The servos around Gawler only seem to retail 91 or 98 nothing in between.
Due to pricing I only ever use 91. Have any members found any real advantage in using anything other than 91? Does it pay to fill up with say half a tank of 91 and 98?
Are additives to boost octane any good?
Cheeeeeers:hmm:

As far as I know not with magnas. Different octane doesn't make any difference as the engine cant tell the difference. Some members have said that 98 gives you more kms/tank. I've always used 91, have filled up from near empty with 98 a few times and not felt any difference.

A few members have gotten their engines tuned for 98 octane though and had some small gains. But really I'd just stick to 91.

I run with 98 now, though I used 91 a lot in the early days. I haven't found much difference in power between the octanes, though 98 seems to deliver the power more smoothly. Economy is a little better, but not much. I mainly use it because its a cleaner fuel. I've never mixed fuels in a tankload before, and have heard mixed opinions on those Octane Booster products (but never tried it). I ran a few tanks of 100 octane (both from United and Shell's infamous Extreme/VPower+) and found little improvement for the higher cost, so settled on 98.
A lot of people here use 91 and are happy it and the price. The only one I'd stay away from is E10 as I used it a few time and the car was sluggish and felt like it was towing something.

3rd gens (6G74) don't have a knock sensor, but the 380 (6G75) does.

This means that in a 3rd gen you won't get any extra power or performance going from 91RON to 98RON, but you will in a 380, as the ECU adjusts. Not a lot, but as Grubco says it just seems to drive smoother and there is a small improvement in fuel economy.

I have my car tuned for 98RON (Chiptorque Exede piggy back ECU tuned by Steve Knight), and there is a noticable difference between 91 and 98 (I insert the bypass plug in the Excede if I'm forced to use 91 because that is all that is available, so it reverts to stock ECU settings).

According to most 98RON has significantly more/better additives than 91RON, which help to keep your fuel system (lines, injectors etc) clean.

Up to you, 98RON has some benefits over 91RON in a 380, but they are relatively minor and and some would say not worth the extra cost.

Cheers Guys. I'll stick to 91 and periodically run an injector cleaner through

I have my car tuned for 98RON (Chiptorque Exede piggy back ECU tuned by Steve Knight), and there is a noticable difference between 91 and 98 (I insert the bypass plug in the Excede if I'm forced to use 91 because that is all that is available, so it reverts to stock ECU settings).

I don't think you need to use the bypass plug.

The ECU will retard the timing if it detects pinging and the Xede won't interfere with that.

As far as OP goes; you'll only get the best out of 98RON with a proper tune. The standard ECU is pretty useless for advance or AFR adjustment so even tho the fuel is better I doubt there is any performance advantage without a piggyback or a reflash of the ECU (currently not possible).

I don't think you need to use the bypass plug.

The ECU will retard the timing if it detects pinging and the Xede won't interfere with that.

As far as OP goes; you'll only get the best out of 98RON with a proper tune. The standard ECU is pretty useless for advance or AFR adjustment so even tho the fuel is better I doubt there is any performance advantage without a piggyback or a reflash of the ECU (currently not possible).

Thanks mate, you're probably right.

Been a while since I've been forced to stick a tank of 91 in, next time I'll just leave the Xede plugged in & see what happens.
I can always 'pull the plug' if it starts acting up.
But if I somehow lose my SKR tune then I'll be hitting you up for the cost of a retune!

I can always 'pull the plug' if it starts acting up.
But if I somehow lose my SKR tune then I'll be hitting you up for the cost of a retune!

The Xede is supposed to be able to support 2 maps; with a switch wired in, you should be able to select which map to use (at least according to the info on the Chiptorque site). You should also be able to plug a notebook into the Xede and using the Xede software save a backup of the maps, unless there's some security setting enabled that prevents that.

Andy.

