Shark Stage 3 rolling road figures - fresh from JKM rolling road day!

[Timmyboy]

Shark stage 3 review coming soon - just got a CEL light issue to resolve before I do so.

Here are the graphs from this morning - pleasing  - Discuss.

Edited 13 November, 2010 by Timmyboy

[vRSy]

can you attach those figures as an {img][/img] file instead, its absolutely huge on my screen.

and that is a very very good output for JKMs rollers. Timmy can you post those in this thread as well. The dyno graph thread quite a lot of guys have been asking me for them

from what i can see of the graph, the AFR is excellent. power drops off a bit at the top end, but thats after 6k so not a problem tbh, better to change up by then anyway. lovely plateau of torque. I rckon if you were to fit the SFS performance discharge/charge hoses you would break the 280Hp mark

dare i say it, that is the most powerful k03 ive seen on JKMs rollers since makefishes original 280hp REVO stage 2+.

how did daves go. his wasnt so pleasing the other day with scary AFR after 4.5k

Edited 13 November, 2010 by janner_Sy

[Timmyboy]

Sorry bud - they look fine on my 24" jobbie

Half size - any better? (I don't have any online album to link to for an image insert)

[vRSy]

Sorry bud - they look fine on my 24" jobbie

Half size - any better? (I don't have any online album to link to for an image insert)

thats better, my paupers 17" just isnt up for job, although i have 2 17" screens connected for an extended desktop :p

[Timmyboy]

Dave upped his game slightly - got 267 today compared to the 265 he had recently - exactly the same issue with the fueling though, really strange considering how similar our mods are.

[Timmyboy]

Could be one of many things unfortunately. Ben did say he tweaked the timing on my map due to my intercooler, Dave and I were wondering if we do have identical maps or not.

[muckipup]

Here's mine....

I can't figure out what is causing the difference between Tim's and my car. The only variables that I can think of are the map itself (maybe) or a sensor somewhere. We differ in the intakes that we have (Evoms vs ITG) and intercooler (S3 vs Twintercooler) but I would be surprised if it was down to either of those.

Any other ideas gratefully appreciated!!!

Here are Tim's next to mine for ease of comparison....

Edited 13 November, 2010 by muckipup

[vRSy]

if the map is identical id be going down the sensor route.

I know you have my old spare MAF anyway, so thats a start, but the MAP and Lambda sensors are also definitely worthy of a swap. vRSCarl will be able to tell you the part numbers and prices for them as he replaced them all when chasing faults on his revo stage 2+. iirc they were around £70-100 each :'(

AFR/sensor issue aside though, you are making 8Hp more than his Revo Stage 2+ even with the fault. so its not to bad, as long as you keep it down below 5000Rpm where it begins to lean off abit. i think once smoothed out and sorted you might even have the legs on timmys.

as i said earlier, i read recently that APR had been getting issues with their maps with guys using the twintake and ITG which they had been struggling to solve. i believe this to be another reason for this awesome GTI amnesty as APR were uunable to provide the support, but thats another story.....

believe it or not, i read that some guys in the USA had a similar issue with revo software and high flow intakes which from andy @ ITG, is why REVO approached ITG to make such a high flow intake to mimick thie issue, so it could be mapped out.

[Yeti_Man]

Shark stage 3 review coming soon - just got a CEL light issue to resolve before I do so.

Here are the graphs from this morning - pleasing  - Discuss.

I'd love JKM to overlay that graph with my old VRS stage 2+ REVO graph they have. The Shark map looks very good and Im currently trying to decide between Shark and REVO for my 1.8TSi! Decisions, decisions.... :p Glad to see your car producing the figures.

[vRS_Pagey]

Timmoy, just to confirm, are thoses figures from a Stage 3?

[Timmyboy]

Glad to see your car producing the figures.

Ta - took a while

Your ears might have been burning earlier as your name came up - am I right in remembering your VRS managed 280bhp?

Timmoy, just to confirm, are thoses figures from a Stage 3?

Yup.

[muckipup]

Timmoy, just to confirm, are thoses figures from a Stage 3?

Hey Lee,

You know it's a Shark Stage 3 and like a Revo 2+ i.e. not a K04, right? But yes, we were both running Pipewerx downpipes, Piper cat-backs, Autotech HPFPs and intakes (Evoms and ITG) and Shark maps with the addition of modded intercoolers (S3 and Twintercooler).

