Data Logs Of Stock Ignition Map

[pioneer_sti]

I recently bought a used Power FC to have a little fun playing around with on the Celica. Out of curiousity I wanted to know the stock ignition advance by Toyota, so I borrowed an OBDII scanner/logger from a shop here. The car is a JDM car, and considering they are supposedly tuned a little more aggressive the timing was a little lower than I expected below 6800 rpm.

I have attached the results. One is the list of figures, and the other is a roughly estimated map using the numbers from the list of figures. The load used was TPS, as there was not an option to log the MAF voltage, which was a pity.

I tried searching but didn't have much luck, but would like to know if anyone else has mapped the stock ignition advance at WOT.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/Ignition_Table_Log_Stock.jpg

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/Ignition_Figures_Log_Stock.jpg

One thing worth noting is that on this OBDII min throttle was reprted as 10.5% and max throttle as 77.3%, so I had to use a formula to extract the correct throttle angle.

For reference, this was first done after the ECU had been reset, and then done again after a lot of WOT runs to see if there was much difference as the ECU adapted. The fuel was obviously adequate, so there was no redcution in ignition advance. The ambient temp was around 24

[jlitman]

Nice! Great info!


This should be stickied along with the thread about the stock VVTLi map.

http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?t=293207

One finding of note, which I've also noticed on my own logs, is that the factory ECU pulls quite a bit of timing on WOT tip-in.

I added a good bit of timing on WOT tip-in in my EMU map (there is a separate map just for quick inj and ign inputs) and greatly improved throttle response.

~10% TPS when closed is normal, as is a reading of right around 80% for WOT.

If you are feeling adventurous, you might also want to try logging ign by either load or MAF g/sec for greater resolution.

[pioneer_sti]

Thanks for the confirmation on the TPS span issue. :) I'll try an borrow the OBDII again an log the MAF g/sec.

I really wish that Toyota would output MAF voltage from the OBDII. When I tested my STi, it had so many more parameters you could view, you could even log the AVCS (same as VVT)! Maybe it was the OBDII scanner/logger (same as used on STi) I was using that just couldn't read the MAF voltages and the VVT angles on the 2ZZ-GE, but it is a fairly expensive unit, so that wouldn't make sense. Have you, or anyone, ever been able to log VVT from the OBDII?

What would be nice is if someone else with a relatively stock 2ZZ-GE did the same ignition logging at WOT, to verify if the results would be close.

I also plan to test for any dicrepancy between electronic advance and mechanical advance on the stock ECU and then the PFC.

For those that don't know the difference I'll explain. Mechanical ignition advance is the actual ignition advance at which the spark is triggered, whereas electronic (or software set) advance is the figure in the map that should match mechanical ignition advance. Here's an example of them matching. If an ECU is setup to receive it's trigger from the crank sensor at 60

[jlitman]

Have you, or anyone, ever been able to log VVT from the OBDII?
Nope -- not available. The data in that one link I posted is logged from the Greddy Vmanage.

[bp_me]

Offtopic,

but what year is your JDM import and which scanner are you using? My 01 is not OBDII/EOBD compliant.

[pioneer_sti]

Offtopic,

but what year is your JDM import and which scanner are you using? My 01 is not OBDII/EOBD compliant.

Mine is a 2000 model. I can't remember the brand name, but I do know it was an expensive unit. I know Europe only started the OEBD for 2001 and newer vehicles. Is your 2001 JDM or European?

[bp_me]

Mine is a 2000 model. I can't remember the brand name, but I do know it was an expensive unit. I know Europe only started the OEBD for 2001 and newer vehicles. Is your 2001 JDM or European?

Mine is JDM.

I have used a Bosch KTS system to interrogate the ECU previously but I am told that tool is capable of handling whatever toyota's own format is.

[pioneer_sti]

Update. I checked the mechanical advance vs the electronic advance, and they matched perfect, so the ignition figures I am seeing on the scanner represent actual mechanical ignition advance. During the test, the timing light showed the pulley mark right between the 5

[pioneer_sti]

Got around to doing some more logging, including gm/s, injection time, A/F, and a log from another Celica. All of the runs are in 3rd gear, at full throttle (WOT). All of these results are for the stock ECU. As is noted on the picture below, 2nd gear produced slightly leaner mixtures, which I put down to 3rd gear pulling in more air, putting it into different load sites higher up. Sometime between now and the end of the weekend I hope to install the Power FC and check the igniton adavnce to see if it exactly matches mechanical advance, as was done with the stock ECU.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/ign_inj_time_air_fuel_stock.jpg

Is it possible for a mod to change the title? If so changing it from Data Logs Of Stock Ignition Map to Data Logs of Stock Ign Advance, Injection & A/F Ratios might better describe it now.