The Xede is supposed to be able to support 2 maps; with a switch wired in, you should be able to select which map to use (at least according to the info on the Chiptorque site). You should also be able to plug a notebook into the Xede and using the Xede software save a backup of the maps, unless there's some security setting enabled that prevents that.

Andy.

Yep, I know about the second map set up.

But Steve was pushed for time and I don't have a switch, and the Xede I got came with a handy bypass plug (20 seconds to connect) which puts everything back to stock ECU settings (as it's bypassing the Xede), so I CBF getting a second map installed at the time.

When I get the time & inclination down the track I might get a switch and get Steve to set up a second map.

I've got a second map which is conservative for advance. It means I can run 91RON without fear of retardation from the ECU. It gives 140KW ATW and I use this map as my daily tune. However, I never use 91 because I get much better power, response and fuel economy from 98 even with this map. It also produces average 8.6L/100KM (normal driving with full throttle every so often).
The higher tune map I only run on AMC cruises or other situations...

i use 98 shell v power. How about last night standing looking at the pump filling my 380 up it was VERY empty and somehow managed to fit 67.2 something litres of fuel in its alleged 67 litre tank. Wtf musta been bone dry

i use 98 shell v power. How about last night standing looking at the pump filling my 380 up it was VERY empty and somehow managed to fit 67.2 something litres of fuel in its alleged 67 litre tank. Wtf musta been bone dry

Why 98?

I use 98 octane all the time. I figured if I am going to mod my car with an exhaust and intake, I might as well use 98 octane.

I put 95 in mine with the occasional 98 when I'm somewhere I can't get 95.

98RON all the way

had TOO much issues with fuel so I pay for 98ron

having a car off the road is not good for me

We use E10 in both the VRX 380s it great,my old company car the 98 SPORT loved it,the Cordia GSR Turbo loves it,But the Ralliart and the V12 XJS like shell 98 octane. Quick reving engines like the 3.0 etc like the fast burn of ethanol,and if u do a lot of hway Ks as we do it works well.

So with all you piggy back boys, what L/100KM are you getting out of what fuel and is it worth the cost of the piggy back even if you are using E10?

So with all you piggy back boys, what L/100KM are you getting out of what fuel and is it worth the cost of the piggy back even if you are using E10?

Piggy back boy #3 here (AFAICT Fooz = #1, Knotched = #2).

I'm getting 10l/100k in the country and 12l/100k city.

Very little improvement on pre-piggy back, even with leaned out AFRs.

The biggest problem is cold starts and the first four of five minutes of city running, where it is consistently around 20 to 25l/100k before it warms up and settles down to reasonable economy.

The ECU controlled auto choke seems to really pour the fuel in.

And being a manual my country cruise economy would be 1 or 2 l/100k worse than Fooz's or Knotched's autos.

Never used E10 and never intend to use it, 98RON V-Power or Ultimate for me only.

KJ.

So with all you piggy back boys, what L/100KM are you getting out of what fuel and is it worth the cost of the piggy back even if you are using E10?
If you're chasing fuel economy offsetting the cost of a piggyback on E10 forget it!

If you go piggyback you will be search of power & driveability normally running 98. You will get marginally more power & better part throttle driveability & the fuel ecoonomy will be better but not enough to pay for itself. I can't comment on economy as much now with the Supercharger but N/A the best I got with the chip was 6.8L/100KM from memory.


Piggy back boy #3 here (AFAICT Fooz = #1, Knotched = #2).

I'm getting 10l/100k in the country and 12l/100k city.

Very little improvement on pre-piggy back, even with leaned out AFRs.

The biggest problem is cold starts and the first four of five minutes of city running, where it is consistently around 20 to 25l/100k before it warms up and settles down to reasonable economy.

The ECU controlled auto choke seems to really pour the fuel in.

And being a manual my country cruise economy would be 1 or 2 l/100k worse than Fooz's or Knotched's autos.

Never used E10 and never intend to use it, 98RON V-Power or Ultimate for me only.

KJ.
Knotched will probably be along shortly to remind everyone he was #1 before me by a few weeks lol

Knotched will probably be along shortly to remind everyone he was #1 before me by a few weeks lol


Too right :naughty:

As far as I'm concerned, the Xede gave me the biggest advantage in fuel because when I mash the throttle it doesn't make me pay.
Example: I went on a recent cruise here in QLD to Wivenhoe Dam with the boys which was basically through the hills flat out trying to keep on Foozr's tail (not easy you realise!) and then chasing down Sh00t after that. Disciple also drove for awhile by himself (:eeek::pray:) so I figure he would have found max revs a few times as well. Average for the day: 9.7L/100KM
If that was a normal 380 I'd expect 15L/100KM.

On the hwy I get 8.6 everyday; no special driving measures. under 8 is easily achievable if I wanted to bother.

However, I love the control the piggyback has on response and power. Put 91 RON in and you can immediately feel the loss of power. Put 98 in and the opposite. Hot days don't affect engine power, etc. etc.

E10 - I've used it but I get better range figures from 98 i.e. 760km

Sounds interesting. I haven't run 98 Ron yet (what!! I hear you say). I am having trouble justifying the extra $$ for not much more. I may find the chip good for towing as I have the ol camper trailer in tow a few times a year. This really hurts the hip pocket with fuel, even driving really conservatively (which I gave up doing in favour of just getting there quicker). Still thinking....

Sounds interesting. I haven't run 98 Ron yet (what!! I hear you say). I am having trouble justifying the extra $$ for not much more. I may find the chip good for towing as I have the ol camper trailer in tow a few times a year. This really hurts the hip pocket with fuel, even driving really conservatively (which I gave up doing in favour of just getting there quicker). Still thinking....

Thinking about it, without a piggyback/interceptor,if it's factory tuned for 91 RON how would the ECU even know that you're runnng the higher RON fuel...... MAP isn't going to tell it......, Neither is MAF or Air temperature sensors. Does it just consistently try and advance the timing without a range limit til it gets a ping then backs off? or is there a range it doesn't go past whether it gets a knock or not? i.e a range calibrated around 91 RON fuel :doubt:

Sounds interesting. I haven't run 98 Ron yet (what!! I hear you say). I am having trouble justifying the extra $$ for not much more. I may find the chip good for towing as I have the ol camper trailer in tow a few times a year. This really hurts the hip pocket with fuel, even driving really conservatively (which I gave up doing in favour of just getting there quicker). Still thinking....

As Knotched says, the three of us who have fitted chips have done so firstly for improved performance & 'drivability', secondly for fuel economy.
If you are looking to fit a chip mainly for fuel economy then you should do your sums first.
A ChipTorque Xede or Unichip Q will cost approx $1,000 and then you'll be up for $300 - $500 to fit and tune it.
It's only worthwhile for both performance & fuel economy if you tune it for 98RON, so factor that extra cost in as well.
Then, based on an expected fuel economy improvement of around 2 litres/100k, work out how many ks you have to do and/or how many litres of fuel before you break even and start 'saving' money. I'm guessing at least 40,000k, I'll do the maths later!

Thinking about it, without a piggyback/interceptor,if it's factory tuned for 91 RON how would the ECU even know that you're runnng the higher RON fuel...... MAP isn't going to tell it......, Neither is MAF or Air temperature sensors. Does it just consistently try and advance the timing without a range limit til it gets a ping then backs off? or is there a range it doesn't go past whether it gets a knock or not? i.e a range calibrated around 91 RON fuel :doubt:

Seriously , does anybody know how the ECU approaches this?. I want to know if there's any point running 98 RON without an interceptor. You guys with the Exede must've had some exposure to this at least.

EDIT: just got my 90mmm TMR snorkel..:woot:, so I am now wondering if the ECU is going to richen the mixtures even more from what seems to be the ridiculous factory tune of between 10-11:1 (is this really so?... it's extremely rich!)

