Ignition tables in the OTS 1.02 Gen 1 boost maps, hugely different from the Load maps

[FreeFlyFreak]

So I noticed that the Ignition tables in the OTS 1.02 Gen 1 boost maps, hugely different from the ignition tables in the OTS Load maps.

I am not sure if this is the right place to get answers from Cobb, but:

1) What prompted this?
2) Are the ignition tables based on what you have seen in the Gen 2 ECU, or from experience gained when dyno tuning.
3) I notice no difference in ignition timing between the 91 and 93 maps, is that intended.

The reason I ask is that I am currently running the 1.02 Stage 1+ SF BT map and get waaay more partial throttle knock retard than I am used to seeing on the previous maps I have tried and it has me concerned.

I really havent had time to do any logging recently, but my DashDaq is always screaming at me about cruising knock with the 1.02 Boost map with the new ignition tables where it used to be mostly quiet.

Thanks.


EDIT: Oops, meant to post this in "Cobb Tuning Resource Area" please move there or to the most appropriate area.

[WorstEpEver]

I noticed this as well too.

Although from what I understand, part throttle KR is a "phantom" knock, in which the ecu uses for fuel efficiency.

[fjames]

Huh, what they did was copy the high throttle table onto the low throttle table. Huh. Maybe they think it makes sense because they implemented the OL transition thing to 1.0?

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by fjames Huh, what they did was copy the high throttle table onto the low throttle table. Huh. Maybe they think it makes sense because they implemented the OL transition thing to 1.0?

You must be looking at something different than me.

Compare 1.02 BT ign tables to 1.08 Load ignition tables. huge diff.

Gotta go.

[fjames]

Originally Posted by FreeFlyFreak You must be looking at something different than me. Compare 1.02 BT ign tables to 1.08 Load ignition tables. huge diff. Gotta go.

What I did was compare the OL High form both and they're a little different, but whatever. Then I compared the CL Low of both and huge difference.

Then I compared High and Low on the BT itself, and that's what I posted about - they're the same, so the Low table is much more aggressive than on old maps because it's literally the same as the High table.

I hope that made sense

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by fjames I hope that made sense

Not really.

Here is what I am looking at:

1.02 BT all ign tables (not max):
A)


1.08 load ign tables:

Low
B)


High
C)


Now maybe you consider not much difference between A and C is what you are saying.......
and that A) is a slightly modified version of C) and that they are now all the same because of the OL/CL change.......
Is that what you are saying??

I dunno. They all look substantially different to me. EVEN A and C. Especially in the low load mid rpm cruising knock region.

But hey what do I know. I havent looked at maps or logs in a long while I have been out of the loop recently.

I was just curious:
a) what prompted the sudden change.
b) if it was based on info from the Gen 2 ecu, or on dyno tuning (Im guessing it wasn't just pulled out of someones ass)
c) There used to be differences in these tables between the 91 and 93 maps, now there is not..... this intentional, or a screw up?

[FreeFlyFreak]

See if I can get some answers.....

@Cobb Tuning
@David@COBB

See OP.

[Fatguy729]

maybe it has something to do with the "more power in lower RPM's" that they have claimed? I dunno shit about the ignition tables, so its just a guess.

[FreeFlyFreak]

I have to say. I do feel more poke down low.