Don't know who stated that dyno sensors versus Tmax are less accurate. In most cases, it's the same damned sensor.

Not sure how you got spun off on the sensors being less accurate at lower AFRs I stated
It's low loads where the sensor has issues. NOT LOWER AFRs. It's not a direct fault of the sensor. It's that fact that the motor typically doesn't produce a homogeneous exhaust sample at lower speeds. This is especially true for the Tmax with throttle based ignition timing instead of Load/MAP based timing.

None of my bikes I had, had any sluggishness above 80% with the fuel line leaking. If it had a big enough hole it might but then I would have expected to have other issues also.

 

If that's his map I'd say it has too much timing.

 

Not his map. Simply using to show where in the tree the map is found, and what it would look like on the screen. Varying levels of computer savviness on the forum and just trying to be helpful. Would be quite interesting to see what he has for timing on this map though.

Thanks Max. Always appreciate the input and willingness to help. Folks like you are what makes this forum a great place to learn.

 

I guess I should have been clearer, they stated they saw lower accuracy at higher RPMS while accelerating. Those areas had lower AFR values, but I should not have indicated that had anything relationally to do with the AFR measurements. It tracks with your statement though.

 

Here are my two main timing maps.

 

Thanks for uploading them Jay.

I'll defer to Max if he comes back in here, but I find it interesting that the TvET map is advanced up to two degrees in the operating area. Timing doesn't drop to "non-advanced" (Zero adjustment due to engine temp) timing until heat really builds. IMHO, I was under the impression that timing was retarded as the engine temp climbed higher than "normal" to help dissipate heat?

The TvET map, plus the fact your TvES map is advanced higher than the base map, leads me to assume retarded timing isn't an issue. The base map you started from doesn't hit 30-degrees advance until 5,200 rpm. You're there by 3,000 rpm. Add in the two degrees from the TvET map and you're at 32 by 3,000. Anything under 200-degrees engine temp and you can just add another degree on top of that. That's stackin' a LOT of timing. IMHO.

Again, I defer to Max's insight.

 

Personally, IMO, the motor has way too much timing. I really don't like using the head temp map to mess with the timing.. I do like using the head temp vs AFR adjustment tho..

Mind you that this is a 107 (4.937bore) in a heavy bike, with tight squish and Singh groves, a CR of 10.4 to 1, and Wood W777. Notice that WOT higher RPM timing is only 25 degrees. This bike pulls real well all the way the limiter (6300). I'd expect that the Jays motor would need more timing than what I got but probably not much more than 3 to 4 degrees and that may even be too much.

Some think that if it don't ping, can be advanced. I've seen a number off times on a dyno where the motor didn't ping but made more power when the timing was retarded. My 131 was that way.

 

I think I'll try adjusting the TvTemp first so that it is more tapered and goes negative around 250. Mostly because I have noticed that it seems to miss or something as well once the engine has fully gotten warm and cruised a bit.

 

So I checked my timing maps against the Andrews 37 map and Max's maps and ended up with these:
Not advanced before warmup but goes negative if getting hotter.

Dialed most of it back and made the 2K-4K transition smoother.

Did a few hard pulls on the interstate and I'll say it responds much closer to what I was expecting. The RPMs respond pretty quick at higher throttle and I'm not getting the misses at cruise after warmup. I'll take it on a tuning run later this week to see how well all of the throttle and RPM positions respond.

 

Let us know!

thanks for the update.