The O2 sensor will be able find out if the car is running rich or lean, and make the ECU and Knock sensor adjust accordingly.

For e.g
If you fill up with 98ron octane after running 91ron for a fair while, the car will run rich until the ECU adjusts to a leaner mixture. The O2 sensor will pickup if the car is running rich and make the ECU and knock sensor adjust.

I THINK this how it works, but I could be absolutely wrong. Soo take it as a grain of salt lol

Seriously , does anybody know how the ECU approaches this?. I want to know if there's any point running 98 RON without an interceptor. You guys with the Exede must've had some exposure to this at least.

EDIT: just got my 90mmm TMR snorkel..:woot:, so I am now wondering if the ECU is going to richen the mixtures even more from what seems to be the ridiculous factory tune of between 10-11:1 (is this really so?... it's extremely rich!)

From my experience before I chipped it, in my opinion there was no power to be had from running 98 over 91. I believe the 380 is tuned for & recommends 91 so does not advance the timing when better fuel is added.

You're snorkel will increase the fuel with the better breathing & if you have a look at the dyno charts you will see the 380 runs very rich stock & seems to be made worse with these mods. This is one bonus of the piggyback, the fuel can be retrimmed back to a realistic figure which does inprove fuel economy plus the benifit of a bit more go & better drivability when used with 98 fuel.

From my experience before I chipped it, in my opinion there was no power to be had from running 98 over 91. I believe the 380 is tuned for & recommends 91 so does not advance the timing when better fuel is added.

You're snorkel will increase the fuel with the better breathing & if you have a look at the dyno charts you will see the 380 runs very rich stock & seems to be made worse with these mods. This is one bonus of the piggyback, the fuel can be retrimmed back to a realistic figure which does inprove fuel economy plus the benifit of a bit more go & better drivability when used with 98 fuel.


Yep, check out my latest dyno chart, post #14 on this page:
http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52148&page=2
The first of the two dyno charts.
Shows stock AFRs starting around 12.7 at 2,500 rpm and gradually dropping to around 9.7 at 6,000 rpm, average around 11.
After fitting & tuning the Xede, AFRs started the same (12.7 at 2,500) but never went below 12.5 all the way to 6,000 rpm, average around 12.6.

KJ.

The O2 sensor will be able find out if the car is running rich or lean, and make the ECU and Knock sensor adjust accordingly.

For e.g
If you fill up with 98ron octane after running 91ron for a fair while, the car will run rich until the ECU adjusts to a leaner mixture. The O2 sensor will pickup if the car is running rich and make the ECU and knock sensor adjust.

I THINK this how it works, but I could be absolutely wrong. Soo take it as a grain of salt lol

yeeaahhhh......does sound a bit salty:happy:... this doesn't really make sense to me!
My understanding is that the higher octane won't actually change the air density of the mixture, and as such won't really effect the ECU's decision to richen or lean out based on this alone.
The octane should simply allow a more controlled burn, meaning that the ignition can be advanced further without detonation, regardless of the mixture. But how will the ECU know that it can attempt to advance the ignition this far unless it has been configured to just keep advancing with no upper range limit other than what is fedback by the knock sensor? It will probably just hit a pre-configured upper range limit for 91 or at best 95 RONand stop I'm guessing (very happy to be corrected though).

However, my new snorkel I think will certainly richen the mixtures even more.... the lower intake certianly did! I think I might configure a simple voltage interceptor on the MAF, MAP and Air Temp sensors to get the ECU to drag the mixture back to something a little more suitable to driving on planet earth

Yep, check out my latest dyno chart, post #14 on this page:
http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52148&page=2
The first of the two dyno charts.
Shows stock AFRs starting around 12.7 at 2,500 rpm and gradually dropping to around 9.7 at 6,000 rpm, average around 11.
After fitting & tuning the Xede, AFRs started the same (12.7 at 2,500) but never went below 12.5 all the way to 6,000 rpm, average around 12.6.

