Experienced Haltech but New to UpRev
 

Evening.

I've been in the Nissan game for only a few months and will say up-front I've never tuned a Z car before. I'm new to UpRev, but the software has a strickenly easy and familiar interface from what I am used to. I'm posting this up as myself to help learn a new system; to get positive responses so please dont flame with "Get it dyno tuned" or "You'll be sorry" responses. I wanted to start this thread because theres just not a whole lot of knowledge out there for the DIY tuner, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who paid the premium for the tuner edition licenses.

My previous experiance is with Turbo and NA Mazda RX7 Rotary engine vehicles. I've personally wired a few for standalone operation and have experience with Haltech e6 and e11 engine management systems. I've also built a 400+hp 1.3L Rotary vehicle tuned out of an Australian built Microtek standalone. I've sat in the passenger seat for dyno pulls and road tunes for the above plus PowerFC products. I've spent plenty of seat time staring at WB AF meters and tuning in real time to cars which should have never been street legal. I'm really what you call a road-tuner where in the RX7/Rotary game was very popular and important. For those who tuned RX7s, we'd often find road tuning a bit more important than dyno tuning. It was not always about the horsepower numbers, but the ultimate safety on the road. Dyno tuning is a real great tool, but often times we'd found differences in engine load versus natural airflow; something which does affect stationary dyno pulls to a small degree. Dyno tuning was important, but road tuning was even more important - RX7 Rotary engines are much taken by abuse from a few pings or detonation. New engines would litteraly blow themselves to pieces with any lean-out or over advancement. In RX7 world, the numbers to tune to were pretty easy and really well known by community and tuners - depending on the turbo size, boost, and power would determine your basic ignition timing needs, and then fuel to match would mainly be tuned into the equasion. Basically, a targetted ~350 rwhp rotary engine with a T04S boosting 17 PSI would run about 11 degrees timing advance and 11.2:1 AFR at full torque. That was then, and this is now. The 370z being a piston engine and NA is quite different from the nausiating fumes of a rotary.

Between them, there is not a whole lot of difference from what I can tell comparing a full-standalone product and UpRev. Thats obviously giving UpRev a lot of credit, as of course there are like 10x the maps in a full standalone. To me, the UpRev flash/product is an excelent alternative to full standalone without the worry of constantly having to tune an engine with full management. I'm a DIY'er and this is my daily driver so always having the laptop connected is not possible. The Stock ECU with what UpRev has provided is really a homogenous and appreciated dealing.

Mainly the basics of the UpRev provide us with Timing and Fuel curve adjustment. Theres a few other maps in relation to timing and fuel, and of course once I get a little more edumacated and modified the posibilities for much more power and tuning adjustment exist. Right now my car is STOCK, which is just perfect in my book for learning to get the tuning under control - before I modify.

Fuel:

The first thing I noticed on the fuel maps were the "Target" maps. I was like WOW! First, I was like... "wow I dont have to work that hard at hitting a target if the ECU will do it for me." Its a great safety net, but obviously the main-consumption and possibly other fuel maps might need some attention. My question in this area, is how do I tell if the ECU is trying to 'trim' itself to under or overcome whats set in the main-fuel consumption map? Like, if I tell the target fuel to be "12.5:1" and the main map is scheduling fuel at 11.5:1. The Target is 'triming' and trying pretty hard to close-loop correct the hard-set specifics. It would be nice if there was a logg-able percentage + or - that the trim/target maps are trying to correct from. What fuel ratios do you like to shoot for? 12? 12.5? 13?

Timing:

Nissan timing with UpRev is wierd. I actually had to read the instructions but I fully understand. The UpRev timing maps, if I'm not too far off, are target temperature targets for a factory set point ATDC. I understand the ECU tries to target that temperature by adjusting timing provided; providing that fuel is supplied at a metered ammount. I see how the fuel maps could actually interject themselves into the timing maps such that a rich fuel mixture would be cooler, requiring more timing advance; while a leaner mixture running hotter would require less timing advance. My question would again be related to information from log pulls rather than the timing 'temperature' maps themselves. With logging, I can see the actual timing advance, which I presume at this point is the actual BTDC timing in degrees. That is the figure I am used to; a set number BTDC. My question is what should, would, or could be the best number for a mainly stock NA 370z? Im currently seeing ~22 to ~26 logged in second gear from ~4500 - ~7500 rpms.

