KTuner Extended Testing And Tune Results

[KTuner]

I would like to know how much headroom is left on 93 octane with the current stage 1. It seems like Derek Robinson at Innovative Motorworks is able to get another 20+whp beyond stage 1 before running into fuel issues. Maybe a stage 1.5 for those of us with 93 is warranted or are the custom tunes going beyond what ktuner feels is safe to apply to all cars?

The stage 1 was done on 93, and tested to run on 91 as well, but included tunes need to remain conservative so no issues arise. Custom tuning is the way to go if you want the max!

Sponsored

 

[idragmazda]

^I didn't think I wanted more power till I got up on the banks at Daytona. This car outhandles a 911 Carrera T in the turns, and with another 30hp or so it could keep up on the straights. For street driving ktuner stage 1 is plenty, for larger tracks it would be nice to have more.

I am personally not anxiously awaiting traction control as I have already spent many hours setting my own torque targets in each gear and drive mode to maximize the traction that my tires give, but I would like for ktuner to come up with a "stage 2" that involves a set of parts which will give the car a noticeable bump in power. If some new fuel system parts need to come out for that to happen, so be it.

I would like to know how much headroom is left on 93 octane with the current stage 1. It seems like Derek Robinson at Innovative Motorworks is able to get another 20+whp beyond stage 1 before running into fuel issues. Maybe a stage 1.5 for those of us with 93 is warranted or are the custom tunes going beyond what ktuner feels is safe to apply to all cars?

Check out the build thread in my signature.

FBO and derek custom tunes to 376whp and 387wtq.

Very quick once you have traction, but traction is the issue.

A set of 18s with stickier rubber, more refined boost by gear, and improved TC system would surely make the car significantly quicker (id like to get into sub 5 second 0-60 times and <12 sec quarter mile).

 

[itrgsr94]

Check out the build thread in my signature.

FBO and derek custom tunes to 376whp and 387wtq.

Very quick once you have traction, but traction is the issue.

A set of 18s with stickier rubber, more refined boost by gear, and improved TC system would surely make the car significantly quicker (id like to get into sub 5 second 0-60 times and <12 sec quarter mile).

The gearing is what makes this harder than need be, hitting 60 in under 5 would be so much easier.
The 2nd to 3rd shift is what kills it.

 

[MrPink]

Damn politics!!!
just let people enjoy things without companies being so greedy!!

@KTuner I hope things get loose and you can continue with this platform... So are you saying we are stuck with what we have for the foreseeable future? besides getting custom tunes?

 

[02SilverSiHB]

There are some issues with hondata tuned R's that are using flex fuel uh oh
https://m.facebook.com/groups/66792...ink&id=2182847658499981&anchor_composer=false. I trust ktuner. Until there will be fuel system upgrades .. after market takes at least 5 years to catch up.

I had to bring this back up...haven't seen that many people complaining, especially the guy who ran a 11.7@120mph with his flexfuel setup.

It was on instagram and facebook @redstarmotoring
https://www.civicx.com/threads/civi...rol-hondata-flashpro.34843/page-6#post-616445

 

[davemarco]

I had to bring this back up...haven't seen that many people complaining, especially the guy who ran a 11.7@120mph with his flexfuel setup.

It was on instagram and facebook @redstarmotoring
https://www.civicx.com/threads/civi...rol-hondata-flashpro.34843/page-6#post-616445

Just to decipher from the photos - is that an upgraded turbo?

 

[Florence_NC]

Stage 2 and Flex have been everyone's concern since launch day and we're still waiting on parts that would allow that to happen. We've been blocked from helping these parts make it to market. Not having a path forward has unfortunately slowed any development progress on this platform.

Flex Fuel-This means nothing to me. There are very, very few pumps with E85, etc. in my part of the country. So even if I cared about going flex (which I really don't) I can't do it due to lack of fuel.

Stage 2- This would require a complete fuel system upgrade, turbo, MAF, etc. My car is a true daily driver, and I have no interest in ever going this route. And if I did, would almost certainly not try and do it with a hacked OEM ECU. So I don't care about this one either.

Why do I bring these things up? Because I suspect that 80-90% of your potential/current customers also don't care about one or both of these capabilities. Thus I find your above comments a bit disheartening. If I am deciphering this statement correctly, you are going to stop developing, or at least slow down developing, things that I do care about because you are limited on things I (and the majority of other customers) don't care about. What about ignition retard/cut-based TC, the thing you are already losing customers over? Are you not going to develop that? Or no-lift shift, or any number of other things customers are asking about.