[danGTS]

Awesome!! Stickied!! :)

[jlitman]

Awesome!! Stickied!! :)

X2!!! Great work!

[GoatOfRafin]

Is it me or fuel mixtures are way too rich after 4500rpm or so? Other people have also provided stock A/F ratios and were not so rich. Any comments on that?

[pioneer_sti]

Reply to above message is below this one.

I figured I would ahead and add a couple details of the install I used for my Power FC. I do not intend to use the commander on a full time basis, so this install works for me. I would not recommend using the ECU box cover if you want to use the commander often. With this install, when not using the commander or datalogit, the rubber plug in use will provide a waterproof seal.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/power_fc_bracket_01.jpg

The first step was to build a bracket to allow the Power FC to bolt back to the stock location. The bracket is held on with automotive double sided tape.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/power_fc_bracket_02.jpg

I then removed the other bracket from the stock ECU, and again used automotive double sided tape to attach it.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/power_fc_extension_cable.jpg

I wanted an extension cable but to get the Apexi one would have taken quite a while, so I modified a 6 foot PS/2 (mouse/keyboard) extension cable. The picture explains the procedure. Basically remove one of the six pins on the male side, and remove a bit of the top of the tab, and on the female side drill out the hole for the tab a little further down.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/power_fc_install_01.jpg

The Power FC mounted with the extension cable plugged in.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/power_fc_install_02.jpg

The extension cable run through the grommets in the cover, ready for tuning.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/power_fc_install_03.jpg

Cover removed, and grommets and extension cable can be removed from the cover.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/power_fc_install_04.jpg

Extension cable folded inside the ECU box. I have to hope I haven't accidentally built a large antenna to produce interference. :eek: Doubtful, but I'll know easily enough, as the car will run fine when tuning, but have problems when the cable is looped inside the ECU box.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/power_fc_install_05.jpg

Cover back on with waterproof plug.

[pioneer_sti]

Is it me or fuel mixtures are way too rich after 4500rpm or so? Other people have also provided stock A/F ratios and were not so rich. Any comments on that?

With the exception of 8,000 rpm, it's just a little richer than I would have expected the mixtures to be on a stock high compression engine, and I've been doing this for over 10 years. Second gear was what I expected, with mixtures dropping from 12.5:1 at 4,500 rpm down to about 11.9:1 at 8,000 rpm. How many of the results where with a stock intake system (except for maybe a drop in filter)? It has always been my belief that changing the location, pipe size, angle distances before and after, affects the output of the MAF.

I can tell you the exhaust analyser I am using (Autronic), is the same one I have been using for about 10 years on cars that have competed successfully in motorsport (both track and rallying). About six months ago I retuned a race car that had an AEM wide band A/F gauge on the dash, and they matched perfectly. There is no CAT in the exhaust and the Autronic's sensor is located in it's own bung about 1 foot downstream from the stock sensor (JDM cars have one O2 sensor).

I remember reading years ago that Apexi's Power FC base map for the 2ZZ-GE was leaner and had more aggressive ignition advance. My logging of stock advance shows that it does have slightly more aggressive advance than the stock ECU. Apexi designed the base fuel map to be 14.72:1 A/F and the injection map was designed as the correction map. Apexi's map at 8,000 rpm has a correction of 1.215 (14.72/1.215) = 12.1:1 A/F ratio. So if the Apexi map is leaner than stock, then it stands to reason stock mixtures must be richer than 12.1:1. Again this falls right in line with my results.

Do you have any links to other threads with their A/F ratio findings? Would be nice to have the links in this thread.

[GoatOfRafin]

Here is a link of GSBoek's dyno...

http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?t=302142&highlight=dyno

Check out the A/F ratio graph which show that more or less, that A/F ratios don't drop below 12.2 until 7200 rpm.

[pioneer_sti]

Here is a link of GSBoek's dyno...

http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?t=302142&highlight=dyno

Check out the A/F ratio graph which show that more or less, that A/F ratios don't drop below 12.2 until 7200 rpm.

With the exception of the area from just after 6,000 to just before 7,000 rpm, that result looks somewhat similar to what I found in 2nd gear. I did about 7 to 8 WOT runs each in 2nd and 3rd. Every run in 3rd was almost identical A/F ratio wise, but 2nd gear runs did vary a bit up to 0.2 A/F ratio in certain spots. On every run A/F was either getting richer, maintaining, or slightly leaning, but never any significant leaning. That area from just after 6,000 to just before 7,000 rpm is a weird result. I can see no logical reason why Toyota would tune a car to 13:1 at 6,800 rpm (high rpm) and then drastically make it richer than 12:1 at less than 1,000 rpm later.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/zz231/boek_af_ratio_02.jpg

In this enlarged part of the A/F ratio chart, with added reference lines, you can see he has mixtures in the range of 11.3:1 to 11:7:1 after 7,750rpm, which is identical to my 3rd gear findings (11.3:1) and even richer than my 2nd gear results.

You always have to look at the variables when it comes to tuning and interpretation of the data when logged. In this case some of the variables would be elevation, humidity, mods, airflow, vehicle designation, condition of logging etc. Here's an example. In the dyno room they are using a fan to keep the radiator cool and supply fresh air, but that fan can't blow enough air to simulate the car travelling at 140km/h (87 mph) far less 80km/h (50 mph). This can affect the volume of air ingested by the engine, as the extra wind speed creates a mild ram effect. This in turn can put you into a different load site. Curacoa, like Barbados is relatively flat so unless the shop was in some of the higher regions of the island, that shouldn't have much effect. My runs were done probably about 50ft above sea level, so the air will be dense. A vehicle tested at 2,000 ft won't achieve the same mass of air at the same throttle/rpm conditions as a vehicle at sea level, and will fall into different load sites within the maps. We also have to look at mods. He says the mods are in his sig, but I would suspect his sig has changed with the addition of other mods since those runs. I can see he has a different intake system, and that alone may be enough for a minor difference in MAF readings. My vehicle is a JDM model, but I suspect his isn't as I can see the brake resevoir on the left side indicating left hand drive. His A/F results where attained on what looks like a nice warm day on a dyno, mine where attained on cool night on a private road. A lot of these point to the possibilty of the two loggings being accurate, but logging different load sites.

[pioneer_sti]

Hmmm... I just saw the dyno further down and it has the same leaning at the 6,200 rpm to 7,200 rpm area. That is weird.

[zzt231 gr]

Is the best AFR for lift about 12.8 or not?Why did Toyota chose these way richer settings?

And this thread must get sticked!!!

[pioneer_sti]

Is the best AFR for lift about 12.8 or not?Why did Toyota chose these way richer settings?

And this thread must get sticked!!!

Actually not just Toyota, I tuned a bone stock JDM Honda Civic (K20 engine) with a Greddy E-manage, and that ran stock mixtures of 11.5:1 at high rpm. The A/F pattern was almost identical to that of the 2ZZ-GE, running 13.0:1 dropping to 11.5:1. The manufacturers rational is simple, they want the engine to last. They don't know how the car will be driven, and therefore use fuel dumping to cool things down at high rpm. I've logged the A/F ratio on a Coralla RunX (2ZZ-GE engine with an e-manage) which had a glowing exhaust after a sustained hard run. He was running 13.2:1 at WOT at high rpms, and I advised him that was too lean. I heard a couple months later that the engine was damaged. I must admit I never enquired as to the type of damage so can't say it was a result of the mixtures.

The general belief for years has been that mixtures between 12.5:1 and 13.0:1 are best for reliable power on N/A applications, and I agree with that belief. A key word being reliable. You might get a few extra ponies dipping into leaner mixtures than 13.0:1 but it isn't worth it. On pump fuel I wouldn't tune a high compression N/A motor leaner than 12.7:1 in the areas where it is making good power, and might even richen it linear to 12.2:1 at max rpm, dependant on the use of the car. A 1/4 mile car will run for a few seconds at WOT, whereas a car that is tracked or autox'd might run at WOT for several minutes, and you'd want the in cylinder cooling of a rich mixture to keep cylinder temps and EGTs in check. For the 1/4 mile car, or the daily driver that sees the occasional WOT run for a few seconds, you could get away with leaner mixtures.

Unfortunately, there really isn't that 'one size' A/F ratio that 'fits all', but my advise is to not go leaner than 13.0:1 at high rpms. I'm well aware there may be quite a few who disagree, and have no problems with mixtures leaner than 13.0:1 at high rpm.

If you have forced induction, then unless you're running race fuel you might want richer mixtures. The car in the links below just set the 2wd track record here, I tuned it on VP109 racing fuel, and it has water injection, and runs between 1.7 bar (25psi) and 2.1 bar (31 psi) and the mixture on boost, even with race fuel, is in the 11's.

http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/misc/misc08.html

http://forum.barl.com.bb/index.php

[pioneer_sti]

O.K., some interesting findings. The mechanical ignition advance and the electronic ignition advance do not match with the Power FC. I set all the sites in ignition table to 10

[Jesse IL]

Wow, this is great stuff. Thanks!

The 2ZZ is running WAY lower ignition timing than a lot of other cars. I've always based my maps on a K20 ignition chart I'd seen, where it gets up around 40 degrees advance at part throttle. I've also seen a chart for a 3S-GTE that was very similar to the K20 chart. I'll have to reduce my ignition values at part throttle significantly next time I revise my map.

Is there any way you could get a long run at 10% throttle so that we can see where the ignition timing should be in the lowest load cells?

This also goes to show why I can never get the damn Power FC to idle down with it forcing 20 degrees of advance at idle.

[pioneer_sti]

Wow, this is great stuff. Thanks!

The 2ZZ is running WAY lower ignition timing than a lot of other cars. I've always based my maps on a K20 ignition chart I'd seen, where it gets up around 40 degrees advance at part throttle. I've also seen a chart for a 3S-GTE that was very similar to the K20 chart. I'll have to reduce my ignition values at part throttle significantly next time I revise my map.

Is there any way you could get a long run at 10% throttle so that we can see where the ignition timing should be in the lowest load cells?

This also goes to show why I can never get the damn Power FC to idle down with it forcing 20 degrees of advance at idle.

Yep, it surprised me a few years ago when I mapped the Corolla rally car. I couldn't believe that 24

[Jesse IL]

BTW Jesse, I have to say I admire all the work you and others like jlitman have put in to making so much information available. I know first hand the difficulty and time compsumtion involved in 'write ups'.
You're very welcome. I'm glad people are getting somewhere with all those writeups. It's tough with those because you could literally never write enough about it, so you need to try and get the message across without turning into everyone's free personal consultant.

My guess is that the USDM ignition map would mostly differ at high load. Actually, the more I look at your logs, the more I think the 2ZZ map isn't that much different that most other cars. I dug up the old ignition map from a JDM Celica GT4 with a 3S-GTE and the peak timing in the zero load line is 43. Here's a shot of the map:

http://users.ameritech.net/trdcelica/st185ignmap.jpg

Now this is obviously a very low compression motor and even at peak load it may have only been seeing 12.5 psi of boost, so that might explain some of the high numbers. Based on your logs, I think the biggest takeaway is that the ECU is rolling off ignition timing really quickly with throttle. That makes sense because part throttle is where a lot of people see knock and they're probably simply way too advanced in the middle of the map.

Thanks again for the efforts and if you're able to get some low load data, that would be great.

[Magusownz]

I just saw all this real good info. But can anyone tell me how much timing for in gear but off the throttle?

-I have also noticed the 2zz will ping at low rpms really easily and to reduce timing in those cells a bunch. Great info here once again thanks!

[pioneer_sti]

You're very welcome. I'm glad people are getting somewhere with all those writeups. It's tough with those because you could literally never write enough about it, so you need to try and get the message across without turning into everyone's free personal consultant.

My guess is that the USDM ignition map would mostly differ at high load. Actually, the more I look at your logs, the more I think the 2ZZ map isn't that much different that most other cars. I dug up the old ignition map from a JDM Celica GT4 with a 3S-GTE and the peak timing in the zero load line is 43. Here's a shot of the map:

http://users.ameritech.net/trdcelica/st185ignmap.jpg

Now this is obviously a very low compression motor and even at peak load it may have only been seeing 12.5 psi of boost, so that might explain some of the high numbers. Based on your logs, I think the biggest takeaway is that the ECU is rolling off ignition timing really quickly with throttle. That makes sense because part throttle is where a lot of people see knock and they're probably simply way too advanced in the middle of the map.

Thanks again for the efforts and if you're able to get some low load data, that would be great.

