S70-R

Members
  • Posts

    800
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by S70-R

  1. That is a big ouch but if you confirm there's no cylinder damage those will be great news! How would a skirt break like that. Defective? If the oil pressure relief valve was stuck (closed) you were supposed to have excessive pressure when revving the engine and normal pressure at idle I think. Right? But that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems more like it opens at low engine speeds when it shouldn't open (stuck open?). They would explain the rod bearings wear but would not explain the skirt issue. Maybe the broken skirt contaminated the oil causing the oil pressure problems through the pump and relief valve.
  2. Hussein, I'm really sorry about the situation. Situations like those are always hard to handle and to manage the feelings. But I agree with the other members. Get a temporarily replacement DD car and fix the XR. After so many years of effort and money creating such a unique car you shouldn't give up only because of a stupid piston/ring/rod/bearing, whatever. You have 99% of the hard job done in your car. I know it takes time and effort but you just need to open the engine and check the damage first and you have the knowledge and skills to do it yourself. If you hadn't it would be a much harder task. If there's no cylinder damage that's "easy", just replace the rod/bearings or piston/rings, whatever created the problem and try to evaluate what caused it so it won't happen again. Even if you need to rebore it or put new sleeves on it, go for it. Like I said, 99% of the hard work you have already done on your car so get the strenght to fix it and get it running again. I'm sure you will be pretty happy to have the XR running strong again and I also think that if you go with other route you'll probably regret of not having it fixed Parting out the car would also takes you a lot of time, effort and dedication (not to talk about loosing at least 50% of the investments you made on your car). And it wouldn't be easy from an emotional point of view as well. So, good luck and I'm sure you can do it! You have our support. Go for it!
  3. Welcome. Please read Avinitlarge's post again. Avinitlarge's friend has a S60R engine on his 850R but he has only a 19T turbo, not the K24 turbo that equiped the S60R. The 19T flows less than a K24. The 19T equipped the 99/00 S/V70R's which produced 250bhp stock so 316hp from 250hp is a 66hp gain! Not that low at all. I'm running a GTX2867R and I'm now really close to 400bhp. Many other members are above 400bhp but this thread is not meant to measure the power. It is about map tunning.
  4. 316hp sounds about the maximum we can extract from the 18/19T without the help of meth etc. The torque curve is very nice/flat until 5000rpm because you are only hitting about 430Nm but you are supposed to be able to extract a bit more of torque at mid rpm if you want, around 20-40Nm more. Of course, in that case, from 4500rpm you would see a downhill torque curve (instead of from 5000rpm). However, I think you can only extract that more torque if the intercooler and piping is improved/enlarged as well as the turbo intake pipe.
  5. Sorry, my bad. That is indeed the correct formula. It is the same as ((X*0.01953125)*2)+10 When doing the math where I put the 0.5 it is 2. 2 is basically 10AFR range / 5v. According to the pinout the A19 is: "Signal (-) rear heated oxygen sensor". A18 is: "Signal ground sensor (measured to the battery negative terminal)" So, A19 doesn't seem to be appropriate really. Actually your A19 is connected to nothing I guess.
  6. I dont know if Piet uses the Spartan2 but that formula is not the same as the one I've put. I'm not an electronic/electric geek but I think that the ground would not make such a difference in terms of dumping huge amount of fuel. It would differ only sightly I guess. Try the formula I put.
  7. By the way. it would be nice to get a feedback from you about the spartan2, especially when compared to the AEM. I may be considering replacing my innovate lc-2. AEM or Spartan, one of these would be the choice most likely.
  8. Hussein, I don't use Spartan but from what I could search the Spartan2 with the LSU4.9 has a 10-20AFR range corresponding to a linear 0v-5v. So, in this case I think the conversion factor would be (for the tank pressure or rear o2 channels): ((X*0.01953125)*0.5)+10 Try it
  9. What do you really mean by flat in this case? Can you describe the symptoms a bit more please.
  10. Hussein, I'm using Tunerpro with windows 8.1. No issues at all
  11. The load mod is great! Well done guys. When using a load mod bin, apart from rescaling the load axis (and of course tune for it), is there something else that we need to do? Hussein, just by curiosity, 16 is the highest load you are getting at the moment?
  12. Yes for light loads its the best method of course.
  13. Yes, I understand that. For me, having to bring the laptop with me a few times when I want to tune is as simple as taking my wallet. There's no big deal with it. Anyway, for me that wouldn't work as I wouldn't have the patience to tune for instance a new turbo within 1 month or something like that. To tune high loads/WOT, having the laptop is better because you can immediately change whatever you need, boost, ignition, fuel, etc. It would be a nightmare to tune for a new turbo (for instance) doing a change per day. It's like the same as to have to get back home to take the ECU out and flash it (like if we haven't the ostrich). To tune light loads having daily logs would be better for sure but usually light loads are not critical as high loads. I'm just giving my personal opinion I think that's a good improvement but I still prefer the laptop method. Don't get me wrong. Keep the good work.
  14. That's interesting but I think the laptop is still the most productive way if you are really interested to tune the car within a few hours and not a few days/weeks.
  15. Which "18" psi boost map is that? And are you talking about the TCV map and/or target load map? A "18 psi map" for a car may not translate into 18 psi in another car. Apart from boost leaks, things such as what kind of turbo you have, what spring rate your WG actuator has, what CBV you have etc leads to different boost even with the same map. You don't need to bypass the stock system. The stock system is perfectly able to handle high boost levels. For instance with my 20T I was having 22/23psi. Of course after 5800rpm or so it couldn't do more than 18psi (that's a turbo limitation).
  16. I have successfully got the pins out from a junkyard socket and put them in my car's socket. To put it back in place was pretty easy. Just slide them inside the hole and they will lock. To firstly remove them is a really nightmare. What I did was a complete strip of the plastic around the pins. Of course the socket is not usable anymore but I got it from a junkyard only for that purpose, so not problem about that for me.