 

[Florence_NC]

And to be honest, once you pass those hurdles, the intake ports on the head really need to be addressed - they flow 100+ cfm less on this K20 than on previous ones, due to DI.

And at the end of the day, it's still a FWD platform with questionable rods upon which only very skilled drivers can even get everything out of the stock car on a road course.

That last bit is starting to hit home for me more than anything. The thing just doesn't need to put out 500 whp or whatever

Where did you get the minus 100cfm numbers from? Who has published that?

And what early K20 are you talking about, a non-turbo non-DI engine?

 

[davemarco]

Where did you get the minus 100cfm numbers from? Who has published that?

And what early K20 are you talking about, a non-turbo non-DI engine?

I think that he's referring to the Super Street 4Piston article that implies that our intake manifold has lower flow due to the use of a shelf needed to achieve the proper tumble for the air coming in.

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/1803-inside-the-honda-type-r-head-w4-piston-racing/

 

[02SilverSiHB]

Just to decipher from the photos - is that an upgraded turbo?

Yeah heck of a setup

 

[Florence_NC]

I think that he's referring to the Super Street 4Piston article that implies that our intake manifold has lower flow due to the use of a shelf needed to achieve the proper tumble for the air coming in.

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/1803-inside-the-honda-type-r-head-w4-piston-racing/

That is an interesting read, had not seen that before.

Having said that, a cfm number is a volume flow rate value. It is only a meaningful value for comparison of power potential if the the two heads in question will be operating at similar air densities. In this case, they are not. The K20C is a turbo, operating with air densities much higher than the K20A. If the K20C is operating at double the air density compared to the K20A, the K20C at 158cfm is flowing MORE air (by mass) than the K20A at 300cfm.

 

[ManfromRI]

@KTuner, anything new or already developing coming to a future (hopefully soon) update?? It seems like us CTR guys aren't getting much research & development. Just curious on progress behind the scenes that's all.

Thanks

 

[KTuner]

This platform is in a holding pattern due to lack of aftermarket parts to take it further.

 

[17CivicTypeR_Brian]

yah too quiet... FS: Kunter posts are increasing.
I was assuming they are working on it since their other platforms have it, but I'd love to hear something..

I haven't been in a Hondata car with Traction Control but is it really that amazing? Not being ignorant (deliberately) - I really don't see a problem with traction in my Stage 1 KTuner car. Obviously I get wheel spin but the Boost By Gear does pretty well to contain it in Sport. In +R, the ECU just lets the wheels spin without cutting and it seems to pull harder than it does when it cuts. I'm on 255/35/20 stock wheels - this seemed to be the 'fix' for traction control.

This platform is in a holding pattern due to lack of aftermarket parts to take it further.

There's just so many directions we can go but the limitation of the Rods still seems to be the biggest future problem.

Does anybody remember SEMA 2016? They had the K20C on an engine stand and were touting the ability to buy, essentially, a crate motor in, as I recall, 250 to 450hp configurations...can someone access HPD and see if that engine is available, and what the difference is? For the 600HP RallyCross Civic, is that a built engine as well?

Since there are now flex fuel sensors available for the Type R, would the part that we're referring to be an upgraded high pressure fuel pump? I'm confused as to what motivation the competition could have for blocking the release of an upgraded pump.

I 'believe' we need a pump and injectors as a set. Could be wrong about this but I 'believe' that is how the system is upgraded on the Focus RS.
Speaking of Focus RS, we should be looking at them and at the BMW 335 for what they do to fix the fuel flow problem. Seems like the Focus has some parts from DW that basically increase flow enough to make a straight switch to Flex Fuel but not enough to go to a Bigger Turbo.
Alternatively, maybe the fix is further modding the stock ECU or piggybacking the stock ECU to get port injector driver(s).

None of these are going to come in under $1000. Piggybacking is generally disliked or frowned upon.

Maybe we just need a progressive wet-shot of NOS...

So then what do we actually need to make this happen?

^I didn't think I wanted more power till I got up on the banks at Daytona. This car outhandles a 911 Carrera T in the turns, and with another 30hp or so it could keep up on the straights. For street driving ktuner stage 1 is plenty, for larger tracks it would be nice to have more.

I am personally not anxiously awaiting traction control as I have already spent many hours setting my own torque targets in each gear and drive mode to maximize the traction that my tires give, but I would like for ktuner to come up with a "stage 2" that involves a set of parts which will give the car a noticeable bump in power. If some new fuel system parts need to come out for that to happen, so be it.

I would like to know how much headroom is left on 93 octane with the current stage 1. It seems like Derek Robinson at Innovative Motorworks is able to get another 20+whp beyond stage 1 before running into fuel issues. Maybe a stage 1.5 for those of us with 93 is warranted or are the custom tunes going beyond what ktuner feels is safe to apply to all cars?

