Focus Fanatics Forum banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
That Guy
Joined
·
13,634 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
This isn't a tuning thread per se, it's a troubleshooting aid. I had to create it to help aid some members that were inadvertently perpetuating some fear-mongering done by a certain tuner in the FiST community. It was a situation in which I requested proof that (not surprisingly) no one seemed to have, so once I had some I posted it myself to help the others learn.
 

·
Old Phart
Joined
·
44,596 Posts
This isn't a tuning thread per se, it's a troubleshooting aid. I had to create it to help aid some members that were inadvertently perpetuating some fear-mongering done by a certain tuner in the FiST community. It was a situation in which I requested proof that (not surprisingly) no one seemed to have, so once I had some I posted it myself to help the others learn.
This seems to be where the discussion is at cross purposes.

One (Dyn085) looking at what seems to be "smooth" data (optimum or not) vs. a couple examples from another car with or without an aftermarket RMM (rear motor mount) that differ in randomness of corrections. One of those seems to have much more variability in corrections logged with the other (stock RMM) having less.

The other (paulg127) looking at the data from the viewpoint of which is tuned better to require less knock adjustment from sensor data, seeing the FoST logs as both closer to optimum with random adjustments not showing a solid trend to a larger total adjustment. The FiST logs show a clean trend to adding 6* at max. by comparison.


I can't say if the FoST logs show the "false knock" that's the original subject for sure, but they looked fairly convincing at showing a difference from a change in an external component you wouldn't want to see.

Without the FiST logs for comparison, the original post might have been less confusing as it seems paulg127 took those as an optimum example instead of as one without the "interference" of possible "false knock" shown in the difference between FoST logs.


Post up your opinions on this, if I'm reading it right you're both correct but talking about entirely different issues.
 

·
That Guy
Joined
·
13,634 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
This seems to be where the discussion is at cross purposes.

One (Dyn085) looking at what seems to be "smooth" data (optimum or not) vs. a couple examples from another car with or without an aftermarket RMM (rear motor mount) that differ in randomness of corrections. One of those seems to have much more variability in corrections logged with the other (stock RMM) having less.

The other (paulg127) looking at the data from the viewpoint of which is tuned better to require less knock adjustment from sensor data, seeing the FoST logs as both closer to optimum with random adjustments not showing a solid trend to a larger total adjustment. The FiST logs show a clean trend to adding 6* at max. by comparison.


I can't say if the FoST logs show the "false knock" that's the original subject for sure, but they looked fairly convincing at showing a difference from a change in an external component you wouldn't want to see.

Without the FiST logs for comparison, the original post might have been less confusing as it seems paulg127 took those as an optimum example instead of as one without the "interference" of possible "false knock" shown in the difference between FoST logs.


Post up your opinions on this, if I'm reading it right you're both correct but talking about entirely different issues.
You're entirely right, and that's exactly my point. No one in the ST community would think that Cobb's OTS tunes are optimal, nor would they waste their time trying to argue that. Likewise, they would fully-understand the data presented because false-knock is a legitimate issue with the FoST and has been well-documented.

My post is clear to those that own ST's and have some experience with the AP3 and datalogging. I have written multiple tech articles to help get ST owners started with the process and learn how to correctly collect, analyze, and share data. It is, quite literally, what has defined my reputation in the FiST community. That, and my continual requests for proof of claims.

No person knowledgeable with the platform would try and turn this into a tuning debate. This is literally only one of many things to look for while troubleshooting and was written to help those that have been mislead by other 'professional' tuners. It may not make sense to those that are unfamiliar with the EB platform, but I can assure you that what's presented is not incorrect in the slightest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
My point is to optimize your vehicle for your operating conditions and available fuel.

Your post indicated 93 octane shell - high quality fuel.
This should be your baseline.
Your adaptive knock should be 0 - since you won't learn a better fuel - in theory.
With this configuration, your spark tables should be optimized to keep the knock sensor from adding spark and remain ~0.
This would give you maximum spark, performance and efficiency for the given fuel.

Your 'method' gives up a large amount of spark timing while the KS adds it back in.

You are giving up efficiency and power with your 'method'.
My objection is posting it like it is a recognized correct way to do things. It is NOT for getting optimized spark for an engine.

Isn't your whole point to get your individual engine operating at it's peak power and
efficiency?

Your posted method is NOT the way to do that. As said before, you are not tuning a pretty KS signature. You should be tuning for optimum spark (meaning no KS correction) at a given operating condition.