AIR:

Air is important. Air makes the power. The ammount of air going in/out of the engine added with fuel/timing makes the engine more or less powerful. Any engine is basically just a MASSIVE "air pump". That being said, its nice to see these cars have mass-Airflow sensors unlike previous speed-density RX7 tuning. Mass-Airflow meters can be logged and monitored. Modificaitons can change read values of the incoming air, but so can ignition and fuel maps. On a stock car, what can one expect to see measured at the mass airflow meter? I forget if UpRev measures in voltage or some calculated air density, but the more the better in my book. If nothing else, this number would represent the health and power-to-pull air into the engine. This number would represent the health and strength of an engine just the same as a dyno would - just without the dyno. It would almost always be better to get the maximum air you can into any engine and then tune that maximum to the safest degree. This is why we opt for bolt-ons and turbos. Its not really a tuneable figure, but some change in a tune can affect what the MAF sensor can read as what is being pulled into the engine. For instance, if the timing is retarded the engine would likely be a bit sluggish; causing the MAF to read a slightly lower value. An advanced/strong/tuned engine would likely pull in the most air possible. The MAF reading is more intriquiet for a turbo engine, but all the princibles are just the same for NA. In a healthy, stock, NA engine, what should the Mass-Air meter be reading?

Dyno:

At the begining AND end of the day, Dyno tuning is VERY important. Without it, you'd hardely be able to tell where you began much less where you end up. its very important, but for someone such as what I and others would possibly like to be doing with our cars, Dyno time and tuning is not always the right or affordable option. For me, Dyno before for baseline, during for tune success, and after tuning for final figures. In my experience every car is different and no tuner has the precise magic number; meaning even an E-Tune isnt going to be as rewarding as taking the actuall time to tune; which is not always affordable.

So I started this thread as a DIY'er, for the DIY'er. If you have any answers to my above questions that would benefit us all then by all means please share. Any self-tuners out there? I cant be the only one. Support the community, And please support your local tuner!

I would also like to see more people sharing their experience with the tuning of the 370z.

I'm myself new into the self-tuning ! Its been a year now that I have the Uprev Tuner kit.
I went many time on the dyno and I learned quite a lot every time about this engine and this damn ECU .
I found out that this ECU is very annoying to tune !
Its quite progressive and self-learning that even tuning it is not an easy job.



Just to give an idea , this is what I was running at the end of last summer with Shell V-power91

This is a very aggressive tune
its was just a guide (average) of many tune to set my tune up .. its not copy/paste from Uprev
RPM AFR1 AFR2 Timing
2500 12.5 12.5 18
3000 12.5 12.5 21
3500 12.5 12.5 21
4000 12.3 12.3 23
4500 12.3 12.3 24
5000 12.3 12,3 23
5500 12.3 12.3 23
6000 12.4 12.4 25
6500 12.4 12.4 26
6812 12.3 12.3 28 (peak power)
7000 12.3 12.3 29
7500 12.3 12.3 30


Something I would add is even stock, the MAF table could be fine tuned at WOT
I never really bordered about this in the past until I actually get my custom CAI w/ bigger MAF tube.

I remember while I had my whole intake system stock and full bolt on exhaust.
I was getting around 4.20-4.30 v @ 7500rpm on the MAF
the peak power were if I'm right .. about 4.10-4.15v @ 280whp (low reader Dyno)


with my new CAI w/ bigger MAF & TB , I'm getting 4.10-4.15v @7500rpm
and peak power around 3.96-4.05v @ 6800 = 299whp

Thats some great info. From what I've been looking at thus far, my timing seems to be approx 3-5 degrees less advanced than yours. Of course a CAI would help that out a bit by lowering intake temps enough to where the ECU can advance timing and hit the same temperature ATDC.

My MAF is matching your stock one thus far. I see ~4.15 at a peak from 6500-7300 rpms. That is indicated on the UpRev as 268.8 GM/S.

Check this out. Rough estimating now...

