Bye, bye Cobb, Hello GIAC!

[old account 2]

Originally Posted by Grayson

Darn, I was hoping for a little higher than that with all your bolt ons... But if it feels better in the real world I guess thats all that matters. I'd like to hit over 400, but I guess that will require Meth.

To compare apples to apples, I urge you to look at the delta. Someone just posted a Cobb Stage 1 dyno in this section and had gains of 24whp and 47wtq over baseline. As a comparison, our Stage 1 measured gains of 53whp and 68wtq. Both of these were done on 91 octane, and on a Mustang dyno (although I am not sure of Cobb's model).

Chasing peak gains is irrelevant, because if your baseline on the dyno read 315whp then a Stage 1 measure of 340whp isn't very impressive. Our dyno does read conservatively, so to gain an accurate comparison it would be necessary to compare the deltas of gains.

If you are only chasing happy numbers, visit a Dynojet. I don't know if you followed the FFTEC single turbo car, but it made just over 500whp on a Mustang the week before it put down 644 on a Dynojet. Here is our Stage 2 software with water-methanol injection on a dynojet.

[Grayson]

Originally Posted by int2str

That's on 91oct California gas!

Good luck trying to hit 400 with that - especially on a Mustang dyno. And not to turn this into a "this tune is better than that tune" debate, but the best the car did on Cobb (different dyno though) was 336hp.

But again, numbers don't mean much to me. Driveability and raceability is what I care about and there the GIAC tune more than delivers.

Calm down, I'm most likely going to switch to GIAC because of your thread. I realize its on 91 pump and those numbers are great, I wasn't hating. Your COBB numbers on the other hand seem really low. Was that the Stage 2+?

[Grayson]

Originally Posted by Thomas@GIAC

To compare apples to apples, I urge you to look at the delta. Someone just posted a Cobb Stage 1 dyno in this section and had gains of 24whp and 47wtq over baseline. As a comparison, our Stage 1 measured gains of 53whp and 68wtq. Both of these were done on 91 octane, and on a Mustang dyno (although I am not sure of Cobb's model).

Chasing peak gains is irrelevant, because if your baseline on the dyno read 315whp then a Stage 1 measure of 340whp isn't very impressive. Our dyno does read conservatively, so to gain an accurate comparison it would be necessary to compare the deltas of gains.

If you are only chasing happy numbers, visit a Dynojet. I don't know if you followed the FFTEC single turbo car, but it made just over 500whp on a Mustang the week before it put down 644 on a Dynojet. Here is our Stage 2 software with water-methanol injection on a dynojet.

Awesome! That's what I was hoping for, but what would those have looked like on a Mustang?

[old account 2]

Originally Posted by Grayson

Awesome! That's what I was hoping for, but what would those have looked like on a Mustang?

Here is the same setup on a Mustang MD-500 dyno...

[old account 2]

These runs were on 50/50 water-methanol btw.

[int2str]

Originally Posted by Grayson

Calm down

Hehe, I'm pretty excited right now! Have a big autocross coming up on the 1st and just can't wait. I'm not hatin' - just excited. Mostly because I had so much trouble with my other tune before and GIAC has worked out so well.

I realize its on 91 pump and those numbers are great, I wasn't hating. Your COBB numbers on the other hand seem really low. Was that the Stage 2+?

Not really. I never got any actual Stage 2 map to run well on my car. Timing issues always prevented me to run a proper stage 2 map on the kind of gas that I can get here in San Diego. Cobb made a custom map for me to try to address this problem and that's what got me to the 336hp dyno number.

Unfortunately (for me), that map was hard to drive at autocrosses though. The torque hit like a ton of bricks on that tune at pretty much exactly 4k rpm. Because of that, I had a lot of trouble putting power down out of turns at the autocross.

So here I am - gobs more power and much more usable at that!

[rader1]

OP, strong numbers for a mustang dyno.

[Grayson]

Originally Posted by Thomas@GIAC

Here is the same setup on a Mustang MD-500 dyno...

Looks awesome! Does the Stage 2 race require 93 Octane or could one run 91 with meth?

[old account 2]

Originally Posted by Grayson

Looks awesome! Does the Stage 2 race require 93 Octane or could one run 91 with meth?

Certainly not, it is compatible with 91/93 with water-methanol injection, or simply 100 octane fuel. Being located in California, we do all our tuning natively on 91 octane.

[John Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Thomas@GIAC

Certainly not, it is compatible with 91/93 with water-methanol injection, or simply 100 octane fuel. Being located in California, we do all our tuning natively on 91 octane.