  17. Paul, that table reduces the tcv table. In other words reduces boost as the ambient temp gets lower. I believe it does it not to reduce exactly load but to reduce torque output in lower temperatures as lower temps result in higher torque.
  18. Yes but that will happen with or without the p-part bin as our ECU's have not any proper IAT sensor and/or EGT sensor. That's also the reason why I talked about an ignition by gear bin for 2 months ago or so because at extended WOT pulls in the higher gears and higher rpms we'll have more thermal stress thus probably the need to reduce timing a bit.
  19. But why driving uphill with extra passengers would mean heavier load, meaning load mass airflow/(RPM*InjectorConstant) and not meaning mechanical load/stress, if not as a result of increased boost? I understand the engine may be subject to bigger mechanical load/stress driving uphill but other than as a result of increased boost (as the turbo has more time to spool) I can't see why load inside the cylinders would be bigger. What you say has logic if driving uphill with extra passengers means higher boost, otherwise, if boost can be maintained, I can't see how you would increase load. In other words, if boost is maintained, how will airmass be higher causing a higher load?
  20. I don't know if you wanted to say something more or if something went crazy with your pc/phone. I perfectly understand the advantages of the load system but sometimes (and depends on the situations we drive our cars in) the p-part bin will be enough considering the different conditions may not lead to big/significant load differences. That's my only point. Of course the load system will always be the most accurate and the safest. I should myself move to the non p-part bin when running the gtx2867r, not only because I'll be exceeding 12.24 load all the time (so I need to rescale MAF table first to decrease calculated load) but also because as my engine will be running on its limits the engine will not be so tolerant about load changes.
  21. I talked about rescaling MAF table in order to decrease calculated load so you are not hitting full load cells all the time but then we also need to change all the fuel and ignition accordingly. I didn't talk about rescale the load scale itself. Of course rescale the load scale is something basic and should be done at the beginning. With a non p-part bin, once you can't insert any target load higher than 12.24, I believe you can't exceed a real load higher than 12.24, unless the TCV map is completely different from what the target load requires but in that case that's almost a p-part bin working. I can be wrong once I never used a non p-part bin. If you don't have boost leaks and if you are not driving every day in really different conditions (such as one day driving at 2.000meters high, 0ºC and the other day driving at sea level with 30ºC) the p-part bin will work great and is simple. The only factors that will influence the difference in loads will be temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity and altitude. It seems to be a lot of variables yes. However, its effect in air mass (thus in load) are not so drastic that your car will behave competely different from one day to another day. Nonetheless if you drive and go WOT your tuned car everyday in completely different conditions so yes, a non p-part bin would be better. But hey, note that in completely different conditions at least ignition advance should also be adjusted, unless you run really conservative ignition all the time. A difference of 5-10hp or 10-15Nm during a whole winter season or a whole summer season is not that big IMO. Furthermore, if you rescale your MAF table in order to not hit full load cells all the time and if you tune those full load cells well, you'll be completely safe in case the weather and altitude conditions lead to higher loads. I would however recomend to have 2 different tunes. One for winter and one for the summer specially because of intake temps so mainly fuel and ignition should be ajusted. Probably also the boost if needed. If using p-part bin is "so bad" from a tuning perspective, so would be all the tunes relying on a MBC or EBC, including lookforjoe tunes for instance as he uses an EBC. I drive my car mainly in the same areas (almost all of them at sea level or only a few hundread meters above sea level) and the only different conditions are weather conditions. However, those conditions will only have a significant impact on load if we are talking winter vs summer.
  22. Why not to simply use the p-part bin (TCV map only)? I've been using it since the beginning. And for those exceding 12.24 of load like I was exceding I think it's a requirement to use the p-part bin, unless you rescale your maf table and all of your fueling and ignition maps accordingly. p-part bin works great for 99% of the situations I guess.
  23. Has someone already noticed the need of retuning the ignition map (on full load cells) after replacing some old ignition parts or the total ignition system (wires, coil, spark plugs, rotor, cap...)? 2 months ago when I was still using the 18T I replaced the entire ignition system because mine was already done (I was having huge backfires on load). As soon as I replaced it (and I didn't change anything else - and the tune was the same) I got rid of the backfires of course but I immediately started to get more knock. I had to reduce timing at WOT by 2-3 degrees to get free of the knock. After retuning the timing map, the performance of the car was exactly the same as before and the dyno runs show that. I dynoed the car before and after ignition system replacement. I didnt do that on purpose. It just happened that way, it was a coincidence. It seems that old ignition parts will lead to a bit later spark and/or richer burnt mixture (due to the inability of the old parts to fully burn the mixture). This means with old ignition parts we can run more timing (because the effective timing will be a bit later/slower) With new parts the effective timing will be probably on spot thus the timing should be reduced if the car was previously tuned with older ignition parts. This seems to have some logic I think but 2-3 degrees is quite a bit I believe. Prior to replacement I was running between 9-12 degrees ignition advance in the midrange. After replacement I had to reduce to 7.5-10. I am just curious if anyone experienced this as well. Running 7.5 degrees in the midrange doesn't give much more room to increase load but this is with TD04 turbos so I believe their restrictive hotside and the hotter air coming from the compressor will never allow to run higher timing.
  24. Yes Piet. I was using my M4.4 ostrich ECU to tune it...