Wow, that picture brings back memories! I am very familiar with that pic, since I was the one who made it. That was many moons ago when a company named G-Force use to modify MR2 and ST185 ECU's using, I believe, a techtom daughter board, as even back then Toyota ECU's couldn't be just chipped. Pics of the board can be found here http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/g-force.jpg . There where very helpful when I was trying to create a custom map for my car, and sent me the original maps, so I could make the changes I wanted, and they would send the chips. One of them turned out quite well, but in the end changing to the Autronic ECU gave much better results.

Here's the webpage on my site the maps came from.
http://memweb.newsguy.com/~gtfour/stockmap.htm

You've hit the nail on the head. Unfortunatley most people simply tune WOT and 'guess' the rest of the map. For fueling it is important that the entire map is correct. For ignition, you should at least make sure there is no pinging/knock at all load/rpm sites. Part throttle is a very neglected area. I'll try this coming weekend to get that ignition at low throttle for you.

[pioneer_sti]

I just saw all this real good info. But can anyone tell me how much timing for in gear but off the throttle?

-I have also noticed the 2zz will ping at low rpms really easily and to reduce timing in those cells a bunch. Great info here once again thanks!

You really won't have to worry about the timing off throttle if you have the over run fuel cut in the Apex'i (or any engine management) set up correctly. On the Apexi it's in Settings 1, and 'F/C A/E' and 'F/C A/C'. If you are off throttle at a rpm higher than in those settings then fuel injection is cut, therefore no combustion takes place.

[Magusownz]

You really won't have to worry about the timing off throttle if you have the over run fuel cut in the Apex'i (or any engine management) set up correctly. On the Apexi it's in Settings 1, and 'F/C A/E' and 'F/C A/C'. If you are off throttle at a rpm higher than in those settings then fuel injection is cut, therefore no combustion takes place.

Thanks a lot man this really helps the 2zz community a lot. Knowing what a stock map looks like is a huge help.

[SuperDave]

You really won't have to worry about the timing off throttle if you have the over run fuel cut in the Apex'i (or any engine management) set up correctly. On the Apexi it's in Settings 1, and 'F/C A/E' and 'F/C A/C'. If you are off throttle at a rpm higher than in those settings then fuel injection is cut, therefore no combustion takes place.

Very useful info we can use on part throttle tuning :thumbup: Can't wait for the very low throttle details.

I have a question that is in a similar vain to what magusownz asked; I udnerstand the injectors are turned off with no throttle above the set rpm mentioned above, but at what rpm does the stock ECU turn them back on?

[Magusownz]

I have a question that is in a similar vain to what magusownz asked; I udnerstand the injectors are turned off with no throttle above the set rpm mentioned above, but at what rpm does the stock ECU turn them back on?

Well anyone with a stock ecu and a wideband can tell you. But on pfc I set fuel cut to 1250rpms for a/e.

[Preludekid]

Mine is also JDM model, why is mine so high? I am still on stock ignition
7600 is 39.9 degree
Am I reading/understanding it incorrectly?

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/316193_10150295820893775_677203774_8001014_7100517 15_n.jpg

[zzt231 gr]

Wow!!Maybe your timing is off?

[Preludekid]

On a side note, my OBD port doesn't connect with the PLX kiwi wifi.
My ScanMaster doesn't connect to my car ECU.
The apple apps REV doesn't read either.
My other cars work properly though.

May I put the question the other way around, is pioneer_sti datalog really coming from a JDM ECU?

I think I am going to try to put in a tank of high octane fuel into my car and see if anything changes on my datalog

[Preludekid]

In the EMU manual, i can type in the off set angle value if my ignition timing is off. If my timing is really off, how can I find out my true ignition timing value?

[pioneer_sti]

On a side note, my OBD port doesn't connect with the PLX kiwi wifi.
My ScanMaster doesn't connect to my car ECU.
The apple apps REV doesn't read either.
My other cars work properly though.

May I put the question the other way around, is pioneer_sti datalog really coming from a JDM ECU?

I think I am going to try to put in a tank of high octane fuel into my car and see if anything changes on my datalog

Yes, my car is a JDM model.

The Toyota JDM OBDII output may not be compatible with the other market OBDII, so you're software or unit may need to be coded for it.

Still haven't gotten back to the Power FC yet, hence why no more updates. I have been too busy and the Celica is my 'toy' car, so it's being neglected. On the plus side my total mileage last year was about 350 kms... :gap:

[Preludekid]

I might need to check my jumper setting on the e-manage. I hope I did something wrong there.