Feb 27, 2007
1,261
0
Behind Wilko
lol this isnt quite what i was looking for.... it proves our MAFs are not 69ishmm though. the timing doesnt look very advanced.

the bore for theses logs is 69.4mm

running T9 B9 WITH wmi

Code:
Monday	16	March	2009	17:26:19						
1ML 906 032 A  		1.8l R4/5VT      01 0001								
										
	Group A:	'003				Group B:	'020			
		RPM	Mass Flow	Load	Ign. Timing		Idle Stabilization	Idle Stabilization	Idle Stabilization	Idle Stabilization
	TIME					TIME				
MARKER	STAMP	 /min	 g/s	%	 °BTDC	STAMP	 CF	 CF	 CF	 CF
	737.8	2000	34.94	23.9	23.3	738.2	0	0	0	0
	738.61	2240	54.06	98.8	18.8	739.01	0	0	0	0
	739.41	2600	81.78	100	13.5	739.81	0	0	0	0
	740.23	3080	117.19	100	6	740.63	0	0	0	0
	741.03	3640	164.5	100	6.8	741.43	0	0	0	0
	741.83	4240	181.53	100	12	742.23	0	0	0	0
	742.64	4800	194.69	100	12	743.04	0	0	0	0
	743.44	5320	217.03	100	9.8	743.84	0	3	0	0
	744.24	5760	226.86	99.6	11.3	744.64	0	3	0	0
	745.04	6160	228.67	100	12	745.46	0	2.3	0	0
	745.86	6520	234.56	99.6	12.8	746.26	0	1.5	0	0
	746.66	6840	235	100	13.5	747.08	0	1.5	0	0
	747.46	5880	79.5	46.7	30	747.86	0	0	0	0
	748.27	5640	223.67	100	12	748.67	0	0	3	0


Code:
Monday	16	March	2009	17:42:45						
1ML 906 032 A  		1.8l R4/5VT      01 0001								
										
	Group A:	'031				Group B:	'115			
		Lambda Factor	Lambda Factor	Bin. Bits	Bin. Bits		RPM	Load	Absolute Pres.	Absolute Pres.
	TIME					TIME				
MARKER	STAMP					STAMP	 /min	%	 mbar	 mbar
	605.43	1.187	0.945	        	        	605.03	1720	15	1000	1020
	606.25	1.257	0.945	        	        	605.85	1720	15	1000	1020
	607.05	1.273	0.945	        	        	606.65	1680	15	1000	1020
	607.87	0.867	0.977	        	        	607.47	1800	42.9	1050	1010
	608.67	0.945	0.945	        	        	608.27	2280	97.7	1940	1200
	609.47	0.945	0.938	        	        	609.07	3080	156.4	2340	1780
	610.28	0.867	0.875	        	        	609.88	4560	191.7	2460	2520
	611.08	0.852	0.86	        	        	610.68	5520	191.7	2380	2360
	611.88	0.836	0.86	        	        	611.48	6400	187.2	2240	2230
	612.7	0.899	0.93	        	        	612.3	6720	20.3	1000	2140
	613.5	1	1.047	        	        	613.1	4880	14.3	1000	1160

i thought id check intake temps...


Code:
Monday	16	March	2009	17:55:15	
1ML 906 032 A  		1.8l R4/5VT      01 0001			
					
	Group A:	'011			
		RPM	Temperature	Temperature	Ign. Timing
	TIME				
MARKER	STAMP	 /min	°C	°C	 °BTDC
	2.82	2160	96	30	7.5
	3.22	2200	96	30	12.8
	3.63	2840	96	29	28.5
	4.03	3520	96	28	26.3
	4.43	4320	96	27	22.5
	4.83	5920	96	27	17.3
	5.23	5120	96	24	5.3
	5.63	4520	96	22	4.5
	6.03	3560	96	21	25.5
	6.45	3920	96	21	24
	6.85	4360	96	23	14.3
	7.25	5000	96	24	9.8
	7.65	5440	96	24	12
	8.05	5800	96	24	9
	8.45	6200	96	24	12.8
	8.86	6280	96	24	4.5
	9.26	5640	96	21	6
	9.66	5000	96	21	4.5
	10.06	4320	96	20	3

ill take the housing in tomorrow and get 1mm bored out. im looking for 225g/s at the most.
 
Feb 27, 2007
1,261
0
Behind Wilko
yes Dave... to be honest with you i was half expecting near perfect figures but im sort of glad i didnt get them.. timng isnt great is it though but its pulling like a train

i think i need to be nearer 72mm but i dont want to just go for it, i think ill do it in 0.5mm stages to start with
 
Feb 27, 2007
1,261
0
Behind Wilko
TBH i normally try to do the run from as low as the conditons will allow... good thinking though, those low revs dont tell us much do they.

what figures do you think i should tune this housing to, i think its a good idea to have it running slightly richer, do you?

its a long way out on the long term fuel trim now... something like -7%
 

DPJ

...........
Dec 13, 2004
7,996
2
NN Yorks / Salento
www.seatcupra.net
TBH i normally try to do the run from as low as the conditons will allow... good thinking though, those low revs dont tell us much do they.

what figures do you think i should tune this housing to, i think its a good idea to have it running slightly richer, do you?

its a long way out on the long term fuel trim now... something like -7%

Starting the run unnecessarily low is going to build combustion chamber heat and retard your timing. (I do mine from 3750, but that's another turbo :rolleyes: )

What do you think you gain from having a bigger housing? Fueling looks good to me, I wouldn't worry too much about the long term trim at that level.
 
Feb 27, 2007
1,261
0
Behind Wilko
the housing should be reading 219g/s Dave, ive sleeved it (starting thick so i have a smaller bore) from approx 74mm to 69.4mm so its now reading too high. i was going to bore it out so it was more inline with the correct figures. at the minute im fooling it thinking there is more air coming in.

ill start the runs a bit higher in the future :)
 
Feb 27, 2007
1,261
0
Behind Wilko
from the previous calcs... without going back i believe it was 12.5:1 with a IDC of 83.3% (446cc)

maybe i should do some more calcs on the new figures but the previus ones should still be OK?
 
Last edited:
Feb 27, 2007
1,261
0
Behind Wilko
hmmm :shrug:

John/Dave you might put me right here but using an IDC of 83.82% and a flow of 446cc i should be seeing a reading of 218g/s for 12.5:1

to actually have 12.5:1 A/F and an IDC of 83.82% i must be flowing that amount of air but why is it not showing that on the MAF????

from before..... and running Nicks housing backs this up?
 
Feb 27, 2007
1,261
0
Behind Wilko
The Sphincter maf. (TM)

hehe


i didnt run a log on 2 :cry: that means i cant take it in and bore it tomorrow. i have a training day so my car is staying at home, ill run some logs tomorrow evening, redo the figures then take the MAF housing with me on Wednesday if i need to.
 
Last edited:
Feb 27, 2007
1,261
0
Behind Wilko
i was impatient and brought my car to work.. the logs on the way show the airflow (with the lower a/f ratio) should be about 216g/s

ive given the housing back and he's going to take 0.6mm out so the bore will be 70mm.

im on a course all day so will run some logs later.
 

DPJ

...........
Dec 13, 2004
7,996
2
NN Yorks / Salento
www.seatcupra.net
I was thinking about this on my drive in this morning.

You could plot the likely ideal from fuelling / airflow logs taken from either side..........

Problem is, if your sensor failed, and you got a new one, you'd probably have to resize the tube to get the same result............ :D