What methanol setup are you guys running, because right now i am running procede and was going to buy their pwm methanol kit but now i am very interested in running meth on giac.

[flinchy]

Originally Posted by Thomas@GIAC

Those numbers were measured on a Mustang MD-500 chassis dyno. This is not an engine dyno.

In regards to your first question, there are timing adaptations as our software utilizes dynamic timing maps.

yeah, i know, but the graph says 'engine' not 'wheel' hence i'm asking why it doesn't say wheel?

http://www.giacusa.com/images/austin...fore_after.png

*points at bottom of graph* *points at 'eng torq' and 'eng power'*

or am i just to assume it's a typo sorta thing? i actually know a lot of dyno softwares measure at the wheels and then spit out the 'engine' figure adjusted for 15 or 20%, which is pretty dodgy,.


can i ask.. why use dynamic maps? wouldn't a static map that works with the car sorta be... more reliable, produce more stable power.. be better for the car in general?

[old account 2]

Originally Posted by John Dempsey

What methanol setup are you guys running, because right now i am running procede and was going to buy their pwm methanol kit but now i am very interested in running meth on giac.

We typically run Snow Performance on all of our in-house vehicles.

[old account 2]

Originally Posted by flinchy

yeah, i know, but the graph says 'engine' not 'wheel' hence i'm asking why it doesn't say wheel?

http://www.giacusa.com/images/austin...fore_after.png

*points at bottom of graph* *points at 'eng torq' and 'eng power'*

or am i just to assume it's a typo sorta thing? i actually know a lot of dyno softwares measure at the wheels and then spit out the 'engine' figure adjusted for 15 or 20%, which is pretty dodgy,.


can i ask.. why use dynamic maps? wouldn't a static map that works with the car sorta be... more reliable, produce more stable power.. be better for the car in general?

That is the way that the software inputs it, but that is wheel horsepower. It is not adjusted to be representative of crankshaft numbers.

All maps in modern DME's are dynamic. A static map will be in no way more reliable, as there is no adjustment to varying factors such as octane, IAT's, etc. You need the car to be able to adjust to varying circumstances to run safely and effectively.

For example, if you are running a static timing map, there are no adjustments. So if your map is dialed in for x amount of timing advance for a set of variables, yet your circumstances deviate from those variables, your DME cannot make adjustments. This will lead to knock and loss of power. Some companies work around this by turning off the knock sensors, but then you have an entirely different degree of problem on your hands.

The car needs to be able to adjust to conditions. If we lived in a vaccuum, then there would be a place for static maps. Due to the fact that we live in a dynamic world, we need to adjust to a variety of factors.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Thomas@GIAC

So if your map is dialed in for x amount of timing advance for a set of variables, yet your circumstances deviate from those variables, your DME cannot make adjustments. This will lead to knock and loss of power. .

so if it doesnt knock on your dynamic tuned map if, for example, you had a tank of bad gas but were running a 100oct tune, how does it know to adjust timing down? is it somehow able to do this before the engine knocks or pre-detonates?

correct me if i am wrong, but dont may other cars run static maps where the timing just isnt tuned overly aggressively to account for potential issues such as high temps, bad gas, etc....to avoid pre-detonation? im referencing turbo cars that do not have the ability to be dynamically tuned due to ecu limitations. or am i off base?

and btw, please come out with the n55 tune already

[old account 2]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

so if it doesnt knock on your dynamic tuned map if, for example, you had a tank of bad gas but were running a 100oct tune, how does it know to adjust timing down? is it somehow able to do this before the engine knocks or pre-detonates?

correct me if i am wrong, but dont may other cars run static maps where the timing just isnt tuned overly aggressively to account for potential issues such as high temps, bad gas, etc....to avoid pre-detonation? im referencing turbo cars that do not have the ability to be dynamically tuned due to ecu limitations. or am i off base?

and btw, please come out with the n55 tune already

If you are running a 100 octane file and use 91/93, there will be some knock that causes a timing reduction. In the BMW, the DME is fast enough to react within 2 revolutions. So, by the time you experience any knock the DME will already be taking corrective measures.

There is more to maps than this, as other factors such as elevation and ambient temperature play roles as well. In all of the modern cars, we have yet to see one with a single map. For example, the TT-RS has 24 different timing maps from the factory! As a test on this car, we tried 100 octane on our pump (91/93) file. The car was able to gain 36whp over 91 octane on the same file.