The main change was in the AFRs, now tuned so that it runs between 12.5 and 13.4 instead of the horribly rich 9.6 to 11 that it was running

KJ.

:eeek::eeek::eeek::eeek: outrageous!!:eeek::eeek::eeek::eeek:

However, my new snorkel I think will certainly richen the mixtures even more.... the lower intake certianly did! I think I might configure a simple voltage interceptor on the MAF, MAP and Air Temp sensors to get the ECU to drag the mixture back to something a little more suitable to driving on planet earth
The piggybacks only manipulate the MAF signal to control air/fuel mixtures, no need to play with the MAP or Air Temp sensors.

The piggybacks only manipulate the MAF signal to control air/fuel mixtures, no need to play with the MAP or Air Temp sensors.

Excellent news, I was realy hoping to get away with this, but haven't been abel to work out exactly what the ECU uses the MAP for apart from barometric pressure
I will probably still play with this as according to the WS manual the ECU advances timing at higher altitudes

Excellent news, I was realy hoping to get away with this, but haven't been abel to work out exactly what the ECU uses the MAP for apart from barometric pressure
I will probably still play with this as according to the WS manual the ECU advances timing at higher altitudes

Yep it's quite simple, MAF manipulation changes the mixture & Crank Angle Sensor manipulation changes the timing. Obviously these are changed at quite a number of load points in a piggyback so doing it your way won't be entirely accurate but I'm sure you can improve it. Just be careful not to lean out too much anywhere, you will need a A/F meter or a dyno to get it right.

Yep it's quite simple, MAF manipulation changes the mixture & Crank Angle Sensor manipulation changes the timing. Obviously these are changed at quite a number of load points in a piggyback so doing it your way won't be entirely accurate but I'm sure you can improve it. Just be careful not to lean out too much anywhere, you will need a A/F meter or a dyno to get it right.

No.....going to leave the Crank angle sensor well alone, don't know enough about this to start fiddling about
Just going to tell the ECU some little white lies about air flow, density and pressure to get it to advance the ignition timing by itself.
Was going to get myself some ODB2 scanning software and read the AF from the ECU rather than spend extra on a separate meter (don't even know if the 02 sensors on this are narow or wide band, but I asssume running that rich they must be wide band)

Well today I had a Dilemma

I need to fill up, but the only servo opened this late was out of prem and V-power which left only E10

now I had NOTHING in the tank OMG OMG OMG

So I have 1/2 a tank of E10 at the moment Lets see how Econ is

Well today I had a Dilemma

I need to fill up, but the only servo opened this late was out of prem and V-power which left only E10

now I had NOTHING in the tank OMG OMG OMG

So I have 1/2 a tank of E10 at the moment Lets see how Econ is

Yeah, terrible when that happens 'cos you limp in on vapours and then can't go anywhere else. I just put in ten bucks or so to get me home.

ECON is up the wahzoooooooooooo

19.9 per hundred on the same route that I would normally get 11s if I drove hard

throttle response is like sending a letter through AU post compared to email

but the engine has NO TICKING! and is QUIETER than ever

ECON is up the wahzoooooooooooo

19.9 per hundred on the same route that I would normally get 11s if I drove hard

throttle response is like sending a letter through AU post compared to email

but the engine has NO TICKING! and is QUIETER than ever

Remember you didn't fill right up for a start :) The only way you could use that much from using e10 is because you've had a whole heap of crap in the bottom of your tank and fuel lines, and the ethanol has dissolved some of it. Woldn't hurt running a full tank or two of e10 through it, and see what that does to the fuel economy. You should also run a bottle of Nulon Total Fuel System Cleaner through it .

Car get a fuel cleaner run through every 3 months anyway

pick up in the tank is from the bottom and the mech on his last inspect advised that it is almost spotlessly clean in the tank

Filled it up with 98 and econ is still a little high

should come back to me though

Yep it's quite simple, MAF manipulation changes the mixture & Crank Angle Sensor manipulation changes the timing. Obviously these are changed at quite a number of load points in a piggyback so doing it your way won't be entirely accurate but I'm sure you can improve it. Just be careful not to lean out too much anywhere, you will need a A/F meter or a dyno to get it right.

