K3rm1tTh3Fr0g

Thank you for the reply. Now that I recall/looked at logs it appears it overboosts by around ~1-2 PSI. I'll post a log/tune in a bit after I do some more pulls. Another question, this car is flex tuned for E85 and I am noticing the WG DC 1 and WG DC 2 tables are identical and boost target is what differentiates boost levels. Do the WG 1 and WG 2 tables represent WGDC on the different fuel bleds? Or is it referring to something different all together?

Bumping for question about G4X sorry - is ~1psi over target boost considered overboosting when using a 38mm EWG and 3 port mac on a G4X using closed loop boost control? EJ20 WRX. Thanks!

Thank you again Adam for quickly dispelling my stupidity fueled anxiety.

Hi all, excuse my lack of tuning experience. I have a full bolt on 02 WRX with a Link G4X and recently took my car back to my tuner to enable closed loop boost control among other things. However looking at the boost targets now that I have the car, I see it set quite a bit higher in the map than we had discussed - goals were 22psi on pump and 24psi for E85. Though it was set in open loop around ~25.5 hitting 26 on occasion. I was under the impression with closed loop one should have the targets as close as possible to the real boost you intend to achieve, rather than setting the value higher than desired and using offsets or trims to achieve desired boost. Wanted to get some expert opinions before I bring this up to my tuner. I was able to hit 26 psi on the drive home. No complaints with performance, I just thought boost targets should match real world desired boost. Here are the target tables and the PID config.

Thank you for that distinction regarding retard vs absolute degrees. Is it safe to say those guidelines regarding latched launch retard hold true when tuning normal launch control from a stop as well? Meaning would latched launch control and single launch control both call for a similar/same amount of retard and or fueling in those two different situations given you are comparing the same engine? I was planning for standard launch control to start with retarding launch timing in -5 degree increments to see how if affects boost.

I decided just to do it the proper way and buy another expansion loom. Thanks!

Are you using the latest version of PCLink? I would make sure you're on the latest version, as reinstalling the latest version will reinstall the drivers.

Would it still be advisable to trim -30 degrees of timing on a for example a 2.0L motor? Based on other rolling anti lag maps I've seen, the timing isn't retarded quite to that extent. Thanks.

Interesting. That is supposed to be 2.5mm pitch and I just tried a 2.5mm pin header and it is quite loose. Are the pins intended to be loose but it's held in from the clip?

Would someone be able to confirm the size of the pins on the expansion loom connector, I don't have calipers? Smaller than 2.54 so 2.0? 1.27?

Thank you!

Thanks a lot of the help. I have an unrelated question regarding latched launch control. I am trying to use the front windshield sprayer button on the stalk as my LLC activation as I have the sprayer deleted, and I can't figure out how to add it. I don't see it as a DI switch like the rear demister. Thanks!

Gotcha so I am good to leave the LTT table blank until I drive/tune the car next. And thank you for that clarification on the CLL gain. I await Adamw's reply.

Thanks for the explanation. So does the ECU populate the CLL Long Term Trim Table itself with learned data? And what is the suggested way to dial in gain control for LTT? I know it said excessively large numbers result in oscillation and too small will yield poor response.

Ah okay thanks for that. Can I safely switch from stoich mode (wideband) over to auto mode (wideband) and use the same AFR/Lambda target table assuming it was tuned on stoich mode (wideband) in order to enable the use of long term fuel trimming? And is there an optimal CLL update rate per RPM/load?

An Evans Performance Academy guide from a few years ago. I see the issue now, I had to set the Lambda mode from Stoich (wideband) to auto (wideband) and set the bank source to Lambda average instead of Lambda 1.

Ah okay, I see it now. I was looking where it used to be according to the guide I was following. My next issue is I can't seem to enable long term fuel trims. Do I need to create the math block and set it as the bank 1 source prior to enabling LT fuel trim? Thanks!

Hi all, I am on the latest version of PClink and I can't figure out how to add math blocks. From what I understand should be able to select it from the layout tab, but that doesn't work for me. Any ideas?

He may be literally just referencing tunes he's done before that have gained horsepower directly. Like the ej205 16g tune he mentioned to me that picked up 20whp and 35whp. Even if his analogies don't exactly translate, the results he's shown me have spoken for themselves.