The only recent car that we have seen with a single timing map is the 2.5L engine in the MK6 Golf. Since this isn't a car built for performance, VW likely didn't feel the need for a more advanced ECU with multiple maps.

The static maps you are reffering to might be in cars with externally controlled units. When you are intercepting signals to the DME, you cannot have a dynamic map. As such, you are forced to run a conservative static map, or simply run with the hopes that external factors are always favorable.

We are hard at work on the N55 and things are certainly looking good. I will post updates as they become available

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Thomas@GIAC

We are hard at work on the N55 and things are certainly looking good. I will post updates as they become available

Very interested to hear about your progress.

[Inconspicuous]

Originally Posted by Thomas@GIAC

To compare apples to apples, I urge you to look at the delta. Someone just posted a Cobb Stage 1 dyno in this section and had gains of 24whp and 47wtq over baseline. As a comparison, our Stage 1 measured gains of 53whp and 68wtq. Both of these were done on 91 octane, and on a Mustang dyno (although I am not sure of Cobb's model).

Just to clarify, the dyno you're referring to was COBB's Stage 1 Drive map, their most conservative tune. The Sport mapping would likely do better, all else being equal. Not taking anything away from your product, of course.

[John Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Thomas@GIAC

We typically run Snow Performance on all of our in-house vehicles.

What methanol kit are you running, and how does it integrate with the tune?

[old account 2]

Originally Posted by John Dempsey

What methanol kit are you running, and how does it integrate with the tune?

Please refer to post #33 of this thread.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Thomas@GIAC

If you are running a 100 octane file and use 91/93, there will be some knock that causes a timing reduction. In the BMW, the DME is fast enough to react within 2 revolutions. So, by the time you experience any knock the DME will already be taking corrective measures.

There is more to maps than this, as other factors such as elevation and ambient temperature play roles as well. In all of the modern cars, we have yet to see one with a single map. For example, the TT-RS has 24 different timing maps from the factory! As a test on this car, we tried 100 octane on our pump (91/93) file. The car was able to gain 36whp over 91 octane on the same file.

The only recent car that we have seen with a single timing map is the 2.5L engine in the MK6 Golf. Since this isn't a car built for performance, VW likely didn't feel the need for a more advanced ECU with multiple maps.

The static maps you are reffering to might be in cars with externally controlled units. When you are intercepting signals to the DME, you cannot have a dynamic map. As such, you are forced to run a conservative static map, or simply run with the hopes that external factors are always favorable.

We are hard at work on the N55 and things are certainly looking good. I will post updates as they become available

Hi Thomas.
Great Info!
Looking forward to N55 software, and hopefully translates to the F30 N55 sedan as well.

You had said that you optimize for 91 octane, as you're in California.
But, for those of us in areas with 93, that would be a different selection, right?

Regarding detonation, since detonation is a common enough occurrence, on a typical spirited canyon run on a hot day, how many detonation events do you detect, let's say, every minute or every 5, 10, 15 minutes?
I ask out of curiousity mostly, and since you've got the equipment to know, who better to ask?
Thanks.

[old account 2]

Originally Posted by RPM90

Hi Thomas.
Great Info!
Looking forward to N55 software, and hopefully translates to the F30 N55 sedan as well.

You had said that you optimize for 91 octane, as you're in California.
But, for those of us in areas with 93, that would be a different selection, right?

Regarding detonation, since detonation is a common enough occurrence, on a typical spirited canyon run on a hot day, how many detonation events do you detect, let's say, every minute or every 5, 10, 15 minutes?
I ask out of curiousity mostly, and since you've got the equipment to know, who better to ask?
Thanks.

Certainly, we do optimize files for 93 as well as European RON. Fortunately, we have dealers all around the world that makes it possible to log cars with various grades of fuel.

We do all of our logging with the BT software. This tool is more limited than something like Vag-Com, but it gives a 0 or 1 signal for knock activity. We usually only log with the car on the dyno, but between multiple runs there is rarely a knock signal. The timing maps are pretty dialed in to the point that there aren't usually detonation events. If there is a detonation event, the timing correction will typically ensure that there are no subsequent events. Since the environmental factors remain stable throughout a days worth of dyno runs, the timing is usually spot on once dialed in.

I would expect a similar situation for your canyon runs. If it is a hot day, there might be one detonation activity. Following this, the DME would take necessary corrective measure and advance or retard timing as necessary. In my experience with data logging, the knock activity is kept to very infrequent events, usually 0.

[int2str]

First Autocross class win on the new setup is in the bag!
Thanks GIAC!

Video: