so looking at both the closest on mikes is 1.82 bar to your 1.87 theres a average of 4 degrees more on steves table , but didnt the dyno print show steves doing 2bar+ or am i confused

 

Well all the damaged parts have now been identified and suitable replacements are on there way
I'll start from the bottom where the issue began
Sump , oil strainer , oil pump , oil pump drive , crankshaft , conrods , all crank bearings , complete gasket set , wrc headgasket , head bolts and last but by far the least the turbo the most expensive individual part by a clear margin !!!
I will be using Steve 4is begging bucket at ford fair so all donations welcome pmsl

 

Groan, Sorry, I must stop doing 9 things at once and read whats written.

In fact, sod it, I am going diving in the sunshine for the afternoon. Bye folks.

 

Flannigan hope this is the last of your problems

 

So do I mate lol cheers

 

right, got that, nice and simple explanaion

 

so there's now 3 of you using the bucket then?

how is that going to work? will steve be charging you by the hour or taking a 5 of your "earnings"

 

Well it comes down to needs at the end of the day and I think my need is greater than his pmsl

 

moonstone wants know if you would like to buy his old chip he needs the money

 

I also see what Tony is saying now as well. Basically you can choose the scaling for the MAP sensor and for a big turboed car, you would want the top line to be 3.1 bar - 3.2 absolute (2.1 - 2.2 bar boost pressure). Obviously for a smaller turbo car where the engine is never going to see that boost, you would use a different scale (to take full advantage of the limited number of mapping points available with the L8 ECU). From what I understand from what Tony is saying, the scale for the MAP sensor on Luke's chip stops at 2.87 bar absolute (1.87 bar boost pressure) AKA "the top line", which is the scale you would expect to see on a small turbo. Although you CAN extrapolate the boost curve to accomodate this, you would only normally do so above the end of the MAP sensor, as you can change the scaling to suit anything within the sensor's range.

So what Tony is suggesting is that a smaller turbo MAP sensor scale (and therefore ignition curve) has been cut and pasted into the file. Given the ignition values that Tony has posted up, this would make perfect sense and also looks like from 4500 onwards the ignition curve is from a map with a smaller turbo (where the boost tails off, so you can run more ignition).

I hope this clarifies things in layman's terms for peeps? I'm still not suggesting that the map is at fault, although the ignition curve is pretty aggressive, you would have to check the car on the road to see if it was experiencing any det, as the figures I have posted up are conservative ones, so the 7.4:1 compression may have been low enough to prevent the det.

 

also with Karls point about cars being richer on the dyno to the road which in my experience this is correct i like to have a look see at the fuel table because if the table was leaned off even a tad that 4 degrees would be deffo enough to make a engine det ?

 

HELLO !! you woke up

 

how can you put a price on "exhibit A"

 

Well If I ever run my car normally aspirated I'll give him a shout as that ignition table looks perfect pmsl

 

one more thing i need to know

why are you talking about 3.2 and then changing it to 2.2 bar? isn't this just confusing the issue even further or is there a reason for this?

unless you are using the negative vacuum to add to the bositive boost pressure? but unless the computer needs to see this how does that work?

thanks you

 

Mike, yes my understanding as well is that basically they have got a 1.87 max scale value on the map, so above that it will just flatline the fuelling.

Ie at 2.1 bar it will have exactly the same fuelling/timing as at 1.87 bar. Which cant possibly be correct for both boost values at once of course at that extra 3psi changes the optimum values.

 

Yes, the 3.2 is absolute pressure, the 2.2 is pressure versus atmospheric.

The ECU needs to see the 1 bar of vacuum so it can fuel down there as well (well techincally it needs to see from about -0.6 bar of boost, or 0.4 bar absolute as thats about as low as the engine will dip)

 

The MAP sensor always reads absolute pressure (which is atmospheric pressure plus boost pressure). As atmospheric pressure is 1 bar (zero positive pressure).

So a 3 bar MAP sensor measures atmospheric + 2 bar to give your 3 bar figure. Therefore the max it can read is 2 bar of boost (well actually it's a smidge over, but that will complicate things). Obviously a 2 bar MAP sensor only measures atmospheric + 1 bar boost, this is why a stage 1 engine should not run too far above 1 bar (again it can read a bit more than that, the figure is round down) when using the standard MAP sensor. Accordingly, the scaling is always done in absolute pressure, so you just subtract 1 to get the boost pressure. So when anyone refers to the 2.87 bar top line reading, this is what the MAP sensor is reading, and to get the actual boost pressure, subtracting 1 gives you 1.87 bar of boost.

Hope this clarifies?

 

You can extrapolate the fueling curve above this, as I have seen the paper graph that Ahmed refers to to do this, but as I stated, you would only normally do this when you go above the maximum reading of the MAP sensor. Obviously if you're running a T4, the scaling used should reflect (as much as possible) the range of pressure the engine is going to see. I agree that it isn't a good idea to use scaling for a small turbo on a big turbo.

However, I'm just trying to put all the information out there, so that people can actually understand rather than just jumping on the band wagon.

 

Er no, I clarified everything to get the full story .

