[pelotonracer2]

Finally got the Cobb AP installed this morning. I initially installed the 91 octane stage 1 map due to everyone saying it was better than the 93 map. Peak boost on the 91 map was 19.92 psi, but on average it is hitting 19.5-ish. The max boost run that produced that number was in 2nd gear.

I was seeing 17-18 psi in first gear, but the gear run out is so short it's hard for me to visually read the gauge. I can't really tell on the butt-dyno if the engine is making any more power but I plan on doing a dyno test in a few weeks with all three maps (stock, 91 and 93) just so I can document the output differences on paper. I also tried the 93 octane stage 1 map and concur with others findings that it's not nearly as "responsive" as the 91 map. I have a feeling Cobb is going to want to go back to the drawing board in regards to the 93 map. I still think the 91 octane stage 1 map could be tweaked for a smidge more for a 93 octane car. Boost seems to taper down a bit too much as rpm climbs. I think I remember reading that the 93 map doesn't have quite the taper down and runs 1-2 psi higher at upper rpm. It just appears as if the A/F ratio targets are set too rich on the 93 map and that could be an issue. The engine seems a bit muffled compared to the 91. I was kind of hoping to see peak psi around at least 20.5 psi. Mine seems to be displaying peak boost numbers with nothing erratic showing up like others have. I only drove the FiST about 12 miles since I installed the 91 map. Wondering if all the short/long term fuel trims and speed density learning are erased with the reflash (I would think they would be). Overall I like the AP and can't wait for the Racer Access to be released.

 

[pelotonracer2]

Fun! Nice post, and good to get more data points on the 93 octane map. I'm still going to try it with 96/97 octane to see if is just a bit too aggressive on 93. I'm optimistic!

Yeah, throttle tip in did seem better which would indicate more timing advance just off idle. However, what bothered me more was the muted exhaust at WOT. Either the knock sensors are encountering pinging and retarding the timing so much that it just runs like @ss at higher rpm OR it is running too rich. Boost targets were about the same (peak) on both tunes, although I think the boost taper down is more on the 91 map. The 91 map just "sounds" crisper through-out the range and seems to pull harder through the range.

 

[pelotonracer2]

Have you tried watching the knock sensors under load? Maybe turn on data logging -- that could be quite revealing!

That's next.

 

[pelotonracer2]

I had the same issue with ALL the OTS Cobb maps on my MS3 EXCEPT the "stock" 93 octane stage 0 map which worked the best, even with modifications. Some tweaking of the map turned a very good map into an amazing map. I think 10.8: 1 AFR is way too rich... even on a turbo car. It's amazing how much more you can safely get out of the engine adjusting targets to 11.8:1 instead of 11:1 (at higher rpm) and changing the rpm to boost relationships just a small percentage while adding 1-2 psi from 2500-rpm to 4500 rpm.

 

[pelotonracer2]

That makes sense to me. Even the more aggressive settings (over stock) are situational; I can see where the local test area might have called for a richer AFR due to heat/humidity, etc. It's great to be able to tweak to our own preferences and tolerances for safety.

My most recent WRX had an exhaust and CAI along with a Cobb map. It felt awesome from day one, with no need to tweak. I can already tell I'll never be done playing with this new toy.

Oh yeah, I understood your use of "MS3" to mean "MazdaSpeed 3". Is that right? If so, why did you use "RWHP"? MS3s are very FWD and the torque-steer champions!

Yeah, my bad... I meant to just type whp. lol.

 

[pelotonracer2]

I only tested for about 1hr on 91 and I think I like it....cant wait to get out of work to drive some more.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

It just gets better with more miles as the ECU relearns everything. I have about 100 miles on mine now and absolutely love it (the 91 stage one OTS map).

 

[pelotonracer2]

So are those that purchased this product for 500.00 or so, happy with the gains on the 91 oct map(s) ?
I live in Canada where 93 is not available
Also what I'm really having difficulty with, is risking the mfgs warranty by installing this product :scared:

A very big YES! The 91 octane tune is better than stock as far as power, the car doesn't fall on it's face between shifts like it used to and the car pulls like a beast to the NEW 7000 rpm limit. I'd say it is very much worth the money, IMHO.

 

[pelotonracer2]

I ran nearly straight 98oct and switched to the 93map and it was good for a couple laps, then tapered down to at or below the 91map performance. I am running only on the 91map till they get it sorted out. I do wish it would hit over 19psi. Never seems to crest that level no matter the gear.

I've noticed that after the first few runs, boost never reaches 20+ psi. My 1st or 2nd WOT run has shown 20.5 to 21 psi (2nd or 3rd gear). After that though It never gets over 19.5 psi (either tunes). Something weird is definitely going on... I think I'm going to download the stock map and see what boost numbers (peak and consistency) in comparison to the Cobb maps.

 

[pelotonracer2]

I also noticed boost doesn't go higher than 19.5 psi 2nd, 3rd & 4th. 5th and 6th 18psi.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

I can still hit 19+ in 5th gear. I find it strange that boost isn't even hitting stock target of 21.5 psi on a regular basis. Only the initial 1st or 2nd WOT run produces decent boost numbers. After that it falls off 1 psi in every gear.