Get a custom tune to maximize what you've got right now. Derek can e-tune you if you line it up with him and are comfortable doing the flash-log-email-flash method.

The gearing is what makes this harder than need be, hitting 60 in under 5 would be so much easier.
The 2nd to 3rd shift is what kills it.

Agreed! Go with a taller tire! 255-35-20 will do 62 or 64 iirc.At least cuts out the one shift.

Sidenote - check this out!!
https://www.dream-automotive.com/pr...-fk2-type-r-6-speed-sequential-gearkit-qke10j

Flex Fuel-This means nothing to me. There are very, very few pumps with E85, etc. in my part of the country. So even if I cared about going flex (which I really don't) I can't do it due to lack of fuel.

Stage 2- This would require a complete fuel system upgrade, turbo, MAF, etc. My car is a true daily driver, and I have no interest in ever going this route. And if I did, would almost certainly not try and do it with a hacked OEM ECU. So I don't care about this one either.

Why do I bring these things up? Because I suspect that 80-90% of your potential/current customers also don't care about one or both of these capabilities. Thus I find your above comments a bit disheartening. If I am deciphering this statement correctly, you are going to stop developing, or at least slow down developing, things that I do care about because you are limited on things I (and the majority of other customers) don't care about. What about ignition retard/cut-based TC, the thing you are already losing customers over? Are you not going to develop that? Or no-lift shift, or any number of other things customers are asking about.

This is my fault. From the beginning, I've only really been asking for FlexFuel because, for me, it's available all over the place. I'm happy with BoostByGear traction control in Sport mode and I want the wheelspin of +R. I'm not racing 0-60, I'm trying to go 40-150. Even if I can't beat them, at least I keep close. No-lift shift is not necessary but I've never had it on any of my prior tuned vehicles. Am I really missing out?

Where did you get the minus 100cfm numbers from? Who has published that?

And what early K20 are you talking about, a non-turbo non-DI engine?

I thought it was -300cfm...

That is an interesting read, had not seen that before.

Having said that, a cfm number is a volume flow rate value. It is only a meaningful value for comparison of power potential if the the two heads in question will be operating at similar air densities. In this case, they are not. The K20C is a turbo, operating with air densities much higher than the K20A. If the K20C is operating at double the air density compared to the K20A, the K20C at 158cfm is flowing MORE air (by mass) than the K20A at 300cfm.

I think the spirit of the article was assuming the K20A was also turbo. In that comparison, the turbo K20A will flow more air than the K20C because of the lack of tumble geometry.

I believe it's in the head port, however, not in the intake manifold. I thought I read that somewhere in the last 8 pages of reading!

@KTuner, anything new or already developing coming to a future (hopefully soon) update?? It seems like us CTR guys aren't getting much research & development. Just curious on progress behind the scenes that's all.

Thanks

Seems like the best mod we can do right now is add lightness.

Seriously though, the other turbo DI platforms are paving the way a bit. We'll eventually just copy whatever they're doing - let the VAG or BMW people spend the money to figure it out, then we'll just reverse engineer it to work for us-

 

[toddrhodes]

@17CivicTypeR_Brian - I did some datalogging and pulls on a GPS-based performance meter (dragy) and saw incremental, but verifiable increases in acceleration from both ignition based traction control and flex fuel @ E30. My logs from the E30 run also looked better than my 93 octane tuned runs - DIFP was more consistent and closer to commanded vs delivered. 93 octane had small counts of knock, E30 had none. E30 had a little less boost but faster acceleration.

If I remember right, 30-70 times were about 8% faster with TCM than without, and were about 10% faster with TCM + E30 vs TCM + 93 octane.

Small improvements, but at least as far as I can tell they are tangible and not putting stress on anything. DIFP is in a safe region, boost is actually a little lower (23 psi) so the turbo is probably happy and efficient. Our rods, if they can handle 380 wtq, could support 500+ whp if torque is brought in smoothly and judiciously at high RPM but we manage the big hit of torque at low RPM/slow piston speeds. But, our fuel system probably won't ever allow for 450+ whp in stock form.

And with all that said - the car is very happy at 360-380 (estimated/virtual dyno) whp. It doesn't slip too much, it's plenty fast, and seems to be safe. And it's not a highway racer or a drag car at least for me, so all that said - I'm done chasing power. I won't deny I'm setting a little money aside for internals just in case I ever do something stupid, but that's just a rainy day fund. No actual intention on my part to build this motor, at least not for a very very long time.

Sponsored