You have the benefit of tuning just one engine and this can be optimized to get you the best efficiency and power based on the characteristics of your individual engine.

The whole title to this thread is misleading.
false knock or nah -- do you ever say if you think your data is false knock or nah??

If you want to optimize your spark (should be the whole objective of producing maximum power and efficiency) you should use the knock sensor to determine if you are over or under sparked.
The sensor reacts quickly to knock (reduction), but add slower due to historical knock data. This gives up efficiency and power.

If you want to think of it in another way, think about this (again, just think, don't type).

Assume for a moment your ST did NOT have a knock sensor.

Would you be happy with your spark advance?

think-- don't type, maybe go for a drive with the KS turned off ---

Your answer should obviously be NO because the sensor in your FiST example (the one you call optimized) is ADDING 6 degrees of spark. Without the KS you would be (at a minimum) 6 degrees under sparked, giving up torque and fuel efficiency.
 

·
That Guy
Joined
·
13,634 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
My point is to optimize your vehicle for your operating conditions and available fuel.
I went ahead and removed the rest of your comment because of your very first sentence-you're not even discussing what the thread is about. There is no need for this discussion in this thread. I've been telling you that from the beginning.

If you don't understand the first post then that's fine, ask for help. Don't keep wasting both of our time with this tuning nonsense because it doesn't apply. You're trying to explain oranges to me when the thread is about apples, and until you realize that you're going to keep posting unrelated garbage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
Assume for a moment your ST did NOT have a knock sensor.

Would you be happy with your spark advance?

think-- don't type, maybe go for a drive with the KS turned off ---

Your answer should obviously be NO because the sensor in your FiST example (the one you call optimized) is ADDING 6 degrees of spark. Without the KS you would be (at a minimum) 6 degrees under sparked, giving up torque and fuel efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
You asked for discussion. You got it.
Take some criticism and re-think your position.

I am trying to assist people who are tuning to get maximum power and efficiency out of their vehicles.

You are tuning a knock sensor to make a pretty graph.
 

·
Old Phart
Joined
·
44,596 Posts
Paul, how about looking back to this one then look at Duane's response:http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/9084937-post22.html

How to Tune wasn't the subject of this one, he had another thread detailing some of his tuning experiments but this is a different subject. The other wasn't a How To either BTW.
 

·
That Guy
Joined
·
13,634 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
You asked for discussion. You got it.
Take some criticism and re-think your position.

I am trying to assist people who are tuning to get maximum power and efficiency out of their vehicles.

You are tuning a knock sensor to make a pretty graph.
It's truly baffling that you seem to think that I'm the one that needs to take criticism and re-think my position. Do you even read, bro?

I'm literally the only one in this thread that knows what the thread is about and how what is posted is relevant. And that's not intended to offend everyone that is not you or I, because none of them own ST's and none of them are trying to prove me wrong with information that has zero relevance to the thread. Half of what you have said about the ST platform has either been wrong or only partially correct at best.

You're not assisting anyone by trying to derail the discussion with nonsense and condescension. If you want to discuss tuning then create a tuning thread and discuss it. If you want to partake in this thread, however, then stop discussing tuning and start discussing false-knock.

Even in my tuning thread you showed how little you know about this platform. That's obviously not as noticeable to others that haven't been tuning the EB, but you're not going to blow smoke with me. Try and divert the discussion all you want, but you're definitely not fooling me-especially with how much I've used this system in the last year.

I don't know if it's worse that the community is sheltered from tuning or if it's the constant crap that's being fed to them. If more people would ask for data to substantiate claims then this community would grow in knowledge pretty quickly. To be fair, I'm sure the majority doesn't really care.

I (and anyone else reading this thread) still haven't seen any datalogs of the multiple ST's that you've been tuning...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,258 Posts
Is that guy really a tuner? If so where is he from? Company name? How many ST's have you tuned? What tuning software do you use? Hmmmm
 

·
Old Phart
Joined
·
44,596 Posts
Prob. shouldn't speak for him, but IIRC he's worked at the factory level in Tuning so info. comes from a different level & objective. Not aftermarket tweaks as a specialty but optimizing the original (dealing with restrictions and still making it run well in varied circumstances).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
"You're not assisting anyone by trying to derail the discussion with nonsense and condescension. If you want to discuss tuning then create a tuning thread and discuss it. If you want to partake in this thread, however, then stop discussing tuning and start discussing false-knock.

Even in my tuning thread you showed how little you know about this platform. That's obviously not as noticeable to others that haven't been tuning the EB, but you're not going to blow smoke with me. Try and divert the discussion all you want, but you're definitely not fooling me-especially with how much I've used this system in the last year.

I don't know if it's worse that the community is sheltered from tuning or if it's the constant crap that's being fed to them. If more people would ask for data to substantiate claims then this community would grow in knowledge pretty quickly. To be fair, I'm sure the majority doesn't really care.

I (and anyone else reading this thread) still haven't seen any datalogs of the multiple ST's that you've been tuning..."



This is why I continue to comment on this, as indicated previously what exactly did you intend with this post?
False knock?? Why do you think it's false??
I have seen pressure traces verses knock activity. Rarely is there false knock. Because you can't hear it does not mean you don't have knock.

I know for a fact I have far more experience with this platform that you do as we started quite a bit before the vehicle was released.

My objection was your description of the FiST logs as the objective of the data you want to see from the KS.

The only way the FiST KS signature would be what you want is if you were sure you were going to experience LSPI, or a similar event to enable a very large knock sensor reduction.

There are better ways to do this, as I'm sure you already know, being the expert you are, by increasing the range of knock sensor capability, and tuning the base table as I indicated above.
That would accomplish your objective(??) and provide maximum efficiency and power.


This is a fun quote from you - " derail the discussion with nonsense and condescension"
This is fun too - "Even in my tuning thread you showed how little you know about this platform"

You still have a LOT to learn junior - " Try and divert the discussion all you want, but you're definitely not fooling me-especially with how much I've used this system in the last year" -- a whole year, wow, great job (is that the condescension you need? or maybe it's condensation)

PM me if your in the Detroit area and I can show you many, I can't post things like that here -- "I (and anyone else reading this thread) still haven't seen any datalogs of the multiple ST's that you've been tuning..."
 

·
That Guy
Joined
·
13,634 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
Yet again, the FiST data is relevant because this was a thread created in a FiST forum.

The log showing the false knock is the exact same tune as the log without, literally the only change was the RMM. Once I went back to the OEM RMM the knock was gone. Maybe you're claiming that the car was suddenly having tune issues, but only during the time the Cobb RMM was installed?

Of course not. Like I said, this is a well-documented issue in the FoST community. It's false-knock, plain and simple.

Clearly you have more experience on this platform than I do.



P.S.-Condensation is is the change of water from its gaseous form (water vapor) into liquid water. I'm pretty confident that I was correct to use condescension. Call me Junior if it makes you feel better, but I'm not the one having an oranges discussion in an apple thread. I can't expect to have a reasonable discussion with someone that doesn't even understand the subject being discussed.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
After brushing the cobb-webs out of the space in between my ears, I have a question:

Basically, an after market Rear Motor Mount will cause false knock issues and retard the timing on a Focus ST or Fiesta ST?

I am new to my Focus ST, but I have has a few WRX's with Cobb AP's and custom tunes (eventually). Subaru's are notorious for false knock, until the deadly 'piston ring issue' rears it's ugly head and you find the motor needs to be rebuilt.

So what's the good word? Get a motor mount because the stock one causes wheel hop and the dreaded '1st to 2nd hard shift bang" (when the motor literally hits the firewall? Haven't had this happen yet...), or keep the stock one to absorb excess vibrations that throw the motor's linearity and firing order out of whack?

P.S. I know it's an old thread. But it's an interesting subject for someone debating on biting the mod bug back!
 

·
That Guy
Joined
·
13,634 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
After brushing the cobb-webs out of the space in between my ears, I have a question:

Basically, an after market Rear Motor Mount will cause false knock issues and retard the timing on a Focus ST or Fiesta ST?

I am new to my Focus ST, but I have has a few WRX's with Cobb AP's and custom tunes (eventually). Subaru's are notorious for false knock, until the deadly 'piston ring issue' rears it's ugly head and you find the motor needs to be rebuilt.

So what's the good word? Get a motor mount because the stock one causes wheel hop and the dreaded '1st to 2nd hard shift bang" (when the motor literally hits the firewall? Haven't had this happen yet...), or keep the stock one to absorb excess vibrations that throw the motor's linearity and firing order out of whack?

P.S. I know it's an old thread. But it's an interesting subject for someone debating on biting the mod bug back!
RMM's don't always cause false-knock, so don't let that be a deterrent from getting one. Just know that there is a possibility, though you're not going to know unless you have an AP3 to monitor it. There are also plenty of other ways to get it, such as having a charge pipe touching the frame.

Also, fwiw, there is no possible way for your engine to hit the firewall unless one or both of your upper mounts completely break.
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top