BNR S3 on Stock Block Performance Daily Driver

I figured I'd put this in here to show my experience (on 93 and E28) of going mid-turbo on stock block. I've done many other things on my Speed too (mods in sig.), but I'm going to just focus on the BNR S3 in here. Questions on it or any of my other mods? Just ask

01-04-2014
So, I'm only on the base map to check for leaks, make sure everything is good, etc. At this point I'm running spring pressure and 9.5 degrees max timing advance. The WG is completely zeroed so EBC isn't adding any boost at all. Results? 275/280 at the wheels!

Also, I'm hitting 315 grams/second on this base map at about 70 degrees ambient temperature. That's as many grams/second as my high-power ethanol tune on a 30-something-degrees day.

Now on the second revision. I'm now up to 300/315. Torque peak is ~4300. Horsepower peak is ~5700. I carried 21.5psi all the way to redline. The best I can do to explain what this feels like is OMG! Being used to a K04, it is simply amazing.

Grams per second went from 315 on the base map to 350! Heck, after it's all said and done on ethanol, I may be close to 400!

Here's VDyno which shows the difference between my former final 93 tune and my 2nd revision BNR tune on 93 octane. MAJOR difference in the top of the powerband. Timing is still from the base map!


01-15-2014
Soooo.... 93 BNR tuning results:

325/345 at the wheels. The torque has been intentionally kept really low in the midrange--could easily hit way more torque peak, but why? The ethanol tune is where the power will be!

I had a really difficult time trying to chase down an issue where my WOT AFR was getting super rich. I sought and received professional help and everything is perfect now! Justin really knows his stuff! I learned a lot in the process too.

TL;DR 93 octane tune on BNR = about the same power as ethanol tune on K04, but much better mileage and curves.

Here are the results of the 93 octane BNR S3 tune compared to the 93 octane K04 tune on similar temperature days. Above 5000rpms is really where you can see the BNR shine. And this K04 tune is fairly aggressive. The BNR tune is much less so, and could be adjusted to have gobs more torque and boost.


01-22-2014
Well, I'm stuck at 17.5 degrees at 6500 on E25. Went to E30 for more timing and I get stuck at ~24psi b/c IDC is right at 100.

At this point, the way to hit my 375whp goal will likely be to follow suit with what Smelson did, either an EM or finishing out my 3" exhaust. Increasing volumetric efficiency means I'll have greater power output at the same fueling/timing/boost level.

We may experiment with E25 a tad more and see if what we lose in timing gives enough fueling headroom to make up the difference with boost. More to come...


02-03-2014
Sooooo.... E25 experiment is working pretty well. Upped the boost a tad and turned down the timing a little. Up to 367/392.

I'm positive the 3" exhaust will get me the rest of the way to 375 (probably more), but I still have some IDC to play with. BATs aren't spiking at all. AFR is actually improved with my revision.

Glad I learned some tuning before this. I think I'll make it the rest of the way there with another map or two.

02-08-2014
I couldn't have been more right about needing a full 3-inch exhaust. Check this out:


02-15-2014
26.5psi, 105 IDC, 380 grams/second and BATS still only 20 over IAT at redline. Log was taken while 70 degrees outsite. I'll be tapering boost back to maybe 25--not seeing much gains with the extra boost. The variance in these graphs is because of VDyno, not KR or the tune--just goes to show VDyno is a great tuning tool, but not the utmost in reliability to determine ultimate power numbers:


02-22-2014
Final results: E28, 24.5psi, 102 IDC w/ 70 ambients, BATs ~18-20 over IAT:
~385/380, pulling hard all the way to redline ...


02-22-2014
Here's the final comparison between my previous, aggressive K04 ethanol tune and my comparatively more conservative BNR ethanol tune. Ambients for these logs are virtually identical (332/393 - K04) vs (387/381 - BNR):


08-30-2014
Update:
I just wanted to show what a large impact seasonal ambient conditions can have on our cars. Here's a graph that shows the exact same tune (my final E28 BNR S3 FREEKTUNE) across a range of temperatures. They are:

1. The bottom three (green, purple, and pink) are logs from IATs ~70 degrees, in February. I put down ~385/380.
2. The middle two (dark green, and orange) are logs from IATs ~85 degrees, in May. I put down ~365/365.
3. The top two (red, and blue) are logs from today, with IATs ~93 degrees. I put down ~355/350.

That's about a span of 30whp, which is very significant. My 60–100s ranged from ~5.0 on the highest whp logs to ~5.55 on the logs from today. Bear in mind my tires are 0.6" taller than stock, so these times are 0.4–0.5 seconds slower than they would be on stock-sized tires. In the winter on this tune, I should be in the 4.3–4.5 60–100 time range with stock-sized tires.


07-03-2015
Added a 200 Cells/Inch Metal Cat/Retuned Update:
Well, looks like I ended up at ~340/350 when IATs are ~97 degrees (BATs hit ~120).

60-100 is ~5.20 seconds. Justin tuned me for 17 degrees timing, 24.5psi. This puts my IDCs at ~95 during the summer, so in winter I should be right around 100.

Regarding adding the cat, it looks like I lost 10-15whp. This is par for the course, according to Justin. Last summer I was putting down ~355/350 with similar ambients, so my results are pretty typical. This is, of course, with a single high-flow cat, not the two stock cats. They are MUCH more restrictive.

I also like the fact that my torque is the same. This makes perfect sense because the restriction really is up top where the engine is spinning faster. So max whp is impacted; max wtq, not so much.

Fingers crossed that this cat fixes my creep in cold weather. That was the whole point! I'll have to wait until winter to see.

 

Cont'd:

07-03-2015
Before and After CAT differences.

