Ktuner 23# ethanol enable vs TSP stage 1

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
I've been looking around at the next mod. I've been running TSP Stage 1 for 6 months and like it a lot, but I'm getting the itch again.

I've looked at the shapes of the dynos and see they're very similar. I have little doubt the massive torque on tap on TSP stage 2 will overwhelm my good-so-far stock clutch... and having messed with the 23# basemap a lot awhile back, I know I can limit boost under 4000 RPM and preserve the clutch. Because it's unlocked, I'll have a chance to okay with maps again a bit... which I did enjoy back when I was using the basemaps.

I was curious if anyone has run with the TSP Stage 1 and Ktuners 23# basemap with ethanol enabled after installing a flexfuel kit and could give a comparison... even if it was that they're about the same? Sometimes when the bug bites you, you want to just do something else... and I'm getting there. I just hate to do a clutch right now.
Sponsored

 

D-RobIMW

www.imwtuned.com
First Name
Derek
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Threads
1
Messages
379
Reaction score
1,075
Location
Carlisle, PA
Vehicle(s)
2017 Civic Si, 2019 Accord Sport 2.0T, 2001 Integra Type R, 2019 RDX A-Spec
Country flag
Here's a plot that directly compares the two files. Same car, all stock except for an aftermarket clutch (and the FlexFuel parts, of course).

Solid lines are the KTuner 23psi Starter with FlexFuel option enabled (E35 blend), dotted lines are the TSP1 on 93oct.

Side note: Don't fear a clutch replacement. :) They're fairly simple to install!

Honda Civic 10th gen Ktuner 23# ethanol enable vs TSP stage 1 TSP1vs23psiFlex
 
OP
OP
charleswrivers

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
Here's a plot that directly compares the two files. Same car, all stock except for an aftermarket clutch (and the FlexFuel parts, of course).

Solid lines are the KTuner 23psi Starter with FlexFuel option enabled (E35 blend), dotted lines are the TSP1 on 93oct.

Side note: Don't fear a clutch replacement. :) They're fairly simple to install!

TSP1vs23psiFlex.jpg
Thanks for the reply. A few days passed and I figured the thread was dead.

I looked at the curves and saw they were pretty similar... I just thought that perhaps there was a little wiggle room on the 23# ethanol map up top for some tweaking for a cautious amateur. It's a testament to how good the TSP Stage 1 that you made is... that it can pretty well match what the ethanol advance table can provide on 91/93 alone. I was mainly just missing being able to dig through tables and play a little and I knew I'd go with a PnP ethanol kit next and I'd buy it through TSP to get the TSP Stage 2 tune. I just thought I might go with the Ktuner 23# basemap with the ethanol enable as sort of a... 'tweener tune and get to play.

As to the clutch... I hear you. I just figured I could control what I could, modify the 23# basemap down to 21-ish and be gentle until after ~4000 RPM. It's not surprising y'all had to put a clutch on the car to put it on a dyno and show what the car makes in the 2000-4000 RPM range... though I wouldn't be trying to WOT it there on the street unless it was getting through 1st... and that'd be with some boost-by-gear love. As it is... I still don't let boost build in high gears with TSP Stage 1, so I can always vote with my foot... but I can't control what the wife does and she has a heavier foot than I. So far no slipping... and I prefer not spend money on something that isn't necessary if I can keep it that way.

I've replaced solenoids in automatic transmissions and done ATF/MTF fluid changes... but that's been it. It's always a daunting thing when it's something you've never done. ;)

Thanks again, @D-RobIMW .
 

ebatr24

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2018
Threads
10
Messages
974
Reaction score
730
Location
Oregon
Vehicle(s)
2017 Civic Type R, 2018 Civic Si Coupe
Country flag
That is a wild comparison, wasn't expecting it to be that close. I was pondering running the flex fuel base map from Ktuner for a short bit before getting the TSP Stg 2 but with that difference, it sounds like the Stg 2 is really the better way to go to get the most of running more ethanol.
 
OP
OP
charleswrivers

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
That is a wild comparison, wasn't expecting it to be that close. I was pondering running the flex fuel base map from Ktuner for a short bit before getting the TSP Stg 2 but with that difference, it sounds like the Stg 2 is really the better way to go to get the most of running more ethanol.
@D-RobIMW really did an outstanding job giving us a hot reflash at a rock bottom price through the folks at @Two Step Performance in the Stage 1. I'd compared the maps separately before and they looked very, very similar... especially up top. I just was throwing it out there to see if anyone had run both and had any more subjective thoughts on it beyond the dynos. I'd agree, if you want more, there looks to be little to be gained by running just a basemap and ethanol enable over TSP stage 1. Stage 2 for that ~270 whp in the upper-mid RPM range is well above what the basemap+ethanol enable can do.