Divide gm/s by 7.5598 then multiply by 14.47 to get Airflow in CFM

268.8 gm/second = ~ 510 CFM

Using 510 CFM, I can then calculate the engine has approximately 340hp at the crank. Or I could have looked at the sticker at the dealership. LOL

To make it pretty simple, multiply CFM by .666 to get approximate HP.

To make it even simpler, multiple GM/S by 1.25 to get approximate HP at the flywheel.

For wheel horsepower, multiply GM/S by about 1.10 for 15% drivetrain loss to get approximate wheel horsepower.

From here, you can actually take the UpRev datalog CSV file and put it in Excel. From there, you take HP over RPM and place the converted GM/S data int a chart showing approximate horsepower over engine RPM (Kinda like a dyno sheet). I compared this chart with a base/stock dyno pull I did about a month ago and it is within +-5 HP for most of the range.

Now this is all asuming things about MAF and engine efficiency, but if you can raise the MAF value during your datalogs then you'll likely make a little more horsepower. About every .666 GM/S gives you ~1 BHP.

Stock Dyno:
http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/a...z/IMAG0119.jpg

*Note the dyno pull I did ended at 7600 RPM. The Datalog ended at about 7200 RPM. it makes the dyno sheet look a little wider/fatter thats all.

Stock UpRev Datalog with MAF GM/s to HP conversion:
http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/a...z/IMAG0118.jpg

What I dont like with Uprev , it does not give an higher number tha 268.8 gm/second even if the voltage keep getting higher.

I had 268 from around 6500 to 7500

AFR is usually around 12.5-12.8 near redline. Most tuners will richen the AFR and advance the timing to increase power.

You can log the correction % during the "test" runs using the Cipher software.

You are right. the g/s does seem to peak at 268.79. B1 & B2 MAF meters measure up about .1v each beyond the initial 268.79. Must be an UpRev limit?

I do see a correction factor, but maybe I'm looking at the wrong one. Seems I see corrections at low and mid throttle opening, but when I go WOT the correction just stays rock steady at 100. I must be looking at the wrong attribute.

Are most of these tables load based? (off the MAFv readings?) If there is no table to raise the g/s limit, then you'll have to "half maf" all the loads. This is common in the Subaru realm when we exceed 300 g/s. I'm getting up to about 290 g/s in my WRX, so I'm close.

I'd be curious to know if that is how (half MAFing) the uprev folks work around it. Those with supercharges and turbos are definitely exceeding that 268#.

There is probably an Open loop/closed loop logic to the ECU. In closed loop there is a constant correction being added/subtracted to maintain stoich, but when you pass a certain threshold the ECU no longer attempts to control the AFR beyond what its programmed to run. This is why you still see some people with intakes running lean up top. The ECU cannot compensate up there.

how are you guys getting your AFR? dual widebands or stocks sensors? Can you do a log of both AFR sensors over RPM in, say, a 3rd gear pull?

Seems our 370zs have two WideBand O2 sensors. I just have to confirm what they are, but logging options show bank 1 and bank 2, WB A/F ratio. The ECU as well has a pretty nice AFR target map for the mixture to reach, and then there is a closed loop correction % for hitting that target taken from the main fuel maps. The sensors can absolutely be logged along with up to ~20 out of ~50 other sensors.

What you mean by half-mafing is adjusting the precision of the MAF to where the ECU will start hitting values to the leftern parts of the maps rather than values all the way to the right.

So in the Subaru world... Your MAF sensor<s> can go up to 300 g/s? I presume that is pretty close to the 5v mark and about ~300-325 WHP on an AWD turbo car. That about right? Im not educated on Subaru, but I'm sure you've got a different MAF sensor and as we've got two in our 370s.

Half mafing is where you take any tables that are referenced to load (where load is derived from the MAFv values and an equation, where calculated load = (g/s*60)/RPM) and then half those values. That way when your hitting a load of 2, its actually a load of 4 and your just tricking the ECU into being able to account for more airflow. You loose resolution doing this, but its better than just plugging in a really rich value in the last cell for open loop fueling, and hoping that it is rich enough to account for the air past the 268 g/s limit so that the AFR is right. As you can imagine, in that case, the AFR would swing rich, then back lean again.

So as an example, all the loads in the ignition advance table, and the fueling are halved, and the injector scalar is halved, and any other table that references the MAFv is halved. You don't have to halve it, you could say, use a value of 75% or something. But the thing you have to remember is when you data log, the values will be different. Its a tricky thing to wrap your mind around, and I honestly wouldn't recommended it without knowing for sure that other tables are not referencing the MAF to apply compensations.

The thing about g/s is it doesn't necessarily mean you can predict the MAFv. There should be a table that is called a mass airflow sensor calibration (or something similar) where a voltage range (1-5v) is correlated with the appropriate g/s for that voltage. These are the values you would change to account for a CAI bringing in different g/s than the stock intake, for a similar voltage.

I'm sure the Subaru MAF is different. However ours don't read past something like 4.76 volts. My 300 g/s is hit at that voltage, however I'm only at like 4.6x volts.

What type of AFRs are you seeing for the stock tune? I have a DashDyno and it reads info from the OBDII port. AFR during normal cruising looks fine at 14.4, but it shows super lean (in the 17s) during WOT. I thought it should go rich during WOT.

not sure if someone said this but are O2 sensors are wideband.

you should have a tune asap if you are into 17 during WOT !!!

at wot when I was stock it was around 13.7-13.8

My Z is bone stock, which is why I'm asking what AFRs everyone else is seeing. Are your numbers from a dyno wideband or from the OBDII port?

that number was from my own Wideband

I need to check my numbers with numbers I get from other vehicles. My 08 Pathfinder V8 shows me similar AFR numbers. Mid to low 14s during low load conditions and 17s during WOT. On the Pathfinder, I even checked the raw voltage readings from the factory wideband with the corresponding AFR numbers and they check out with the graph in the factory service manual. It's driving me nuts.

With those numbers, I'd strongly suggest you dont go by what your WB sensor is telling you. 17s should only been seen under mild deceleration or perhaps on emission systems with air being injected after the engine but upstream from the O2 and Cats. Even a narrow band O2 sensor should not read that lean. 17s is almost lean enough for missfires let along detonation.

I say get your O2 sensor fixed, replaced, or calibrated. Dont try to tune with it.

In Stock form without any problems; running strong and not tuned or anything, your 370z should be reading around 11.75 to 12 AFR at WOT. Your other vehicles should be somewhere between 12 and 14ish I supose.

Yeah, i wasn't planning on tuning with it. I was just wondering why I was getting funky readings. After all, the numbers I can get with my DashDyno are the same numbers Cipher is logging for UpRev's e-tunes.

thats because both programs are using the same sensor

I didn't make myself clear. I'm thinking that my AFRs at WOT are wrong, so that means UpRev would be using this bad data to do a custom e-tune for me if I bought Osiris. Assuming my car is running correctly and not actually at AFR=17+ (as indicated by the OBDII port) at WOT, UpRev would increase the amount of fuel at WOT to help get AFR as indicated by OBDII data to a safer 12.5. Wouldn't this make the car super rich?

I would think that if the ECu sees 17:1 at WOT it would probably throw a check engine light for not being able to hit the targets by ~5 points. What device are you seeing the 17:1 AFR through again? Are you seeing 17 in the UpRev datalogs?

If your WB sensor isnt working right then it would likely be imposible for anybody to give you a good E-Tune.

I think your setup is bad. Also, UpRev would not likely tune against your external sensor unless you ask them to. They'd tune based on what the Cipher datalogs show.

Getting back to DYI UpRev tuning,

Does anybody know what the Ignition map numbers actually mean? I know it is a temperature at a point ATDC, but like what? 10s or 100s of degrees F or C?

I have a DashDyno by Auterra.
OBD II Scan Tool, Performance Meter & Data Logger | Auterra

*TIP* Press the 'spacebar' when in real-time tuning to get your 'ghost' tracer going; similar to an Apexi PowerFC standalone. its a quick way to data-observe what values the ECU was hitting during short operation.