 

[pelotonracer2]

Ok, I think I have discovered something. I started thinking about all the common denominators for the 93 octane tune and decided to try it again today but with a different install & run regimen. All the other times I have installed the 93 map, the car has either been cold or probably not yet to closed loop operation. So today, I drove my car 60 miles and then switched the map, then immediately turned off the traction control drove the car away... in fact, I ragged the piss out of it for about 20 minutes. The butt-dyno says it's faster, the engine sounds more zingy and crisp @ WOT (always an indication of increased timing advance) and better acceleration. Part throttle acceleration is much improved as is throttle response. Doesn't feel like a placebo effect either. I'm going to run this map until I get a dyno scheduled with Cobb (either down in Austin or locally at their Plano store).

 

[pelotonracer2]

Ok, so here is the latest (bare with me). I scheduled an appointment with Cobb Tuning Plano to look into the map discrepancy and to get a baseline for my car. Cobb replaced my K&N panel filter with one of their own for the test and left it in there free of charge. Kudos to them for that! So, with that said... (takes a deep breath)... I am *VERY* disappointed with my "stock" numbers. According to their dyno my car only makes 182 hp and 227 pft torque at the flywheel (a whopping 15 hp less than Fords advertised rating). The torque is quite good though. Either the correction and input factors on the dyno is uber conservative (Mustang dynos notoriously net lower numbers than Dynojet dynos, that is just a fact), OR my car has an UNUSUALLLY high driveline loss (highly doubtful), OR my car is just a complete "DUD". I have never seen such a low "horsepower to the wheels" number on a Fiesta ST anywhere in the world (and I have seen over two dozen different dyno runs on 2-3 different types of dynos) for this application. The number spread between all those dyno runs is less than 5%. I think I will have to seek a second opinion (and dyno my car on a Dynojet 248E just to get a comparison). :biglaugh: Also, I was a bit disappointed that I was not provided with the best 91 map dyno run to compare with the 93 map dyno run (is it a state secret?). I can't compare the two tunes curve for curve to verify which one is truly "better". I was only provided with my best run (they did about 10 dyno runs total). But... I'm not going to complain since they did my baseline for free. :meh: My best Cobb tuned run, supposedly on the 93 map (I really don't know for sure) netted 172 hp & 247 pft torque to the wheels. The "tuned" wheel horsepower number is on the lowish side of a bone stock car and with an estimated driveline loss of 12%. That's approximately 192 hp & 276 pft torque @ the flywheel (good lord that's some beefy torque!!!). They did do some OAR adjustment running to get -1.00 on the timing advance learning. Anyways, that's where I am. :whistling:

 

[pelotonracer2]

The turbo could be maxed assuming there's no wastegate duty cycle retardation going on.

Yeah, there are obviously many factors. The turbo being one of them. Another is torque specific target in the ecu. I can sometimes hit 21+ psi sometimes only 19. It is intermittent.

 

[pelotonracer2]

According to Cobb, there is a torque target calculation that "could" effect boost targets. .

 

[pelotonracer2]

Here is the best of all your runs and the others to play with: Fiesta ST Dyno at COBB Plano

Ian

Thanks.

 

[pelotonracer2]

9hp (roughly 6%) may seem kind of ho-hum, but 44 ft/lb torque (roughly 22%) is pretty freakin' beefy. How does she pull now?

Actually, if you look at the graphs, there's a place under the curve where the torque difference is 49 pft. lol. That's a significant amount of difference and something you can feel behind the wheel. Torque steer has officially reared it's ugly but equally fun head. Drivability is much improved. Traction is a bit more limited (that's an understatement) despite running sticky 215 width Dunlop Direzza D2 tires on 7.5" wide wheels. There's also the +29-30 extra horsepower up on top where the stock map falls on it's face, the Cobb tune pulls hard all the way to rev limit (which is now 7000 rpm instead of 6350. Peak numbers don't always tell the whole story. The engine pulls A whole LOT better up top now too. Just feels good everywhere... better throttle response, better mid range, better top end. What more could we ask for?

 

[pelotonracer2]

I too agree the change from stock is very impressive.

I just don't think the difference between 91 and 93 is worth the difference in fuel cost.
I think I will stay with the 91.

Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave

Yeah, there just isn't that much of a difference. Where I've seen the biggest difference in the two tunes is closed loop fuel economy, the stage 3 returns around 6-8% better.

 

[pelotonracer2]

Torque is where it's at for the fun factor. I came from Mustangs. Drove a Civic Si a few years ago thinking I could deal with the lack of torque. Wrong! Bought an '08 Mustang GT/CS My '86 GT was hilarious. It could pull stumps up to about 4K RPM, then it just fell flat. Burnouts were anti-climactic ... unless you could grab a shift and keep the tires spinning ;-)

Yeah, I had a 1986 GT convertible. Red with a white top, and white leather seats. 2.73 gears... lots of torque but not much of anything else. My FiST would blow the doors off of that car. The heads on '86 model 5.0s really sucked (not to mention the anemic plenum, lower intake manifold, throttle body and other differences). The '87 and up speed density 5.0s could breathe a lot better and ran a lot better. Then due to new emissions standards, they switched over to MAF in '89. The debate still rages on today which ran better. I know it was easier to use a B303 cam in the '89+ heh (better idle quality and drivability). Back in the day I ate, breathed and slept Mustang 5.0s (owned 7 of them: an '86, '88, two '89s, two '90s and a '91). The only "GT" model was the '86. The rest were all LX 5.0s in trunk back (notchback) or convertible.