It would mainly let me stick my toe in the water vice dive in... and perhaps force a clutch change in the process. I ran a modded 23# basemap for several months before I did the stage 1 tune and wasn't a super early adopter... hearing some noise about the stage 1 for a month before getting it. I figure there's some room with regard to boost and ignition timing I can make small changes to and datalog to enjoy that process again. I actually sort of miss it, even though I know I won't do as much or ever quantify it like a reflash or professional tune could do. Anything past that would likely spell an end to me messing with basemaps... so I might as well enjoy it while it lasts.
 


PowerPerLiter

Specific Output
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Threads
59
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
1,302
Location
Midwest
Vehicle(s)
2020 Si Coupe 91 Talon TSI AWD 6262 280's N20 and 87 Buick Regal T 6776bb built N20
@charleswrivers Just curious because you seem to like to play with the tunes like I do. What have you settled on for boost by gear settings? Also...how much timing have you been successful at adding and from where to where? If you dont mind me asking of course and thank you in advance :) (you can pm me instead if you like)
 
OP
OP
charleswrivers

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
@charleswrivers Just curious because you seem to like to play with the tunes like I do. What have you settled on for boost by gear settings? Also...how much timing have you been successful at adding and from where to where? If you dont mind me asking of course and thank you in advance :) (you can pm me instead if you like)
No it's fine... I'll link a thread where I was still messing with the 23# basemap in an edit. I haven't done anything with it since I flashed the TSP Stage 1 because... well... it didn't have the power in the upper end of the RPM range and a skilled tuner was able to make, with months of time on a test Si to ensure it was good for the masses. I did like playing with the numbers though, flashing and seeing how things were.

https://www.civicx.com/threads/question-about-modding-the-19-5-23-base-tune.21021/#post-357509

As a disclaimer... I did a *lot* of reading both in Civicx and elsewhere (a lot of other forums... from my old Z ones to a lot of BMW, Subaru, Ford, etc.) about timing advance and where to add. I consistently read and saw dynos across multiple cars where it made it out to where, so long as you weren't knock limited, ignition timing could be added after the torque peak subsides and torque is on the decline. Generally, torque rises with more boost pressure. An engine wants more air roughly linearly with RPM on a NA. We kind of skew this with a turbocharger... but you'll see where we'll hit a peak of power and then power just isn't going up anymore despite rising RPMs, because the turbocharger is undersized for feeding the engine at the top of our RPM range. Even though it's pressure is holding, it's already flowing as many CFMs as it's capable and then torque starts crashing so quickly, power is actually falling at high RPMs. If you look at the Ktuner 23# boost table, they actually have a taper, where boost targets lower beneath 23# because the turbo is pretty well tapped out, and pushing more boost is counterproductive, though I think the 23# basemaps maybe the same for the Si's and non-Sis, with the Si's having a bit more headroom.

Anyways, this is where, rather than adding more boost, you can add ignition timing. The down and dirty I saw was... the ethanol table added up to +5 ignition timing depending on load and assuming you were using the % of ethanol needed for the full advance, and that would give roughly 50 whp over the no-ethanol 23#. Assuming it's linear, (and it isn't... it should decline until a point you'd essentially get no rise in power and then actually start lowering power as the flame front would reach the piston too early... near right at TDC... but you need a dyno to really see this), each unit of timing ought to give about 10 whp. There's more at play here... cooling off the intake charge from ethanol compared to gas... amongst other things and I'm getting long-winded and rehashing stuff I think that should be in the thread but... yes, in the end I think I had a couple degrees extra timing added to the tables and still a bottomed out k.control at .49 for a nice little bump at the top of the RPM range. I always have boost by gear set at 18# for 1st as a wheel spin limiting measure. I never set anything for my upper gears to save the clutch, as I just used my right foot to keep from building excessive boost. It did modify the boost tables to delay full boost after what points the dynos for the 23# basemap showed torque beginning to drop. I felt like it made the car a little more linear by intentionally wearing the midrange slightly while trying to gain more up top.