So far its going pretty well for self-street tuning. The first thing I found (also mildly documented in Osiris User Guide) was that the ecu was running just barely off the right side of the ignition timing map. I'm sure that when this happens the ECU just provides the last row/column values as thats what most ECUs/standalone's do. The problem with that is you lose precise control of what the ECU is doing at the given engine demand. The ignition map axis peaks at 19.97, but after a few datalogs and traces I found the scheduled fuel was hitting about 3/4 a point higher (About 20.8ish) . The adjustment for this is a little un-obvious because the setting is actually under the fuel table static settings. Raising the value from 19.97 to 21 not only adjusted the Ignition table axis, it allowed the ECU to stay on the target values. I doubt this created any performance gain.

Im not an idiot, but I cant seem to understand why the A/F Correction figures are seemingly not working as I would have expected them to on this setup. At idle and low throttle, I see the correction vary from ~85-105... As soon as I got any higher than about 1/2 throttle the correction stays flat at 100 and does not change at all. Unfortunately this means I cannot tell if the ECU is adding or subtracting fuel out from the main fuel maps; and I seriously doubt that it's so perfectly configured from the factory that it doesnt need closed loop to hit the A/F targets. I also changed the A/F targets to suit. Does anybody see this on their setup?

^thats weird. What exactly do 85-105 mean? Like is 100, a fueling situation where the ECU doesn't have to add/subtract fuel? Then 85% would be akin to taking away 15% fuel?

If the ECU is going into open loop fueling, then your right. You won't be able to see any correction being applied by the ECU. You'd have to compare the AFR called for, to AFR seen on the logs. Can you tell if the fueling correction stops at a specific g/s value (which might indicated a different airflow correction range being encountered) or a general throttle position/RPM area? (which might mean that you've reached the CL/OL threshold)

Man I can't wait to get my Z. Thanks for posting up self-tuning info meaty. It'd be nice to make this thread a resource for other self-tuners.

So I finally got the Osiris tuner and I'm completely new to tuning so I'm looking for some advice. Based on some runs from last night my AFR is way too rich. Any suggestions on where i can find some tuning material?

I believe both to be the case.



Windex, I see you are scheduling +-22 at that AFR. Do you have any modifications? What degrees of timing are you logging from ~5000-7500 rpms? Perhaps you want to take a look at your ignition map to see if the ECU is running off bounds.

If you wish you can begin modifying the A/F by setting your request in the fuel target maps. The stock map if I recall is looking for ~11.2:1 at WOT. As with the last few posts, I'm still debating weather or not the ECU operates in open loop at wot (looks to be the case). In which case you'll have to adjust the main fuel consumption maps. It is probably best to real-time tune using Cipher with a friend driving and 'spacebar' activated, or by yourself using Cipher datalogging compairing targets vs actual A/F. Tuning with a friend is much faster, easier, and more fun.

Has anybody come up with their own modest settings for ignition timing? I've got my car (stock) running about 27ish BTDC at high rpm wot. I've moved the timing up a little in most areas with decent effect, but its not really safe to do this without feedback.

The main thing/problem I see is there doesnt appear to be any way to monitor the engine's knock sensor with UpRev - which should only be used as a guide not a tuning point. I'd like to be at least several degrees away from a knock situation. I'm thinking of building something external which will observe engine knock such as a mic/meter or headphone equipment. There are companies which sell this type of thing, but I find UpRev has a basic schematic design in some of UpRev's user guides. I also fix high-powered car audio amplifiers and electronics so I might build something out of the following since I already have one of these.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2062620

http://rsk.imageg.net/graphics/produ...160530w345.jpg

This is a battery powered amplifier used mainly for audio diagnostics. The purpose of this device is that it has a gain control that is absolutely rediculous (0.01v minimum gain which is absurdly inaudible through most amplifiers. This device will amplify 0.01v enough to blow it's own speaker out) which in term can amplifier even the faintest of signals to a blaring annoyance. The device itself is a valuble tool for my amplifier repair, and I'm thinking it might just be the trick for getting knocks to an amplifier/audible state for tuning.

I may be able to just tap this into the knock sensor and then wire it to inside of my car, but I'll need to observe the waveform of engine knock on my o-scope before I make something like this. This would come in handy even for dyno tuners.

That log was taken before I even put the base uprev file on my ecu.

I figured I'd just do a new log and attach. Still no modifications.