Dave

Edited 14 November, 2010 by muckipup

[Yeti_Man]

Ta - took a while

Your ears might have been burning earlier as your name came up - am I right in remembering your VRS managed 280bhp?

Yup.

Iirc correctly, on jkm's rollers (the lowest figures and IMO by far the most accurate) it got 280bhp and just over 330lbft torque. On other dynos it usually read just under 300bhp and 360lbft!!! I'm sure I posted the graph on here a loooong time back but that may have been before it was swapped to the bigger down pipe. :yes:

[vRSy]

from what i gather though REVO changed the code after the original ones like yours and makefishes and since then guys with stage 2+ REVO have been getting no where near 280Hp/330Ibft region, both carls and harrys was making around a really large plateau of power at 260Hp iirc

for more comparison for timmys and daves graphs here are shark_90's stage 3 figures but wthout an intercooler

Timmoy, just to confirm, are thoses figures from a Stage 3?

yeah, as dave elluded to, shark stage 3 is the HPFP map for the k03 TFSI and not like a REVO stage 3 which is for the k04 converted cars. presumably shark would call that a stage 4

Edited 14 November, 2010 by janner_Sy

[vRS_Pagey]

Hey Lee,

You know it's a Shark Stage 3 and like a Revo 2+ i.e. not a K04, right? But yes, we were both running Pipewerx downpipes, Piper cat-backs, Autotech HPFPs and intakes (Evoms and ITG) and Shark maps with the addition of modded intercoolers (S3 and Twintercooler).

Dave

I was aware of the components necessary to tune to stage 2+/3 ie, sport cat, HPFP, intake etc, I was just unsure regarding the software only because on the Shark site it states that a stage 3 will give 280bhp??!

Still a very impressive figure from an asthmatic KO3!

Oh, and when either you or Timmy get bored, first dibs on the pipe-werx!

[vRSy]

I was aware of the components necessary to tune to stage 2+/3 ie, sport cat, HPFP, intake etc, I was just unsure regarding the software only because on the Shark site it states that a stage 3 will give 280bhp??!

Still a very impressive figure from an asthmatic KO3!

dyno figures are all talk really. if you were to go on a MAHA dyno or even aweso,e GTI's( that seems to be giving massive readings recently ) you would quite easily hit 280Hp with no issue. For instance my bluefin stage 2+ made 287hp on AMDs rollers, yet only 256hp on Dyno dynamics.

If a car makes good figures on DD rollers you know they are good, and would very likely be alot higher on other dynos.

The key point is comparing timmys old bluefin stage 2+ results(251HP) from JKM to his shark stage 3 results yesterday. the fact that the shark map makes 23hp over the bluefin says it all really.

[muckipup]

if the map is identical id be going down the sensor route.

I know you have my old spare MAF anyway, so thats a start, but the MAP and Lambda sensors are also definitely worthy of a swap. vRSCarl will be able to tell you the part numbers and prices for them as he replaced them all when chasing faults on his revo stage 2+. iirc they were around £70-100 each :'(

AFR/sensor issue aside though, you are making 8Hp more than his Revo Stage 2+ even with the fault. so its not to bad, as long as you keep it down below 5000Rpm where it begins to lean off abit. i think once smoothed out and sorted you might even have the legs on timmys.

as i said earlier, i read recently that APR had been getting issues with their maps with guys using the twintake and ITG which they had been struggling to solve. i believe this to be another reason for this awesome GTI amnesty as APR were uunable to provide the support, but thats another story.....

believe it or not, i read that some guys in the USA had a similar issue with revo software and high flow intakes which from andy @ ITG, is why REVO approached ITG to make such a high flow intake to mimick thie issue, so it could be mapped out.

Thanks Sy,

Yes, I followed Carl's quest to find out why he was not scoring above ?265 bhp with a Revo 2+. In fact, it occurred to me way back then that whatever was going on for him may be going on for me. I forget what his graphs looked like and if he was seeing some bizarre AFR plots.

I don't think it is the Autotech HPFP - the issues seem to anywhere other than the mid-range area where the HPFP was known to have its limitations. It could be boost control and the MAP sensor or either of the two sensors that control the AFR (MAF and pre-cat O2 sensor) although I would guess that they would show the problem across the rev range. The last time I checked fuel trims a few weeks ago I was seeing -2.3% (idle) and 4.7% and today -1.9% and 5.9%; nothing too shocking but the lambda adaptations were close to zero a week or so after fitting the ITG :S On my own and JKM's logs, the MAF readings were quite an accurate reflection of the bhp but were still notably lower than is seen with other cars at the same mapping stage - whether this is a cause or effect remains to be seen though.