There had been a place in town that had a Dyno that I'd hoped to pay for some time to let them do some runs to see how it worked out but alas... they closed and I don't want to drive an hour away to do it... and what might have been fine for street use for my clutch likely would have been unhappy when strapped to a dyno.

If you modify things, have fun but realize Ktuner gave us the tools in which to blow ourselves up. The changes I did were, essentially the smallest changes I could make than they were followed by a data logging session. I had more room to make more adjustments based on what I saw but ended up doing the TSP stage 1 after it came out as I was confident me fooling around with the 23# basemap would never meet/exceed what Derek accomplished and was pretty well proven to be safe by tools and experience I'd never have so I got that tune.

I still think I'd like to dig back into it a bit with an ethanol sensor though. I really enjoyed learning about all that stuff. I've had 4 other turbo cars in 20 years, but never learned about any of this sort of stuff in all that time as I had in the last year. Maybe when I'm a old man and semi-retired, I can get a job sweeping the floors at a tuning shop and talk cars and learn new stuff... though by then we should all be in fusion-powered flying cars like we were promised back in 2015.
 
Last edited:

PowerPerLiter

Specific Output
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Threads
59
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
1,302
Location
Midwest
Vehicle(s)
2020 Si Coupe 91 Talon TSI AWD 6262 280's N20 and 87 Buick Regal T 6776bb built N20
No it's fine... I'll link a thread where I was still messing with the 23# basemap in an edit. I haven't done anything with it since I flashed the TSP Stage 1 because... well... it didn't have the power in the upper end of the RPM range and a skilled tuner was able to make, with months of time on a test Si to ensure it was good for the masses. I did like playing with the numbers though, flashing and seeing how things were.
I ask because I have been limiting to 2.0 bar (roughly 14.5 psi) in first but it still tries to blow the tires off activating the traction/torque control. Just curious how low you went or if you had any taper with the bbg to increase with rpm. I also read your other thread around the same time I was doing the same thing. I added 1 degree and stopped simply out of fear and didnt notice much change so reverted back to stock timing map for peace of mind. this was from 4800 up
 
OP
OP
charleswrivers

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
I ask because I have been limiting to 2.0 bar (roughly 14.5 psi) in first but it still tries to blow the tires off activating the traction/torque control. Just curious how low you went or if you had any taper with the bbg to increase with rpm. I also read your other thread around the same time I was doing the same thing. I added 1 degree and stopped simply out of fear and didnt notice much change so reverted back to stock timing map for peace of mind. this was from 4800 up
Well, 18#, but that's also with heavy Si rims and the optional summer rubber. I did find, with the TSP stage 1 that also limits to 18# in first, it was too high and I would spin through 1st and again at the torque peak in 2nd when I hit the winter months. Winter gave more power and make the tires harder though. A little wheel spin isn't terrible. I'd adjust BBG to be what you want it to be and realize you may want to tweak it again if the ambients change a whole lot with different seasons.
 

dallasjhawk

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Threads
24
Messages
4,174
Reaction score
4,124
Location
Royse City, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Civic EX-T, 2015 Acura RDX AWD Tech
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
I ask because I have been limiting to 2.0 bar (roughly 14.5 psi) in first but it still tries to blow the tires off activating the traction/torque control. Just curious how low you went or if you had any taper with the bbg to increase with rpm. I also read your other thread around the same time I was doing the same thing. I added 1 degree and stopped simply out of fear and didnt notice much change so reverted back to stock timing map for peace of mind. this was from 4800 up
Get better tires, they make a huge difference. I would roast my stock AS tires but my Nittos on my 19s can take about 17 psi (Im an ext cvt) without traction control kicking in.
Well, 18#, but that's also with heavy Si rims and the optional summer rubber. I did find, with the TSP stage 1 that also limits to 18# in first, it was too high and I would spin through 1st and again at the torque peak in 2nd when I hit the winter months. Winter gave more power and make the tires harder though. A little wheel spin isn't terrible. I'd adjust BBG to be what you want it to be and realize you may want to tweak it again if the ambients change a whole lot with different seasons.
Man nice write up above. TSP tunes are slick in that they beat the basemaps but are safe all around and vigorously tested so they take the stress out of trying to tune on your own or dropping $400 for a custom tune. I commend @D-RobIMW for all his hard work put in and look forward to his non si TSP tunes :)
 