I think he's making those claims because it's a 16-bit ecu. Anyway he continued: "the LINK will make more power with the same timing, same lambda and same boost. that is proven on my dyno. Yes OEMs have the advantage of millions of bucks to engineer an ecm to work for them. With that extra oem engineering money working with an outside company to design and supply the ecms... and the thousands of hours of calibration they perform you can nail down that trigger pattern and voltage arming windows hell yea. It has to work like that since they have to un-shelve the thing and put it in blind and it has to work. There is no way any individual tuner or even a larger company like cobb or link can come close to the resources a company like BOSCH or DENSO has when it comes to oem ecm engineering and calibration. But since denso needs to make tens of thousands of these units, (and in subaru's case, the ecm that pickup hardware was designed over 20 years ago has worked on their ej platform in every chassis since) --- cost is a leading factor. period. Link does not, they get to make a balanced product that accomplishes their goals and meets the price they want. Yes, hardware is faster than software.... always has been. And there is SO much more to the link (or haltec or aem) than just, 'its faster'." He also told me about a car with a 16g on a ej205 that directly picked up 20whp and 35ft lbs on the same boost when upgrading to a Link on pump gas on the same boost.

My tuner/shop prefers to use the Radium single pump surge tank to tackle fuel issues because it addresses the fuel starvation issue present on these cars when cornering, and takes the load off of one pump to solve the high RPM current/voltage drop issues. The radium hanger says specifically in the documentation that it's not a surge tank and doesn't operate as one functionally. And yes, the in tank pump setup can have a baffle you can install to keep fuel around the pump/hanger but my guess is my tuner would consider that a band-aid solution and inferior to a proper surge tank setup that has its own fully pump assembly constantly being fed by a lift pump in the tank. Also the cost of the the surge tank vs the in tank pump is a wash so I'd rather do it the way my tuner suggests. I plan to opt for a Walbro 525 over a 450 because I saw a GTX3576 G2, the same turbo I have set aside in my garage forna built 2.5L down the line, run out of fuel on the Boost Creep's dyno. And when the car gets big brakes it will see some track and auto X duty.

Thanks. Already have an AEM intake air temperature sensor, and I'm tuned on hybrid speed density and I already have 1050X injectors w/ an Aeromotive FPR and walbro 255 along with rails. I was also planning to add a surge tank with a Walbro 525 in preparation of the GTX3576 Gen 2 I have set aside for when my current motor pops. The surge tank should also take some load off the in-tank pump because we should be close to it's limits on E85 with a 20G I am about to install. The original question about gaining 20-40WHP was theoretical, I am technically changing turbos, I just am confused by what my tuner said. And for telemetry have 2 60mm BTI Innovations multi-gauges ready to go on the A-pillar in a JCSpods mount so I'll be able to monitor everything And their dyno is Mainline which is pretty stingy so I am aiming for 330WHP/300WTQ on a ball-bearing 20g on e85. After asking my tuner for more info, he said this: " 1. speed speed speed.... think of the most bad ass phone you could get in 2002 for $1500. and then again in 2017. The ecu can do more, faster. it can see speed changes faster because it can look at the engine triggers more frequently. apply this to ignition timing ---- it can time the engine more precisely, especially at higher engine speeds. same for knock detection. 2. drivers... the stock ecu has cost in mind. Does the hardware deliver the emissions requirements and also the advertised power while keeping us in a safe range of operation (so it wont break under warranty)?. good enough. The new ECU has much better drivers. i mean better like.... higher quality. --- when current starts to pass through a loaded circuit there is a high current low voltage situation as the current starts to flow and it may operate the circuit poorly or with some lag. the better drivers in Motorsport ecus ensure a full current passes through and minimizes fluctuations in the operation of the circuit. ie. more stable. apply this to injectors that operate at alternator voltage, have a mechanical lag time that varies with this voltage, and all the current must pass through a tiny power transistor. (an analogy could be bigger wire on speakers reduces distortion caused but resistance in the wire and connections). better drivers mean better spray, which means higher quality (and more consistent) combustion - which is very important for pump gas to boot... but yields the extra power, especially up top in faster engine speeds." Not too sure what to make of this

Perhaps, however I did discuss running a non OEM ROM with Carberry which allows for speed density and should fix any load limit issues I would imagine...

He is is comparing my current ej205 vf39 pump gas set up tuned on an accessport on a low reading Mainline dyno, to the same setup tuned on pump gas on the Link on the same dyno. When he asked me out of 10 how aggressive I wanted the tune I said 7.

Totally understand. I thought it seemed silly to essentially call the ECU horsepower in a box but that's pretty much how my tuner described it on multiple occasions. He directly said: " I do still believe the Link is the way to go. A good comparison is a Pentium 100mhz CPU from the 90s, versus a new Intel i9 CPU from today. Both do the same thing, one just does it light years faster. The ability to make faster calculations alone account for far better driveability than the old 16 bit ECU. The faster processing will also help in spool, again from the faster processing and feedback of the newer computer." The fact that he showed me a car making 300/300 on the same engine, dyno, turbo, and fuel as me, but just with a Link ECU, makes me believe his claim though....