Ford Focus ST Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

Datalog thread!

Jump to Latest
201 - 220 of 976 Posts
#204 ·
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#205 ·
If you could use datazap that would help us out tremendously. It's the easiest way for us to view the logs and the only way I can view the logs with my phone.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#206 ·
rader1 said:
If you could use datazap that would help us out tremendously. It's the easiest way for us to view the logs and the only way I can view the logs with my phone.
Click to expand...
will do that whenever I get back to the house
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#207 ·
aboutxthatxlife said:
got my new programming for the new cobb update, here are 3 logs we are starting with. all are logged with shell 93 gas
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5v4g29vd5rlhu6l/log map slot 1(regular 91.csv (regular 91)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uro47pp93hks0x9/log map slot 2(-1 degree of spark).csv (-1 degree of spark)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/khira862ulxuulp/log map slot 3(-2 degree of spark.csv (-2 degrees of spark)
Click to expand...
It would be great to see all cylinder corrections. However the logs are consistent in that the 91 tune is too aggressive for your fuel and modifications. The -2 degrees base timing tune gets you much closer and the ECU corrects a lot less. However timing changes are not the only way to skin the proverbial cat.

As it sits you will either have to get different fuel or use a tune made for the octane available to you. To completely rule out any hardware issues causing knock, try the E85 test I discussed with you on the 91 tune.
 
#208 ·
Alex@Stratified said:
It would be great to see all cylinder corrections. However the logs are consistent in that the 91 tune is too aggressive for your fuel and modifications. The -2 degrees base timing tune gets you much closer and the ECU corrects a lot less. However timing changes are not the only way to skin the proverbial cat. As it sits you will either have to get different fuel or use a tune made for the octane available to you. To completely rule out any hardware issues causing knock, try the E85 test I discussed with you on the 91 tune.
Click to expand...
That's strange I always thought shell 93 was the best :( lol maybe I'll try chevron 93. I have 5 gallons of 98 octane. Could that be used instead of e85?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#210 ·
aboutxthatxlife said:
That's strange I always thought shell 93 was the best :( lol maybe I'll try chevron 93. I have 5 gallons of 98 octane. Could that be used instead of e85?
Click to expand...
You can definitely give it a shot. What you're looking for is back to back comparisons. So on the same day take two logs on the 93, put in the 98 and take another two logs on the same tune. This way you are just comparing the fuels.
 
#211 ·
aboutxthatxlife said:
got my new programming for the new cobb update, here are 3 logs we are starting with. all are logged with shell 93 gas
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5v4g29vd5rlhu6l/log map slot 1(regular 91.csv (regular 91)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uro47pp93hks0x9/log map slot 2(-1 degree of spark).csv (-1 degree of spark)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/khira862ulxuulp/log map slot 3(-2 degree of spark.csv (-2 degrees of spark)
Click to expand...
The 93 you have just does not cut it. Or you have an over sensitive KS. You should definitely try your race gas now, as we talked about.

Your car is strong and is going to require me to bring the boost down a bit. I have to head out to take the family to Disneyland right now, but you can reach me on my email if something comes up before you hear back from me.

I would use the slot 2 program based on what I saw right now, which has no neg correction. Slot 3, which is commanding less spark, is showing more neg correction. So unless you have the logs labeled backwards, I'd use slot 2 with your current fuel.

I still don't think I can trust your KS readings, as is. Either that unit is buggy or you are picking up a lot of "noise" from engine mounts or other items that could be making contact.
 
#212 ·
Crymerge said:
Here are three logs from today. I am running the FSWerks tune. It was really nice today, 62 degrees. I tried to start each pull at 2500 rpm. The ign corr. cyl1 seems a little off to me. Guys take a look, and help me out.

2nd gear datazap.me | crymerge | 2nd gear

3rd gear datazap.me | crymerge | 3rd gear

4th gear datazap.me | crymerge | 4th gear
Click to expand...
More info would be great to include in the logs such as charge air temp, ignition timing, load. There's no need for the raw knock sensor outputs, grill shutters, or gear. Also post your modifications.
 