Looks pretty much similar to mine. Perhaps my elevation may be a little higher than you, or maybe I need to change my stock air filters, because you have several hundred more RPMs worth of the MAF sensor at maximum. Thats assuming our sensors are equal, but you could be making more power than I in stock form.

I've only really just started evaluating changes to make with maps, but...

AT YOUR OWN RISK!

1.

10.2:1 is pretty rich indeed. You may consider tuning this number at your own risk. 12.5:1 is about the leanest at WOT I've seen posted around here.

2.

Your scheduled fuel injected is about ~21.5. I could suggest looking at your ignition map while real time tuning (RTT) in Cipher to see if it is running off the map. Adjustment for this is under FUEL. The stock number is 19.92ish. You could raise that to 21-22.

Your timing looks pretty good at ~27 BTDC. I dont know what the limits are to this yet which is why I'm thinking of making a knock sensor amplifier.

Ive been doing some searching and I can't seem to find a consensus. Do the stock wideband sensors read the same as aftermarket widebands? Have you been having good luck with the stocks sensors? It seems crazy that Nissan would program in air fuel ratios as rich as 11.0:1 at WOT. Although I guess Subaru programs in ratio's as rich as 9.8:1 on some turbo models. (nuts huh?:shakes head:)

The stock Fuel Target map I feel has more than a few problems with it. First of all, the axis scale runs very high: up to 26.7. The scale is adjustable like most of the other maps, I felt leaving the scale alone for this one was just fine. In stock form, the ECU targets 14.7:1 AF at WOT until ~3600 rpm. I can see at cruising, but at WOT, 14.7:1 is a little lean likely for fuel economy purposes. I'm starting to fuel this down a bit richer and can actually tell my lower RPM pulls seem be strengthening below 4000 rpm. Also reflective of the fuel target map, the ignition timing map at WOT below 3500 RPM may be conservative for efficiency as well.

I'm sure Nissan did all this for emissions, fuel economy, and a less touchy throttle. In modifying the areas of fuel targets and consumption maps I can already tell improvement in high throttle operation below 4000 RPMs.

I'd say its as acurate as a manufactored sensor can be. I'm sure Nissan wanted to keep it very safe as well as environmentally healthy. Here is what the stock fuel target map tries to push for.

http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/Untitled.jpg

The ECU only runs down the map at at ~20 BFS at WOT.

An interesting thread
Osiris ROM files - General Tuning Questions - MY350Z.COM Forums

Kind of weird how the tables are setup in my opinion. Good call on richening it up down low though. That fueling table looks weird though. Seems like having the last two BFS cells so close together kind of defeats the opportunity for increased resolution.

How do you like the user-interface meaty? Compared to the haltech?

Wow you are right I didnt even notice that... This is why having a few eyes look at these things is very important. All the other charts are basically linear. I'll have to look into that chart a little deeper now. I'll probably lower the second to last column heading down to about ~23. This table is supposedly just a guide though so I also raised the fuel in the main consumption maps.

UpRev is pretty good. Of course there are dozens of features lacking, like a full standalone can have multiple conditional input and output settings, finer resolution on injectors, better fulfillment of all parameters, and much better real-time tuning with a standalone. Sometimes its a little annoying having to alwas reflash the ECU with UpRev. UpRev to me feels like a standalone but really could use more work to come fully to that point. What it does right now is likely enough for any application however so it really is a nice mod/tool. It is easier to use than Haltech, which was the toughest Standalone I had experiance with. Haltech e6k had about 16 different fuel maps, each at every 500 rpm. it was hard to use because it was DOS based and didnt have the ability to spread maps out onto a '3d' chart. UpRev is actually very similar in difficulty to Microtech standalones which were probably my personal favorite in the RX7 world.

Heres the documentation and link from UpRev on how to make a head-phone human detectable knock sensor. The diagram is insanely easy to follow and the device even operates in stereo feeding input from Bank 1 and 2 knock sensors.

http://www.uprev.com/documentation/K...n%20Device.pdf

I going to build something like this using my Radioshack Mini Amplifier since I've alreay got it and a boat load of electronics. The mini amp also has headphone out in case I want to complete it into what UpRev posted in the above link, but the downside is I can only monitor one sensor bank at a time. The upside is this mini-amp has an incredible gain for a very high amplitude. This RS mini-amp is test equipment compared to the FIIO 5 posted in upRev. I'd think it might work better than the FIIO 5.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2062620

http://rsk.imageg.net/graphics/produ...160530w345.jpg

Idea
 

So today I was reading how the Nismo is rated at a higher power level than the base Z. Given the re calibrated ECU and exhaust work done this makes sense.

