S2000 Engine Management Engine management topics, map and advice.

New Flash Pro User

Thread Tools
 
Old Jan 12, 2010 | 10:57 AM
  #31  
Gernby's Avatar
Former Sponsor
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,526
Likes: 19
Default

Originally Posted by alSpeed2k,Jan 12 2010, 01:29 PM
^The most dramatic change seems to be the 60-80 run. Is the testpipe 63mm or 70mm? Did you do a 60-80 run totally stock?
I'm all for real world tests, but I'd like to know more about how the 60-80 tests were done. Were they done on the same day from the same exact spot on the same road in the same direction with the same amount of weight (and gasoline) with the wind speed and direction the same and with the top in the same position (up or down)?
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2010 | 11:35 AM
  #32  
crazysupratt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,624
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by gernby,Jan 12 2010, 12:57 PM
I'm all for real world tests, but I'd like to know more about how the 60-80 tests were done. Were they done on the same day from the same exact spot on the same road in the same direction with the same amount of weight (and gasoline) with the wind speed and direction the same and with the top in the same position (up or down)?
haha let me remember if i had In and Out that day versus McDonald that day. I have to remember if I drank 2 liter of water that day vs 1 liter of water I drank last night. Did I go to the bathroom before I did the run or not. I believe there was a bunch of cows when I did that and they all farted which created a lot of wind vs last night when there were no cows farting Haha...I'm just kidding.

It was done on the same road. I used the gtech to measure it as that is the instrument used on both occassion. It measure 1/4, 0-60, 0-70, 0-80, 30-50, 50-70, etc...Gas was about the same. It was done on different days so yes the result will be different. Temp was off as well. I'm just stating the data and I know there are a lot of variables in the equation. I'm just using it as information, nothing more and nothing less. Take it for what its worth
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2010 | 12:11 PM
  #33  
alSpeed2k's Avatar
Community Organizer
15 Year Member
Photogenic
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,599
Likes: 79
From: The 604
Default

I'm not surprised by the improvement b/c the Hondata is supposed to help out the most in the mid-range. What was stock 60-80 crazysupratt?
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2010 | 12:20 PM
  #34  
Gernby's Avatar
Former Sponsor
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,526
Likes: 19
Default

I understand that you are just reporting the info. However, I don't think it would be possible for an intake and tune to genete an extra 25 ft-lbs across the whole 60-80 MPH range, which is what I think would be required to reduce the accelleration time that much.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2010 | 12:29 PM
  #35  
crazysupratt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,624
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by alSpeed2k,Jan 12 2010, 02:11 PM
I'm not surprised by the improvement b/c the Hondata is supposed to help out the most in the mid-range. What was stock 60-80 crazysupratt?
i will look and report back later on tonight as far as test pipe goes, i have a 70mm
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2010 | 01:13 AM
  #36  
crazysupratt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,624
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by alSpeed2k,Jan 12 2010, 02:11 PM
I'm not surprised by the improvement b/c the Hondata is supposed to help out the most in the mid-range. What was stock 60-80 crazysupratt?
i thought i did a run when I was completely stock but can't find the log files.

i did find my runs when I had my ap1 with test pipe and intake though

ill see about uploading them
Reply
Old Jan 13, 2010 | 03:24 PM
  #37  
EliteTuning's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Default

Originally Posted by gernby,Jan 12 2010, 01:20 PM
I understand that you are just reporting the info. However, I don't think it would be possible for an intake and tune to genete an extra 25 ft-lbs across the whole 60-80 MPH range, which is what I think would be required to reduce the accelleration time that much.
I've seen it happen after a tune.
Reply
Old Jan 14, 2010 | 04:51 AM
  #38  
Gernby's Avatar
Former Sponsor
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,526
Likes: 19
Default

Originally Posted by EliteTuning,Jan 13 2010, 06:24 PM
I've seen it happen after a tune.
On an NA S2000?
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2010 | 01:56 PM
  #39  
crazysupratt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,624
Likes: 0
Default

With the latest info on which A/F reading to use in FlashPro, I have reverted back to using the A:F instead of the A:F corrected to tune the car. I loaded back the injen calibration and start the WOT tunning. I think I am happy from 5200-8500 tune. I just need to work on 4k to 5k range to flatten it out a bit.


Reply
Old Jan 22, 2010 | 02:00 PM
  #40  
crazysupratt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,624
Likes: 0
Default

I notice that around 3500- 3900 RPM it goes lean and also around 4900 - 5300 RPM.

I'm wondering if I put some 100 octane in the car and advance timing a little bit, would it be beneficial. Of course I will do this on the dyno first.

Anyways, if you guys have maps, post them up.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:43 PM.