My Cobb AP observations...

Discussion in 'Fiesta ST EcoBoost™ Tuning' started by pelotonracer2, Dec 26, 2013.

  1. pelotonracer2

    pelotonracer2 Active Member

    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.
     
  2. Register or Sign in

    Advertisement Sponsor

     
  3. pelotonracer2

    pelotonracer2 Active Member

    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.
     
  4. stuntdoogie

    stuntdoogie Active Member

    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
     
    pelotonracer2 likes this.
  5. pelotonracer2

    pelotonracer2 Active Member

    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.
     
  6. stuntdoogie

    stuntdoogie Active Member

    When running a vehicle health report is it ok to keep the tune or revert back to stock?

    Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
     
  7. RodMoe

    RodMoe Well-Known Member

    Should be fine with Tune installed at least mine showed now issues
     
  8. pelotonracer2

    pelotonracer2 Active Member

    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).
     
  9. pelotonracer2

    pelotonracer2 Active Member

    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. o_O 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:
     
  10. Monochrome

    Monochrome Member

    The turbo could be maxed assuming there's no wastegate duty cycle retardation going on.
     
    pelotonracer2 likes this.
  11. pelotonracer2

    pelotonracer2 Active Member

    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.
     
  12. Monochrome

    Monochrome Member

    There's torque calculation in a speed density based fuel calculation?
     
  13. pelotonracer2

    pelotonracer2 Active Member

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

    COBB Active Member

    spangenb and Firesail like this.
  15. D1JL

    D1JL Well-Known Member

    Those dyno numbers look good.
    But I am not sure that the difference between the 91 and 93 is worth the added cost of fuel.
    Since I live in California we do not have 93 so it would need to be blended and that added cost would be astronomical.


    Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

    Dave
     
  16. pelotonracer2

    pelotonracer2 Active Member

  17. Autonomous

    Autonomous New Member

    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?
     
  18. pelotonracer2

    pelotonracer2 Active Member

    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. o_O 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? :D
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
  19. D1JL

    D1JL Well-Known Member

    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
     
    Firesail and pelotonracer2 like this.
  20. F1ST

    F1ST Member

    I've never seen (or never noticed) 91 at the pump. Around here we get 87, 89, 93. New England area.
     
  21. RodMoe

    RodMoe Well-Known Member

    ahh we get to the old debate would you rather be fast from 5k to 7k or fast from 3k to 6k rpm's ? After living with a hi rev no torque car I'll take the Phat low end torque curve and add to that ;) but thats just me
     

Share This Page