#213 ·
FSWerksVP said:
The 93 you have just does not cut it. Or you have an over sensitive KS. You should definitely try your race gas now, as we talked about. Your car is strong and is going to require me to bring the boost down a bit. I have to head out to take the family to Disneyland right now, but you can reach me on my email if something comes up before you hear back from me. I would use the slot 2 program based on what I saw right now, which has no neg correction. Slot 3, which is commanding less spark, is showing more neg correction. So unless you have the logs labeled backwards, I'd use slot 2 with your current fuel. I still don't think I can trust your KS readings, as is. Either that unit is buggy or you are picking up a lot of "noise" from engine mounts or other items that could be making contact.
Click to expand...
Awesome, have a nice trip!
Yah they are labeled correctly, after I did the logs I kept it on slot 2 as I saw on the AP I had no negative correction. After the race gas I can try swapping out my motor mount to the stock one and compare that as well
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#214 ·
aboutxthatxlife said:
Awesome, have a nice trip!
Yah they are labeled correctly, after I did the logs I kept it on slot 2 as I saw on the AP I had no negative correction. After the race gas I can try swapping out my motor mount to the stock one and compare that as well
Click to expand...
If the race gas removes negative correction, the fuel is the problem, not the motor mount.
 
#215 ·
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#216 ·
aboutxthatxlife said:
Maybe ga just has crappy 93 octane :/ lol
Click to expand...
I've stressed this before - not all 93 is the same. Since I've tuned hundreds of cars across the US I've developed a good idea of fuel quality and I just looked through my records. Unfortunately Georgia does not have the best 93. It performs much closer to 91. Florida just south of you guys enjoys much better fuel.
 
#217 · (Edited)
Alex@Stratified said:
I've stressed this before - not all 93 is the same. Since I've tuned hundreds of cars across the US I've developed a good idea of fuel quality and I just looked through my records. Unfortunately Georgia does not have the best 93. It performs much closer to 91. Florida just south of you guys enjoys much better fuel.
Click to expand...
Slightly off-topic. Do you happen to know how our Canadian 91 octane fuel [Winnipeg, MB (Shell V-Power)] compares to the fuel offered in the US? The only reason I ask is because we don't have too many stations in Winnipeg that offer 93 octane and thus having a 91 octane tune is really the only option. The last thing I want to find out is that our 91 octane is of poor quality and acts like a much lower grade of fuel.
 
#218 · (Edited)
Endeav said:
Slightly off-topic. Do you happen to know how our Canadian 91 octane fuel [Winnipeg, MB (Shell V-Power)] compares to the fuel offered in the US? The only reason I ask is because we don't have too many stations in Winnipeg that offer 93 octane and thus having a 91 octane tune is really the only option. The last thing I want to find out is that our 91 octane is of poor quality and acts like a much lower grade of fuel.
Click to expand...
I've found that the fuel quality will differ depending on how frequently people use the high grade stuff and how out of town they are. Generally, the 91 is not the best, but the 94 from PetroCanada if you can find it is quite good. The best thing to do is to get two 3rd or 4th gear WOT log once the car is warm and it is safe with the following parameters logged and post them here or send me a PM and I can take a look.

EDIT: Ultra94 is available only in AB and ON. Take those logs just to make sure. Data is always conclusive and removes the guesswork.

Accelerator Pedal Position
Actual AFR
Airflow Mass
Boost Pressure Actual
Charge Air Temp. – (CAT)
Coolant Temperature
Engine Speed
ETC Actual Angle
Fuel Rail Pressure Actual
Ignition Timing Corr. Cyl (1-4)
Ignition Timing (Cyl 1)
Load Actual
WGDC Actual
STFT
LTFT
 
#219 · (Edited)
Okay, I didn't like driving my car around knowing it had fuel that wasn't playing well with the current tune (despite the fuel tank being only half empty) so I decided to top it off with some Shell V-Power 92 octane to see if it made an improvement. After looking at the datalogs it seems to have helped. It doesn't seem to be pulling as much timing as before (when I was running 100% Exxon 92 octane).

View attachment 4th gear pulls Mixed Shell VPower and Exxon 92.zip

When this tank of fuel is almost empty I'll take some more logs running 100% Shell V-Power to see if it further improves.

My car is stock running the 91 FSWerks tune. The temp outside for every 4th gear datalog I've done (so far) has been between 30-34*F. One of the recent datalogs starts a bit late--I didn't give the AccessPort enough time to initialize--so it starts around 4000 RPM instead of 2000 RPM like the other logs.
 
201 - 220 of 976 Posts
About this Discussion
975 Replies
107 Participants
Last post:
nyuorlucy
Ford Focus ST Forum
posts
1.5M
members
78K
Since
2012
We’re the premiere Ford Focus ST forum with discussions on the 2013+ Focus ST. Join the community and see the latest news, photos, videos, classifieds, reviews, events and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Focus ST Discussions Focus ST Performance Focus ST Maintenance Focus ST Appearance Focus ST Electronics