[McRib 1s Back]

The good people at FSWERKS delivered my AccessPort last night. Oddly, it was raining in LA -- so this will have to wait until I get home later today to play.

I also sprung for the ITG panel filter. At $64.95, it's about 2x the cost of a K&N, but I like that it's essentially a durable foam filter. I don't plan to test them independently, but I can see this just being a stop-gap until I decide on a full cold air intake system of some kind (the FSWERKS one looks good and has 2.5" piping throughout). A quick read of the instruction sheet marks this as a very British product (and presumably has lots of street/race miles in that market under the brand, for this model). Their claim is that you can essentially install and forget it (knock of the big stuff and vacuum it as needed). I noticed that a cleaning and oil kit is out available, but I didn't get it (I'll probably replace it with a new system by the time I need to clean it).

These AccessPorts are going like hotcakes. It appears that this single unit services both the Focus and Fiesta ST, so that may explain why they're in short supply right now (I was # 10 of 10 according to Randy).

I only have the base map to play with, but that's fine by me. I'm looking forward to a new custom map from FSWERKS, and frankly was the reason I bought the Cobb AccessPort from them. The SOCAL Cobb shop isn't too far from my home, but I probably won't have much occasion to go there (maybe a dyno run or two?).

It feels like most people here already have this setup, but I'll be at the Irvine meet-and-greet on the 28th if anyone wants to check it out.

 

[McRib 1s Back]

I'll find out later today! I think so -- but just so I'm clear, is your question about whether you can do this in tandem while the AcessPort is physically jacked in, or just after being flashed, in general?

 

[McRib 1s Back]

It's starting to look like anything plugged into the OBD2 port does it. I'll confirm later, but I can see the logic -- Ford figures the only thing that would be plugged in is their own diagnostic tool(s). It's probably a very simple connection check and intended to prevent the systems from conflicting.

 

[McRib 1s Back]

Can you still run a Vehicle Health Report with the AccessPort plugged in?

It turns out I'll have wait a bit longer. Though I have about 200 miles, it seems the system has a magic number before it feels your first check should happen! Check out this error message:

 

[McRib 1s Back]

My AccessPort is nicely mounted using a system intended for cell phones. This particular one is the best I've found and would recommend it for this purpose too.

One caveat: It uses a suction cup with a mild adhesive (that is regenerative, just rinse it in water if it loses it's grip). This is awesome for staying stuck to a less-than-non-porous surface, like a dash. It *may* leave a faint stain if you remove it. I once had this experience years ago on my Audi A4 1.8T. It was faint, but bothered me. That stuff doesn't bother me anymore for some reason. FWIW, it doesn't seem to do that on our dash...yet.

(I bought three of these from Amazon, each for $19)

Here's a shot:

 

[McRib 1s Back]

...oh yeah, like everyone else said, this setup rocks! It is a moderate improvement and worth the money. It pulls harder and sounds great. My panel filter made a small audible change (but not like the typical cold-air intake). I'm happy and can't wait for the new FSWERKS map.

 

[McRib 1s Back]

After a few days with the 91 octane base map, I started to wonder about the possibility of running the 93 octane map...

Like a few of you, I worried about having "ghetto gas" in my car's first tank from the dealer! It took me until last night to get rid of it. Without turning this into a debate about the "best gas", I prefer 76 for best resistance to pinging (Nissan did a big study in the 90s and concluded it was the best for this application). I'm sticking to that for now.

Anyhow, what do you guys think about the use of the "93 octane map" under carefully controlled "good CA 91 octane" gas use? I really wish I had easy access to unleaded race gas, but my local places quit selling it (then I'd simply mix it).

Anyone try that? I don't know how easy it is to hear pinging in this car -- and I certainly haven't heard any obvious signs. With the cool weather it should help, but I'm not trying to kill the motor! Thoughts?

 

[McRib 1s Back]

fuel formulations have changed a few times over since the 1990s.

Ha, yeah, but it remains a top pick (and it was the only source I knew about authoritatively, lots of anecdotal stuff on this topic). I know that Randy at FSWERKS shares this opinion too. Really, you can't go too far wrong with a tier-one choice. I also like Chevron and Mobil, but again 76 for resistance to pre-ignition!

 

[McRib 1s Back]

Yeah, the problem is that most gas stations these days are "franchises". They only have to purchase fuel from the franchisee refineries for a contracted amount of time and then after that period they can buy fuel from whomever they want (usually the cheapest gasoline they can find). It's one big reason I steer clear from ma and pops gas stations or convenient stores. Even though the sign might say "Shell" or "Chevron" or "Mobil", the fuel they buy is rarely those companies formulations. As absurd as this will sound, I really like "Quick Trip" gasoline. Never had an inconsistent batch of fuel and I usually run very aggressive tunes compared to OTS maps. I think much of it boils down to geographical location as well. Fuel formulations can vary drastically from one region to another. We don't have many (if any) 76 stations in Texas anymore.

Right, I'm right there with you. For our area, 76 does well. Despite the low octane, most fuels here are decent.

Thoughts on trying the 93 octane on 91, as described above?