PowerPerLiter

Specific Output
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Threads
59
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
1,302
Location
Midwest
Vehicle(s)
2020 Si Coupe 91 Talon TSI AWD 6262 280's N20 and 87 Buick Regal T 6776bb built N20
Thanks for the edit on that write up and elaborating. Only reason why Im prying is because recently I edited a +6 hondata map and essentially copied and pasted the stock boost pressure map into the file (along with all my other nick nack changes like idle rpm bbg etc) to create a duplicate tune off what I was running but with just stock boost map. The results of this seems that at 23psi the computer runs 0 degrees of timing advance while going down to 18psi gave me 4 degrees advance. Im sure this is a result of expected airflow increasing and the algorithms for the timing maps are doing what they should. I kept the fueling tables all the same so that it would lean out the AFR to 11.20 from about 10.89.

What struck me as curious was the car didnt seem to loose "much" power with the boost and timing advance differences helping to balance each other out. In so much as I am now running the stock boost map for the time being just to see how I like it. Made me wonder what 3 more degrees of advance with the 23 psi map would feel like :) (I wont be doing a full 3 degrees of course) but I may try some timing editing again soon.

It does seem like ALOT of owners would thoroughly enjoy a "uncorked" stock tune essentially removing the torque limit off of a stock tune (which allows it to hit advertised boost pressure but keeping the max boost to nothing over what Honda originally designed for. Im wondering if anyone has ever dynoed one like this and what the results were. The car is a riot setup this way
 
Last edited:

dallasjhawk

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Threads
24
Messages
4,174
Reaction score
4,124
Location
Royse City, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Civic EX-T, 2015 Acura RDX AWD Tech
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
Thanks for the edit on that write up and elaborating. Only reason why Im prying is because recently I edited a +6 hondata map and essentially copied and pasted the stock boost pressure map into the file (along with all my other nick nack changes like idle rpm bbg etc) to create a duplicate tune off what I was running but with just stock boost map. The results of this seems that at 23psi the computer runs 0 degrees of timing advance while going down to 18psi gave me 4 degrees advance. Im sure this is a result of expected airflow increasing and the algorithms for the timing maps are doing what they should.

What struck me as curious was the car didnt seem to loose "much" power. In so much as I am now running the stock boost map for the time being just to see how I like it. Made me wonder what 3 more degrees of advance with the 23 psi map would feel like :) (I wont be doing a full 3 degrees of course) but I may try some timing editing again soon.
If im not mistaken its based on how hondata does their tunes and its based on tq targets. So Im thinking if you dont adjust the torque targets and change the boost, its going to add IGN to make that torque...of course I might be completely wrong or partially wrong but I stayed at a Holiday inn express.... @D-RobIMW can answer that wayyyyyy better
 

PowerPerLiter

Specific Output
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Threads
59
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
1,302
Location
Midwest
Vehicle(s)
2020 Si Coupe 91 Talon TSI AWD 6262 280's N20 and 87 Buick Regal T 6776bb built N20
If im not mistaken its based on how hondata does their tunes and its based on tq targets. So Im thinking if you dont adjust the torque targets and change the boost, its going to add IGN to make that torque...of course I might be completely wrong or partially wrong but I stayed at a Holiday inn express.... @D-RobIMW can answer that wayyyyyy better
You are right in how its working. What is weird is that I cross checked the stock equivalent tune with the +6 and torque table requests were the same between the two. Then again I havent ever just loaded the "stock equivalent" and driven it. I do know that the "hondata mode" for stock like characteristics when sport is not on absolutely doesnt have anywhere near the power what Im currently using does and suffers from the power curve being "hilly" (fading in and out of power to meet the lower torque cammand). I wish there was a way to have a dual mode that only limits boost and doesnt reference a torque command.
 

dallasjhawk

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Threads
24
Messages
4,174
Reaction score
4,124
Location
Royse City, TX
Vehicle(s)
2016 Civic EX-T, 2015 Acura RDX AWD Tech
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
You are right in how its working. What is weird is that I cross checked the stock equivalent tune with the +6 and torque table requests were the same between the two. Then again I havent ever just loaded the "stock equivalent" and driven it. I do know that the "hondata mode" for stock like characteristics when sport is not on absolutely doesnt have anywhere near the power what Im currently using does and suffers from the power curve being "hilly" (fading in and out of power to meet the lower torque cammand). I wish there was a way to have a dual mode that only limits boost and doesnt reference a torque command.
#TradeInForKTuner :)
 


 


Top