What I'm wondering is, if there really was ECU tweaking done, then can we see what these changes were with uprev? And do any of these changes involve changed VVEL parameters? Considering that Nissan themselves says the electronics have been tweaked, its safe to say something must be different.

Comparing the Nismo vs base
Situation 1: No changes can be found in Uprev, meaning hidden tables or changes in VVEL yielding the power. If it is the VVEL that's helping make this power, then that is good news and bad news. Bad news that we can't modify it yet, good news that changing the VVEL DOES make power.

Situation 2: Changes are found in Uprev. These could help us understand where the base 370z could be altered with respect to the ECU to best make gains. Professional tuners probably already know this from sheer volume of tuning, but it's unlikely they will spill the details as that is there intellectual property. Mainly I'm curious how they accounted for the higher volumetric efficiency with respect to ignition advance. Fueling is easier to get right IMO.

Folks,

Before installing the RadioShack Mini-amp, I took it apart and put a 10uF capacitor in-line with the input's center. This removes the MiniAmp from interfering with the Engine's sensor, as itself being such a simplt electronic can be known to produce it's own variances on the input terminals. Installing the CAP places a buffer between the ECU and the Mini-Amp.

The response from the Mini-Amp is exceptional. I can hear all sorts of engine noise from the valve-train to the shifter. The mini-amp sounds like a mild diesel engine when amplified all the way; at idle. it is very clear and clean (my valves seem to be very quiet and well adjusted matter of fact.) The noise coming from it's internal speaker is just about enough, but headphones are recommended for better loudness and clarity. The Mini-amp's gain is enough volume to blow your ears out using headphones so be carefull.

The sound of ping/detonation can be heard in the form of what I can describe as a "tweety bird", up around 10,000hz. The noise is in-audible just from listening to the engine, but the sensor/mini-amp surely picks it up out of any other sound.

I began performing my first few runs at road tuning with a help of a friend who drove while I worked the maps using Cipher real-time tuning. With A/F focusing at about 12.6:1... One thing is for sure, the timing maps do have some headroom. At RPMs greater than 6000, I heard pinging with the timing Low Det maps set close to 70. The max I was able to put the timing at WOT was about 67 from 6-7500 which created a condition of 27 degrees BTDC. From 5-6000 the timing_low_det map was able to be more advanced, where I left the settings at +-70 and heard NO Pinging. I didnt further advance beyond about 71-72 at this point in this area just because I didnt care to as already the values I'd changed would have made about a 3-7 degree timing difference.

The biggest areas of improvement were in the 2-3000 rpm range during this last seating. Likely because I'd already been messaging the timing and fuel maps at high RPM under my own datalogs and pulls. I immediately noticed that at +-3000 rpm at WOT, the A/F was running far too lean. With the fuel_target set to 13.2 in this area, I actually logged the ECU/engine hitting 15:1 at about +-3,000 RPM signifying a lean condition. The RS Mini-amp also "tweeted" (sounds of pinging). This can be likely blamed and attributed to Nissan and Emissions concerns, EPA and MPG. I raised the calculated load maps from ~19.7 to ~20.1 in the 2500-4000 area and then ran about 3-4 test pulls each in 2nd and 3rd gear and got the A/F where I wanted them (about <13.5:1 from 2500-4000 rpm). I had to make several point adjustments in the main consumption maps, but no more than about 2-3 points in changes. The car feel very good at WOT in this area now, whereas before it was way too lean for my liking (15:1), pinging, and not 100% smooth. Its smooth now.

In all, I'm very happy with my street tune. My butt-dyno approves too as it can feel the best difference in the 2-4000 area. Combined with log-tuning from the past week or so I believe the car is running stronger than ever. I'm gonna let this map settle so the ECU can learn just a bit before I go to the Dyno this coming Thursday for the benchmark of my tuning rewards.