Discussion in 'Fiesta ST EcoBoost™ Tuning' started by McRib 1s Back, Dec 20, 2013.
LOL. Whatever works I guess.
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.
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.
I hope by "early" he means sometime in January... hehehe
Yeah, me neither. I used to buy 55 gallon drums of 103 octane unleaded for our motorsport program. I don't even know where to get it these days.
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!
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.
Yeah, I don't think we can get E85 in Texas. I will try my regular old 93 octane premium with the 93 tune and pay special attention to ping. I had no issues running local 93 octane with my MS3 set to overboost peak of 19.5 psi, with taper to 17-18 psi (which is considerably more than stock (15.5 psi). Never any problems with deto on that vehicle. I will get the access race software the same day it is released. lol.
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 $4.50 a gallon was! I'd kill for that price now.
I really don't want a bigger turbo right now. I think part of the fun is the super fast spooling -- but I totally get that we can install a bigger turbo with superior characteristics (spool, flow, etc.). The turbo-back exhaust and down-pipe (and big cat) is good stuff and I'll probably do that.
Also, I had two WRX cars! I love them. If my dealer had a "base" STi, I might be driving that now (great deals on those right now). I had an early Cobb tune on my "265HP WRX" and it was good fun. My early 2001 WRX was more built, but frankly didn't make big power (I ran a lot of the AUS rally scene stuff).
This is a great conversation, and I'm looking forward to more on this topic. I hear that E85 is a lot easier to find, so that could be a real alternative.
Trey Cobb personally built my '02 RT-Spec WRX when they were here in Texas. I sometimes wonder what the Fiesta ST would be like with AWD. lol
I'm running the 93oct map and the car feels like its lost a step or two. And we have 93 here. I wasnt impressed at all frankly. I'll jump to the 91map and see if performance returns or gets better. What is funny is nearly each time the gauge will display a max boost pressure of 649psi. Clearly off by a few pounds.
Here is where I have mine mounted
Yeah, clearly. lol
^^^ That's actually a GREAT place to have the Cobb AP. Can you see the screen without interference from the steering wheel? Thanks for posting pics.
@#$% UPS is late delivering my Cobb AP this morning.
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!
Yes I am fairly confident in the quality and consistency of the gasoline that I buy but I will also always be cautious with this platform initially. To be honest, I have seen a degradation in performance on CA fuel compared to what we get here. My Mom lives in Carmel, CA and the couple times I drove there from Texas, I did notice a significant difference in performance but some of that could be air quality issues. I always thought it was some CARB specific blend difference. I will try both maps and see what differences I feel and can see with the different gauges on the AP.
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.
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.
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
Separate names with a comma.