the same tune to suit every car, but you can safe tune without being that rich. The stock maps are very lazy in the midrange and pig rich up top. I got an old marty chip waaaaaayy back with a 100% stock car and the difference was really noticeable. It's not too difficult to smooth the map over and give it better timing/AFR's. The stock Aspec tune won't actually run any better/more efficient on 98 octane fuel as it's got no headroom for it.
You might want to double check what you posted up there man. That meek chip you sent me has vastly different maps to the ones you've posted in relation to it. The values you have posted are from the stock E391 DSM 1g chip.
The AFR's on the meek chip are much smoother and leaner and closer to what I'd expect for a decent generic "safe" chip. The timing table on the meek one is a bit all over the shop though. It's far more agressive in places than the stock one, but also drops timing down in random places as well. I'd expect that's where someone may find the car a bit choppy/weird on the street. Looks pretty close on a standard sort of boost curve for a stock/16g turbo though, just the values outside that range are a bit random. Octane table is much the same.
The AFR's on the meek chip are much smoother and leaner and closer to what I'd expect for a decent generic "safe" chip. The timing table on the meek one is a bit all over the shop though. It's far more agressive in places than the stock one, but also drops timing down in random places as well. I'd expect that's where someone may find the car a bit choppy/weird on the street. Looks pretty close on a standard sort of boost curve for a stock/16g turbo though, just the values outside that range are a bit random. Octane table is much the same.
ozyvr4
Well-Known Member
If anyone can hook me up with a j-spec chip, i would be very keen.
I would be keen for a RS chip but with 055 MAF compensation.
I asked Razza , but he is not doing anymore.
I would be keen for a RS chip but with 055 MAF compensation.
I asked Razza , but he is not doing anymore.
Do your self a favour and use the ECMTuning chip... way more convenient to use. And I used to write these eprom chips..
Look, just to make this clear, that is NOT the meek map. It's a 100% dead stock E931 EEPROM from a 1g DSM which is pretty much identical to the E943 EEPROM from a USDM/ADM GVR4. The meek fuel map that Jazz9 sent me is much more on par with something I'd recommend as a decent safe map. The timing map IMO is far too agressive through the "normal" powerband for a small/mid sized turbo and is a bit all over the shop. I'll put them up as well as the octane table so you can have a gander. If you were going to take something from all the combinations as is, I'd use the meek fuel map with the stock timing map, unless you plan on running E85 or octane boost or something for the RS maps as they are a bit too agressive on boost for pump fuel. At least that's my experience.
EDIT - After having a closer look the timing map is about on par through the "normal" powerband for a small/mid sized turbo and close to my old non-extended map for my car, but outside that it's a bit all over the shop which would make the "getting onto" boost experience seem sluggish. It's a bit of a weird one but can't test it for myself at the moment.
OK, here it is. This is in the bin file that Jazz9 emailed me as the meek chip. Just want to stress I don't have any brand loyalty, but at least the AFR's are much better than stock. The timing isn't what I would do, but that's just me. I'm assuming all the maps are not extended and are built off the stock scale, same as the rest of the maps in the thread so far. I've used a different XDF to remove the "boost" reading as it's just confusing and innacurate unless you are running a MAP based tune (usually referred to speed density when dealing with stock ecu etc AFAIK). The load cells are based on airflow read from the MAF sensor, not boost and the standard maps will top out somewhere between 12-15psi on a 14b, at least from my experience. Anything over that is taken as the last (highest) load cell.
The maps are kinda "upside down" but same as the rest in the thread. I usually have them up the other way, buuut that seems to be the norm for TunerPro and other maps I've seen here and there.
The maps are kinda "upside down" but same as the rest in the thread. I usually have them up the other way, buuut that seems to be the norm for TunerPro and other maps I've seen here and there.
They aren't, that's my point. There is no manifold vacuum/pressure sensor on a stock VR4. The load is determined by airflow through the AFM. kpa is just another unit of measurement for pressure same as PSI and BAR. I think there's a g/rev value for them, but I'd have to track them down, I only have the values for an extended map on hand...
EDIT - Found easier than I thought. They SHOULD be accurate but the values can change slightly with MAF compensation etc, but the goal is obviously to stay close as possible so the ECU behaves like it should.