The logs for these are pretty similar, but the w/o CAT (blue) one was with ~93 degrees IAT. The after CAT one (red) is with ~97 degrees IAT. This actually is moderately impactful according to the tons of data I've accumulated, even though 4 degrees doesn't sound like much. Ideally the IATs would be identical for comparison, but I figure these are close enough to get a general idea.


10-04-2015
Here's a graph that shows the comparison between catted and non-catted again. I was tired of being robbed by the power from the cat, so I reverted back to catless and yanked that sucker off. The way I see it, I have the GA to protect me from overboost, and I have the methanol to make sure my IDCs stay in check.

The catted run (blue) was from ~8 degrees cooler IATs. The non-catted (red) run had a little higher concentration of methanol (recently added), though. The way I see it, these factors pretty much negate each other.

I've taken TONS of logs over the years, and they've consistently shown that even with a full 3" exhaust, just adding a high-flow cat can easily cost you 15-20 horsepower at BNR power levels. Now if you had a stock exhaust on top of this, I'm sure it'd be a good deal more.

Bear in mind, these are 93 octane logs + methanol. I'll share more data once I've done an analysis on the E28 + methanol tune.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 19, 2016 ---

The journey continues after I decided to throw methanol into the mix. It's detailed here:
http://mazdaspeeds.org/index.php?threads/bnr-s3-methanol-awesomeness-i-hope.931/

 

Awesome stuff, thanks for sharing. Kind of makes me want to get rid of my Cobb catted downpipe in favor of a catless full 3" downpipe...that way I can move to a full 3" exhaust when the time comes instead of having the tapered Cobb.

 

this is really promising! ive got my fmic kit sitting here and already have the SRI, TIP and 3"DP along with AP so really all i need to do is get switched over to bnrs3 and retune.

 

If you happen to make that move. Let me know. I may be interested in the DP... Downpipe, that is.

 

Haven't updated this thread for a while, so here's the latest from my suspension thread, found here (my journey from Swifts/Koni Yellows/Bilstein B8s to GC Coilovers w/ Koni Yellows):

http://mazdaspeeds.org/index.php?threads/help-me-decide-on-stiffer-suspension-plz.2548/

Having driven on the new setup for a few weeks, I can definitely say I'm loving it. My 7" rear spring choice means even though I'm at max low adjustment, I'm ~0.5" higher than the Swifts were, so I don't have as much of a "drop" appearance , but I'm the type of guy that performance >>> looks in most cases. The extra articulation range is definitely a benefit.

Cool side effect: I can use my old normal (non-low-profile) jack again! LOL.

Anyways, the cool stuff - performance: ride quality is pretty similar to my old Swifts/Koni Yellow Fronts/Bilstein B8 rears. Sudden drops can cause a little harshness in feeling, but that is similar to my old setup, if not a little more pronounced. I can see what @VTMongoose was talking about more regarding driving impressions. I think more compression stiffness would definitely help, but revalving won't occur until full-on track conversion/built motor/EFR 7163/likely stiffer springs for retirement to weekend warrior/track duty (instead of pure DD).

One thing I will say, my new, stiffer spring rates handle my 385/380 whp/wtq MUCH better. There's much less roll/steering input corrections needed when, for instance, dropping into 3rd on the highway. These spring rates are a great deal better at handling my power level.

I'll soon be going back for my touch-up alignment since everything has settled. I toyed with the idea of going to 6" rear springs, but it's not worth it for an extra .25-.5" drop that may look aesthetically pleasing, but would be contrary to traction/performance.

More to come...

 

Moved from another thread to talk about supplemental fueling.

For me, I'm just going to methanol it. Future plans include an EFR7163, 4032 pistons built motor, a solid clutch, upgraded radiator, FoST mani, under-pipe routing, and since the FoST mani flows so evenly, 2 CM10 nozzles in a TB spacer (~25.6 GPH, which is ~1600cc extra cc of fuel, and will get me ~47% more fueling headroom over our stock injectors' total 3400cc alone). This should theoretically get me way beyond 500whp (which is where I'll stop for turbo longevity/traction).

A little ricer math says I'll be fine. I'm at 87 IDC at 385whp with only 1 CM10 right now in the 70-degree ambients. That x 1.47 = ~565whp the setup should support (and still be at only ~87IDC in 70-degree ambients). Heck, at 100 IDC, it may even support 600whp, but I won't be pushing the 7163 hard at all to hit only 500whp (great for longevity, as it it having water in the CHRA, as opposed to PTE turbos). That gives me the extra safety measure in the winter when IDCs go up a good deal more, too. Then I have the huge host of benefits that accompany a crapton of alky. I'll definitely need the HTP 3-gallon fenderwell tank and an AFR failsafe set to trigger my GA if flow stops/I go lean.

And BTW, @WetzMS3 , I realize the limitations of ricer math. If I need extra or bigger nozzles, they're simply added. All will be adequately addressed.

 

K

 

Dreams becoming more concrete:
http://www.turbos.borgwarner.com/go/FET6LJ

I'll need a TR10C too, on top of everything else. The 750 cfm max of a TR8C is eclipsed, besides the fact that running any component on its ragged edge is a bad idea for numerous reasons. >100% intercooler efficiency is how I'm conservatively accounting for the chemical cooling of methanol.

 

Was talking to Justin the other day about this for the purposes of planning a parts list/costing everything out. I mentioned I may use a FoST IM, and he advised STRONGLY against it. With the amount of methanol I plan on flowing (likely CM12 x 2; A CM12/CM14; or CM14 x 2), he said a methanol backfire, which can sometimes occur, would likely be too much for the FoST mani. He recommended the JMF or 16w.