I still have your old MAF - why did you swap it out, did you have any issues with it? If not, I'll give it a go as a simple first step.

Of course, the other thing that can affect AFR, especially at higher revs is partially blocked / wonky injectors. If all else fails, the S3 injectors that I'm getting in December may provide an answer....

....or maybe my map is different from Tim's.

In short, I don't have a b*****d clue

Edited 14 November, 2010 by muckipup

[vRSy]

the question is, what does ben have to say to this???

[PhilP1903]

As an uneducated and ignorant person in the case of remaps and engine mapping the main point i see from the graphs is that Tim's graph is far smoother with along smooth peak power plateau before the power drops back down at around 6k revs. Muckipup's graph seems to rise and peak far earlier and fall away earlier and this graph is far less smooth with many "jagged" peaks both before and after the peak power has been attained.

As i say i dont know very much about engine mapping but i get the distinctive impression that these two maps are very different apart from trying to reach maximum performance.

[vRSy]

As an uneducated and ignorant person in the case of remaps and engine mapping the main point i see from the graphs is that Tim's graph is far smoother with along smooth peak power plateau before the power drops back down at around 6k revs. Muckipup's graph seems to rise and peak far earlier and fall away earlier and this graph is far less smooth with many "jagged" peaks both before and after the peak power has been attained.

As i say i dont know very much about engine mapping but i get the distinctive impression that these two maps are very different apart from trying to reach maximum performance.

They should be pretty much identical.

The reason for muckipups drop is due to his air fuel ratio (AFR). if you look at timmys his AFR flats lines at 12 like you would want it. muckipups is all over the place running alot leaner for the whole RPM band.

in a nut shell timmys is running well, daves is running crap with a fault somewhere either in the map or on a sensor somewhere

[shark_tech]

They should be pretty much identical.

The reason for muckipups drop is due to his air fuel ratio (AFR). if you look at timmys his AFR flats lines at 12 like you would want it. muckipups is all over the place running alot leaner for the whole RPM band.

in a nut shell timmys is running well, daves is running crap with a fault somewhere either in the map or on a sensor somewhere

Those cars have different software versions, but the mapping is 100% the same on those versions so results should be identical.

I dont understand why you say its an AFR issue. Its clearly a load control issue (thats why its oscillating midrange) which of course causes AFR fluctuation. They all go hand in hand in these ECU's. AFR is fine for that load (well, of course it would need to be smoother but since it stays under 13:1 its fine). Its leaner because load is lower, but its not too lean, just not as rich as the other.

I'm pretty sure I have a solution for that problem ready to be tested. Its a car issue but probably can be cured in the software as well, if it is what I think it might be (lots of ifs there though... )

Edited 15 November, 2010 by shark_tech

[Richf]

I personally run my cars a lot richer than that and some think mine are too lean 12.5-11.5 (dropping to 11.5 at high rpm)

[shark_tech]

I personally run my cars a lot richer than that and some think mine are too lean 12.5-11.5 (dropping to 11.5 at high rpm)

On 2.0TFSI EGT stays almost constant (when ignition is untouched) between 12.0-12.8 AFR. 13.2 gives about 960C which is still safe for that setup, so its not too lean yet.

Power starts to drop quite rapidly when you enrich it under 12.0, and with these air flow rates, there's not much help from boost increase after flooding it with fuel.

Checking some old logs I've made, 11.5 AFR gives 22C less EGT but 9gr/sec less air mass, so there's no reason to enrich these engines too much.

[muckipup]

Those cars have different software versions, but the mapping is 100% the same on those versions so results should be identical.

I dont understand why you say its an AFR issue. Its clearly a load control issue (thats why its oscillating midrange) which of course causes AFR fluctuation. They all go hand in hand in these ECU's. AFR is fine for that load (well, of course it would need to be smoother but since it stays under 13:1 its fine). Its leaner because load is lower, but its not too lean, just not as rich as the other.

I'm pretty sure I have a solution for that problem ready to be tested. Its a car issue but probably can be cured in the software as well, if it is what I think it might be (lots of ifs there though... )

Hi Mikko,

Any solution sounds good to me although I am curious as to what "load control" actually is....and would the possible software solution be covering up a hardware problem that should really get fixed?

Cheers,

Dave

[muckipup]

BTW folks - I believe JKM have the RR Day results up on their website already