 

[McRib 1s Back]

Thankfully, I don't have a "Test Fiat" handy! Maybe I can get one of the guys from the 500 forum to help me out!

As one of my old buddies used to say, "pinging causes something expensive to happen!". This is how I feel too. Sure, you can get away with a bit, but running better gas than you need is just cheap insurance. I don't trust my ability to simply hear it right now -- every car manifests a little bit different.

 

[McRib 1s Back]

I just talked to Randy at FSWERKS about their experience on both of the available maps (91 and 93 octane). To be clear, he only recommends we run the 91 octane program. He went on to say that for a variety of reasons, the 93 octane map isn't very happy in regions that have 93 octane fuel available, presently. Whether this has to do with a winter blend of fuel or other changes in the way the fuel is being refined, it's clear that the 93 octane map isn't making lots of people happy right now (suggesting that fuel quality is to blame, and possibly not being a true 93 octane). How are people here doing with the 93 octane map?

On the other hand, both maps will simply run better with higher octane fuel (of course!). Randy mentioned that we have another 5 degrees of spark advancement or so available that can happen dynamically. His final recommendation was that if you can get "an honest blend of 96 or 97 octane", you could safely run the 93 octane map and get bigger gains. I may do some mixing and see what happens. Again, getting race fuel isn't that convenient for me right now.

Randy closed with a comment that their Fiesta ST efforts are underway, but we won't see anything product-wise until early next year.

 

[McRib 1s Back]

I hope by "early" he means sometime in January... hehehe

I wouldn't count on it. The guys at FSWERKS have been pretty transparent -- refreshingly so, actually. All of them are good people to talk to, and there's not even a whiff of BS. When Randy said they're busy on current projects (read Focus ST!), I "heard" more than a few weeks away.

Randy reiterated that the Fiesta ST is an important platform for them and they're being careful not to jeopardize existing projects in a rush to get more Fiesta ST stuff out (my words, I'm paraphrasing). I'm good with that. I've been around this business a long time, and we're seeing a pretty rapid development of parts, already.

I'll wait until February before I bug them again!

 

[McRib 1s Back]

the 'answer' to 'race gas' is e85. Assuming the fuel system can deliver or that it can be modified to deliver. i run it in my WRX and get 300 whp from a 2.0L.

I used to have a modified 240z running a 280z motor with a custom turbo setup and adjustable boost. i could run regular and turn the boost down or run race gas and turn it up past 25psi. this was in the 90s and i was paying 5 or 6 bucks a gallon then and it was drinking the stuff. nowadays race gas can be as much as 20 bucks a gallon. e85 is as good as medium grade race gas (105 to 110 octane) and cost about as much to run as high test (not as expensive but it takes more).

and you can get 100 octane no-lead race gas. i used to run it in my sportbikes during track days.

if possible, a slightly larger turbo, bigger intercooler, big cat down pipe, bigger turbo back exhaust, e85 tune would be nice.

i await cobb's access tuner race, and turbo back exhaust before i buy. this is what i run on my WRX. you could take their '93 octane' map and tweak it a bit if its a bit too aggressive for you local 93 gas.

Thanks for this. When I was tuning my 370Z, I ran into a few guys doing the E85 routine (over at Sean Church's place).

Anyhow, E85 takes some consideration. I don't know if our fuel system is E85 ready -- is our car a "flex fuel" car? If not, that's something to sort out.

100 octane no-lead is available, but just not convenient. Back in 90s and early 2000s, I could get it from my local 76 in a pump. I recall thinking how expensive $4.50 a gallon was! I'd kill for that price now.

I really don't want a bigger turbo right now. I think part of the fun is the super fast spooling -- but I totally get that we can install a bigger turbo with superior characteristics (spool, flow, etc.). The turbo-back exhaust and down-pipe (and big cat) is good stuff and I'll probably do that.

Also, I had two WRX cars! I love them. If my dealer had a "base" STi, I might be driving that now (great deals on those right now). I had an early Cobb tune on my "265HP WRX" and it was good fun. My early 2001 WRX was more built, but frankly didn't make big power (I ran a lot of the AUS rally scene stuff).

This is a great conversation, and I'm looking forward to more on this topic. I hear that E85 is a lot easier to find, so that could be a real alternative.

 

[McRib 1s Back]

I'm running the 93oct map and the car feels like its lost a step or two. And we have 93 here. I wasnt impressed at all frankly. I'll jump to the 91map and see if performance returns or gets better. What is funny is nearly each time the gauge will display a max boost pressure of 649psi. Clearly off by a few pounds.

Here is where I have mine mounted

I'm guessing we're going to get more of this kind of feedback on the 93 octane map. Randy basically said the same thing about the car losing a step or two. I'm very curious how it runs with the 91 octane map on the same "93 octane" fuel. Even without the explicit parameter changes in the 93 map, you'll gain some spark advance, and will better off than us poor CA folk.

Since you are running multiple tuned turbo cars, can you confidently say you don't have a local fuel problem? It would be nice to get to the bottom of this.

