Timing Tables LNF

[cobaltssoverbooster]

jeezus...just no

[JimmyS]

Total works o fart!

[codename Bil Doe]

No love lol

[Area47]

some of us have all the love to give, but not to them. they are not worthy.

[TurboCobalt]

I want to bring this thread back to life. I was reading it when it was taking place, but i've been so busy i never had the time to actually open the files referenced, and form a post. Now i realize it's pretty much been deleted, so i am WAY late to the party, but i still want to make sure i understand this properly.

I've looked at the tune, and at the data, i will reference data in log "...blew engine.hpl", at time 3:50 from the other thread that started this.

1) is it just me or is this log missing the "boost low res" pid? I see the MAP pid is railed at 255, so we actually don't know what the boost is during this WOT.
2) RPM is 3000, AirLoad is 322%, Spark is -1.5 deg, IAT2 = 12C, ECT = 90C. Manifold pressure ??? who knows, MAP is railed at 255 and i can't find the boost low res pid, so who knows, probably 30 psi boost.
Here's what all this thread was about, the spark timing, from the low IAT and ECT, it is not the spark offset tables doing this, the spark should be around 6 or 7 deg. The relationship between Main spark and Optimum spark tables is not bad (mostly stock), OS is around 15 deg higher than main spark at this operating point.

So to answer the original question in the thread: No, the IAT, ECT, knock, or tip-in retard, neither of those tables are what's reducing spark advance. Which brings us to the usual guessing and hand-waving of "its something in the torque management calculation that we don't have access to". My guess is that the airload is unnecessarily high, due to the DALs being unnecessarily high, and the changes to the boost control PID (specifically the WG dutycycle table), are generating more airload than the torque management wants, so it retarded timing. Could higher timing be achieved with higher values in the OS table, maybe, probably, however i still feel that the airload is too high for a "street tune", which is the problem here, but that's just a personal opinion.
3) Although i dont think it's necessarily related to the low spark, i still feel i have to point out that there is something wrong with the fueling, I know this is not new, everyone has seen it. Did we ever find out if its a tuning issue or a hardware issue causing this poor fueling? Even when the measured fuel pressure was matching the desired fuel pressure, spark advance was still at -1.5, but once the fuel pressure starts dropping, Lambda goes very lean, and it seems like the controller pretty much gives up at even trying to do closed loop control.

So now is the question: what am i missing? is my understanding the general consensus on this forum? Is there something numerical and obvious that i am missing here? or is it the general catch-all answer, " torque management black magic " and the ever so loved "optimum spark" tables that everyone loves to talk about, but nobody can actually calculate. I get it, you can get a feel for what the OS tables due, but the math is too complicated to actually calculate specific values. Or am i wrong there too?

Just trying to learn, thank you all for your help in advance.