 

you only need another 3 members and a van and you'll be solving mysteries all over the place

i always wondered why cars needed a 3 bar map sensor even when they were only going to be seeing less

 

I will beg to differ that you can get both values actually accurate when they are both seeing the same voltage from the map sensor, you'd end up with the lower one being rich in reality IMHO

But its academic to me, as personally i would just use the correct map sensor in the first place. (i realise with homologation etc thats not always an option, but for me personally it is)

 

So is the answer to why the engine blew down to the map now the figures from Tony have finally been put on here?

 

I still don't think you can say that 100% categorically.

All you can say is that the ignition values are higher than the conservative ones others might use and that it is "possible" that following the damage done by the FPR coming off, that they contributed to a catastrophic failure that "might" have not happened on a completely healthy engine.

The ONLY way to be sure would be to build an engine to the exact spec this one was and properly det check it in the car at somewhere like Bruntingthorpe.

Anything else is best guess speculation. And a wise tuner always said to me: TEST don't GUESS.....

 

Can we have the spec and final dyno graph of the engine with power, torque, boost and afr now please? (cba to find it all)

 

 

The map has been sent to karl. Mike thank you for you good explinations and honest opinoins.

The fact remains that it was mapped and did not det. Tony why is it such a hardship to post the pictures of the pistons ??

Also tony could i have your email as i wish to send you a copy of one of your 803 chips !

Chip you are correct when your over the top line then it will be richer as you have to map to your top boost pressure.

Key points are so far :

1.No one can actually say this file caused the engine to fail (yes tony this means you as well)

2.We all still want and need to see pictures of the pistons.

3.Karl now has the file for his findings

4. the lambda at 4250 rpm was 0.81 falling to0.80 at 5k falling to 0.79 at 5250 holding this to limiter

5.jay love debates but does not no what he is talking about ( joke jay ) lol

 

Posting pictures of the pistons. Is it possible to tell if the damage is det related or if it was due to a pipe coming off the fpr ? To a a non expert like myself i wouldnt be able to tell the difference. So what should be the difference IF Tony posts the pics?

 

Why didn't you then?

 

cheers pal hang it out left hang it out right lol

 

apparently old det looks old and new det looks fresh

but seeing sa i don't know what det lookslike, you could show me a pile of rice and i'd believe it was det

 

Even if pictures get posted and show its det that has killed the engine, that det could still have been caused by the FPR ultimately.


Could be a case of:
Engine has no det
FPR pipe comes off, engine goes lean and dets for a bit
The det nips the ringlands up on the rings, but all still seems ok from outside
The rings allow oil past
The oil lowers the det threshold of the charge in the chamber
Engine dets


Personally that seems a little unlikely to me, but it is potentially "possible" so I dont think we will EVER know for sure what killed it.



What we do know, is if the map only goes to 1.87 bar, despite the map sensor being able to go to just over 2 bar, and the car running just over 2 bar, then whoever decided the map was appropriate for that, made a mistake in doing so, wether it killed the engine or not, it still sounds like it was just fundamentally not correct.

 

Crikey still a load of waffle on here!!

And as said still no pics or anything to back up whats alleged!!

Well luke has sent map via email to karl and can confirm all the details that tony provided with the ignition table..

Luke is going to post up hp v afr v boost later when he can as tony or moonstone havnt still and then everyone can see what boost it was making at the points tony has mentioned..

Yes there is a little more spark in the moonstone map compared to the conservative figures that mike posted but as said every engine is different etc..


It will be so nice when all the guessers stop guessing and all the proof is here to see with hopefully a true independent opinion on the said map..




cheers danny

 

Chip there are literally loads of cars going around running over 2 bar on the same 1.87 top line..

There are cars running 2.3 + bar with a top line of 2.09 so no different there infact most cossies running over 2 bar on an old webber ecu with the same sofware wont have a top line to match..

I have literally 100s of maps to compare to on our pc and can show you how many have run more boost than the top line!!


cheers danny

 

This stands to be the most discussed topic on here since Mike R went all anal about TUV approval. Long live PF

 

This for me as well.

 

So posting pics is no more likely to give a staight answer to what happened than the figures Tony posted earlier? May as well bin the whole topic then!

 

Without seeing the pictures it is impossible to say whether they could or couldn't shed any light on the failure. They may reveal something significant or they may be as inconclusive as the rest of the speculation.

 

Then there are loads mapped by people who didnt map as well as they could to the hardware sat in front of them.



The difference there is that they didnt just choose to make a compromise on the map to be lazy, they had to do so in order to work around the hardware limitations. I would still say that isnt ideal personally and they should just change map sensor, but obviously years ago that wasnt as easy as it is now.


Have you also got a DVD of "Ted" or is it only cossie maps you pirate so prolifically? I'd quite like to watch it but not got chance to get to cinema at the moment so PM me a price if you do have.

On that subject I used to copy loads of DVDs and CDs when I was younger, I never claimed that copying them made me a film director of course...

 

Well chip that comment was just your usual waffle . If you want to be like that ALL webber maps are pirates as everyone who maps them starts with a base weather it's on the Tdr system or Dimsport race !!!