Foozrcool, I've purchased the Silcon Chip Digital Fuel Adjuster kit, which basically will just modify a single input across 128 load sites (from 0 up to 12 volts). I'm going to to use it to intercept the MAF voltages to apply a map of tweaked settings at different load points. From your experience with the Exede, do you know if this will be sufficient to lean the mixture (open loop only of course) and therefore the ECU will advance the timing a bit? I'm a bit worried about the fact that we use the MAF signal to adjust the mix, but this also tells the car that there is less load, do you know if this has any undesireable negative effects?

Foozrcool, I've purchased the Silcon Chip Digital Fuel Adjuster kit, which basically will just modify a single input across 128 load sites (from 0 up to 12 volts). I'm going to to use it to intercept the MAF voltages to apply a map of tweaked settings at different load points. From your experience with the Exede, do you know if this will be sufficient to lean the mixture (open loop only of course) and therefore the ECU will advance the timing a bit? I'm a bit worried about the fact that we use the MAF signal to adjust the mix, but this also tells the car that there is less load, do you know if this has any undesireable negative effects?
I run the Unichip not Exede (same diff just clarifying). I think the MAF runs 0 to 5 volts not 12 so does that mean you may only end up with 50 load points or so?
I can't see why you can't lean the mixture with this but you need to monitor the A/F ratio somehow under load as on a dyno.
I don't think this would change the ignition timing though as more fuel is a safe tune so in theory more timing. Leaning the motor without proper monitoring may end up retarding the timing via the knock sensor which would negate any benifit from the higher A/F ratio.

I run the Unichip not Exede (same diff just clarifying). I think the MAF runs 0 to 5 volts not 12 so does that mean you may only end up with 50 load points or so?
I can't see why you can't lean the mixture with this but you need to monitor the A/F ratio somehow under load as on a dyno.
I don't think this would change the ignition timing though as more fuel is a safe tune so in theory more timing. Leaning the motor without proper monitoring may end up retarding the timing via the knock sensor which would negate any benifit from the higher A/F ratio.

Nah.. it has settings to do either 0-1 volts for O2 sensors,0-5 volts for MAF and the like and 0-12Volts, all have a range of 128 load sites. I was of the impression that the factory ECU retards the timing as the load (determined mainly from Mass airflow) increases i.e. it advances it as load decreases . Also I thought that it under leaner conditions it advanced the timing also, I beleive most modern factory ECU's do this. Certainly going to need an AFR reading to tune it, but as you say , the ECU will use the Knock sensor in any case to retard the timing if it goes too far. So if I tune the maf to richen across th elaod range between say 11.5 and 12.5:1 then I can't see how the ECU would need to retard the timing that much , especially given that it will be registering lower loads. I expect this would be a problem if the 380 is prone to detonation, but from what I understand, the Cam is retarded by 7 degrees or so as well, so I guess I'd be surprised if the ignition retardation due to knock is more prevalent than the ignition advance due to less percieved load, and leaner ratios (don't forget, mine isn't supercharged!!, and I'm not going to be chasing every inch of gain out of this mod, just to improve things say within a 60% margin of what is possible overall) For $120 I'll be very happy if I see a couple of degrees advance across the high load sites and a ratio that doesn't go past 11:1

Very happy for anyone to educate me on any false assumptions I'm making here (no.. really!, I'm pretty confident I'm working to a safe boundary, but I don't want to make a critical knowledge error here around what the ECU does or doesn't do, if anyone knows different to anything I've written, FFS! please don't be shy!) If this works, it'll be a very cheap and user configurable way to squeeze some more killerwasps and economy out of these beasties

I can appreciate what you are trying to do having a fiddle yourself but just wondering if maybe you should try to pick up a cheap secondhand piggyback, install it & get it dyno tuned. From my experience the tuning would be about $250 max & would sort your A/Frs & also timing in one go.