I run a single large digital "gauge" for boost pressure on my AP, and there are some repeatable conditions that I can induce to cause oddly high artificial boost readings. I bet this is an easy code fix. My main gauge is always accurate/believable, however. It's just the min/max histogram that is wrong on mine. But like you, I often run 100s of PSI of boost!

 

[McRib 1s Back]

It seems Huntington Beach Car Wash in HB sells race gas 7 days a week! Full service only, 08:00 to 17:00. $9.95/gallon.

I'll make a 96 octane blend and report back on the 93 octane map.

 

[McRib 1s Back]

CONFIRMED - 91oct MAP is the one to run. Definitely picked up more power. 93oct is a dud. Possibly too much advance or knock count - I havent data logged yet.

Glad I saw this post bc I wasnt too happy with the performance and was actually going to run the stock map. 91 is way better than 93

That's great news! Do you have access to higher octane gas? Based on Randy's comments, I'll try it (the 93 octane map) on 96/97 octane fuel.

For our car, that's six gallons of 100 and about five gallons of 91 CA pee- water.

 

[McRib 1s Back]

I'm going switch to the 91oct map now and post the results. The AP location is nice bc I have a clear view of the 5 gauges and it doesnt hinder the use of the stalk. I prefer to see boost, AFR, intake air temp, water temp and the all important oil temp. I never step in the throttle until the oil is over 140 deg and the water is 180 or higher. Its fun to see how well the IC cools the charge with the IAT reading. Most of the time its nearly a degree off from ambient.

Based on this, I tried out the six gauge layout.

While it's pretty busy, and a lot smaller text, it's fun! I put boost in the upper left, then paired air intake next to intake charge temp -- watching the inverse relationship while under long periods of boost is interesting!

It's also good to know oil and coolant temps for the reasons you specified. The bottom right, and least significant metric, is reserved for battery voltage.

In the A-pillar corner location, all gauges are easily read. I'm happy with this.

 

[McRib 1s Back]

That's great news! Do you have access to higher octane gas? Based on Randy's comments, I'll try it (the 93 octane map) on 96/97 octane fuel.

For our car, that's six gallons of 100 and about five gallons of 91 CA pee- water.

Freshly armed with a full tank of 100 octane fuel, I'm ready to test! I originally planned to just make a 96/97 octane mix, but that wouldn't save me much money. Worse yet, I'd be wondering if that extra bit of higher test fuel that I didn't get, would have made the difference, should I have encounter bad results.

In the interest of good science, I filled the tank with 100 octane, then drove home (14.5 miles) using the same "91 Octane v100" map (plenty of time to mix and make use of nearly 100 octane fuel). For reference, I would say I had less than half a gallon 91 octane in the tank to start -- at worst, I'm running 99 octane fuel now.

The change even with this map was obvious. It's more "crisp' feeling from tip-in to WOT. By immediate, I mean moments after pulling away from the station! If nothing else, the car takes advantage of the better fuel with the 91 octane map. Again, it's cheap insurance on a track day (especially hot ones!). This particular change is just due to the computer dynamically ramping up spark advance with more headroom.

Back in my garage, I switched to the "93 Octane v100" map. It's confirmed loaded, and now I'm going to head out for some driving along the same route (and my secret industrial park track!).

I'm looking for the same feeling of crisp throttle response and good boost -- and more! Back-to-back driving should make it obvious. If I encounter obviously bad results, I'll start data logging. I'm particularly interested in what the knock sensors record. Back in a bit...

 

[McRib 1s Back]

The 93 octane map works great on 100 octane fuel...

This is far from conclusive, but it looks like something about the 93 octane map is just too far out-of-bounds for regular 93 octane fuel (and maybe even better fuel!). My gut feeling is that it's way too aggressive with timing. Since nothing bad/wrong happened, I can't say what. This APv3 is a bit different and I don't seem to have access to the variety of other knock listening metrics from the past (maybe that's coming too -- where's "DAM", wait that's a Subaru thing?!). I didn't hear any knocking, and it felt great everywhere. Perhaps the base map was made with 100 octane fuel by accident?

I burned just under a 1/4 tank of this precious fuel and did three back-to-back tests of 91 vs 93 map tests in the same conditions. The 93 octane map is better everywhere for me. This isn't sustainable, of course! At this rate, I'll only be able to drive around another day before having to get more 100 octane gas! Hey, it's only a little more than twice the cost of "premium" fuel!

I think Cobb is getting this message from customers and partners like FSWERKS, alike. I don't feel a need to dog pile. I'm happy with the maps, but I'd only run this 93 octane map on 100 octane fuel until something changes. It looks like I'll have to go back to the old 91 octane map in the near future. YMMVG!

 

[McRib 1s Back]

I havnt tried 93 map and probably wont cause im Kinda afraid to after hearing your testimonies. Dont wanna fudge my engine.
91 seems stable enough for me with 93 octane.
Mcrib does your engine feel like it vibrates a bit more after the tune?

I think 91 is fine, all around. I agree, leave 93 alone for now.

More noise, so yeah, more vibrations is fair. I have more induction noise with the air filter too -- but nothing " off". I'm still happy with this setup. Enjoy it!