Anyway as a guidline when I had mine tuned N/A, you have seen what can be done with the AFrs from the dyno charts & I got about another 6 degrees timing put in through the revs running 98.

I guess by load you also mean RPM as they generally go hand in hand,if so, timing gets advanced as RPM increases. As a rough example, at idle a motor might have 10 deg BTDC but at max RPM have 30 deg BTDC. Timing gets retarded by ECU's when there are knock and other such issues.

I would only intercept signals on the 380 via a device like an Exede or Unichip by a qualified tuner on a dyno. It's not worth doing it any other way, you can do lots of damage.

I would only intercept signals on the 380 via a device like an Exede or Unichip by a qualified tuner on a dyno. It's not worth doing it any other way, you can do lots of damage.

What sort of damage did you have in mind? You have to remember that I'm only adjusting the MAF output (and even then, not randomly or wildly).

Take a worse case scenario:
Even if I decided to hit the MAF thirty times with an axe as part of my installation procedure, then tried to go for a drive, this shouldn't cause any damage (to the remainder of the car - heh ) whatsoever.
If you've had a read through the WS manual (Big thank you to the members of this forum who made this available BTW :thumbsup::bowdown:, absolutely essential reading) you'll see that a totally faulty MAF won't even initiate Limp home mode. It'll just log a MIL for an out of range error, and probably try to use the MAP+RPM+IAT input to calculate airflow and load instead. If this all fails the worst possible symptom would be that I can't idle or run the car til I replace the (badly splintered) MAF.
That's the good thing about intercepting-> monitoring -> tweaking a signal for a single sensor: you are still leaving the ECU to manage the rest of the engine environment

For the record , I'm not typically a twit about these things lol!. This mod will involve a fair bit of montoring and observation before I change any values, and I won't be bothering changing anything until can get myself access to a Wideband AFR reading and an ODB2 scanner

I guess by load you also mean RPM as they generally go hand in hand,if so, timing gets advanced as RPM increases. As a rough example, at idle a motor might have 10 deg BTDC but at max RPM have 30 deg BTDC. Timing gets retarded by ECU's when there are knock and other such issues.

For sure, but you're really talking about what I think of as the "baseline operational" Ignition map, i.e. the ECU just advancing the timing literally just to keep up with engine speed of the pistons and valves opening and closing faster etc.
I'm looking at what I've come to think of as "opportunistic" advancing of the timing, where the ECU is advancing the timing based on a set of conditions that it determines to be more conducive or desirable to ignition advance under load, not just as a standard adjustment to the basic needs of the engine mechanics.
This is sort of above an beyond the requirement of RPM if you know what I mean , in fact I am hoping that this will drive RPM higher, not the other way around

EDIT: Sorry, I just thought of a less long-winded way of explaining this: by changing the MAF reading , I am looking to increase the ignition timing at a given RPM. And I should have said "speed of the Pistons rising and falling" , which is a wee bit more important than the valves opening and closing lol!

For sure, but you're really talking about what I think of as the "baseline operational" Ignition map, i.e. the ECU just advancing the timing literally just to keep up with engine speed of valves opening and closing faster etc.
I'm looking at what I've come to think of as "opportunistic" advancing of the timing, where the ECU is advancing the timing based on a set of conditions that it determines to be more conducive or desirable to ignition advance under load, not just as a standard adjustment to the basic needs of the engine mechanics.
This is sort of above an beyond the requirement of RPM if you know what I mean , in fact I am hoping that this will drive RPM higher, not the other way around

EDIT: Sorry, I just thought of a less long-winded way of explaining this: by changing the MAF reading , I am looking to increase the ignition timing at a given RPM

Yeah, think I hear what your saying ,but why would the ECU retard timing as load increases and advance it as load decreases?Under what conditions would this happen?

Planned today to have another go with United's 100 (as the only stockist in NSW is 10mins from my home) so I limped in there on vapours only to find the servo has changed names. United was gone and so too was its 100 (though internet shows it is still there)... so I went to nearby BP and got premium there instead. Oh well...

Hey Mecha-Wombat, you saying the E10 stopped the ticking? Interesting!! When I took delivery of my car it had half a tank of petrol. From my next fill on I only put 98RON in the tank to see if there would be a difference. It could be the placebo effect but it did seem to perform better?? It was not long after that that I started to notice the ticking in the mornings? I thought it may have been my imagination? So does this mean the better quality fuel increases the injector noise? I would have thought the opposite?

yeah it came back though and getting shitty econ and performance E10 = shitehauzen

I dont think higher quality fuel causes the tick

yeah it came back though and getting shitty econ and performance E10 = shitehauzen

I dont think higher quality fuel causes the tick

Yeah the wonderful fuel companies have done the shifty on us yet again. Shell, for example, have changed their unleaded to e10 without changing from the original unleaded pumps or pump colour. They have only add E10 in small print and still call it unleaded!! BTW WTF isn't unleaded these days eh? I am now a 95 convert as with Mecha I have experienced the drop in economy and power with using that rubbish. I dropped at least 1l/100km or around $1.30 something extra per 100 km. If you are getting say 10.5L/100km with it, it would have to cost over 14c more per litre for you to be worse off financially running the 95. Not to mention the added benefits of cleaner fuel, higher octane and a tad more power. It will have to be a lot cheaper for me to buy E10 again... A LOT!!

Yeah, think I hear what your saying ,but why would the ECU retard timing as load increases and advance it as load decreases?Under what conditions would this happen?

Sorry , for the response delay, the power regulator died on my latop and have to replace the motherboard.

I might be telling you stuff you already know, but Speed (RPM ) is a different parameter to load (Force) . i.e. obviously spinning at 5000 RPM in 5th with a disengaged flywheel is very different to 5000 RPM going up a hill in 2nd, the ECU needs to adjust for load as well as RPM.
The engine willl advance the timing as RPM increases to match the piston speed, but will then also retard the timing at this same RPM when the engine is under high load as there is more resistance to the turn of the crank/descent of the pistons which means more stress on the head of the piston and chance of detonation at the same point ATDC when the flame reaches the piston head.

This is how I understand it anyway. there is probably a better way of explaining it!

Since I'm using 98 RON, this flame front will burn more controlled and more slowly: this means the timing under load can be advanced a little more than with, say, 91RON since the flame front will reach the piston head slightly later and with less jolt
However I'm pretty sure the ECU is largely unaware of how much further it can advance the timing, since it's tuned at 91 RON (especially since I haven't reset mine , and most ECU 's keep a "Baseline" memory of what points they have frequently detonated at, and don't bother even trying to advance past this anymore).

So if we carefully lie to the ecu about the load (which apparently it depends almost exclusively on the MAF for unless there is an issue with it) then it will allow more advance at a particular (real) load, which we can get away with if we are taking measures the ECU doesn't know about to control or delay the flame front (Octane , Water spray, etc.).

Worth noting that the Knock sensor will (assuming it's functioning propely) still protect the engine from detonation, and if our lies push the boundary to the point where it keeps having to knock->retard, then the ECU will shift it's advance pattern backwards to avoid this new detonation point anyway.

I received the parts for my new voltage interceptor and hand controller from Jaycar on friday, ended up costing $150 all up, built and tested over the weekend , all works ok.
Now waiting on an ebay Guangdong special OBD2 scanner to arrive before I can make any changes

Cheers,
RG

Agree with you there Mecha relating to the tick. The car went in to meltdown (engine light) and they changed all my injector seals today!(covered by warranty, phew) Put in Caltex Vortex today at $1.43 (ouch). Still it will work out in the long run? I will move down to 95RON after this tank and use 98 when I go on a trip!