Poor ign timing on JB4 Map 1 with 93 octane plus booster?

[Mr. Tech]

Hey guys, I was having issues with poor performance on Map 2 with 93 octane so I switched back to Map 1 and ran 93 octane from Shell for a full tank. On the next fill, I put in Lucas Oil Octane Booster which is supposedly good for 3-4 octane, giving me roughly 96-97 octane. I put the booster in on an almost empty tank, then put a full tank of 93 behind it.

Below is a snapshot of one of my logs after going through nearly half a tank to give time for the booster to mix in. My timing on cylinders 3 and 4 is "almost" always lower than the other four cylinders. Sometimes by as much as 6 or 7 degrees. The variance is most visible in third gear in the snapshot below, but I've seen the same issue periodically in 1st and 2nd gear.

For my mods, ambient temp, and altitude, about 230ft above sea level, my Stinger seems to be considerably slower than other Stingers with similar mods at higher altitudes and temperatures. I'm a solid .4 to .5 seconds slower than most other cars with similar mods (4.9 seconds DOWN a straight on-ramp on a cool, dry, 65 degree day). Any idea on what could cause this, now that I've ruled out octane?

Current setup: GT2 AWD, 19" OEM wheels with OEM Michelin Pilot Sport tires with more than half the tread life left, Denso plugs gapped at .022, DIY AEM intakes, JB4 with fuel wires, Map 1, 93 octane with a full bottle of Lucas Oil Octane Booster.

The only thing I can think of is that it has to do with the spark plugs. I gapped them all with feeler gauges and a BMS style screw gapper. Is it possible for a variance in spark plug gap or quality to cause this type of issue?

Any thoughts on what to look into would be appreciated. I'm tempted just to replace plugs 3 and 4 and see what happens, but if the issue ends up being something like the .022 gap being too small, I'd rather not waste the time/money to get nowhere.

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[Terry@BMS]

Doesn't look that off too me, could be plug related or something else specific to those cylinders. Does timing match up on map0? What about map4?

 

[Mr. Tech]

I haven't tried Map 4, but they don't line up on Map 0 with 93 octane either (log attached). I saw a log from Get Stung a while back that said it included all cylinders, but they were perfectly on top of each other for the entire 1/4 mile. Is that even possible? I only saw a screenshot, not the actual csv.

What else could it be, other than a plug?

 

[Terry@BMS]

Some cars line up perfectly all the time, some cars do not, even with the same fuel. Not sure on the differences but weather, modifications, fuel quality, all play a role.

Map4 is lower boost than map0 so a worthwhile test.

 

[Mr. Tech]

Some cars line up perfectly all the time, some cars do not, even with the same fuel. Not sure on the differences but weather, modifications, fuel quality, all play a role.

Map4 is lower boost than map0 so a worthwhile test.

I can try Map 4, but I'd imagine that, if it's happening on Map 0 with 93 octane top tier gas, which is higher than Kia requires, it'll continue to happen even with less boost.

If this was your Stinger and you saw that, even on Map 4, two cylinders had poor timing, what would be the next thing you would check?

Also, thanks for the fast responses!

 

[Terry@BMS]

If it's not really scaling with boost then I wouldn't worry much about it.

 

[Revvdmedia]

I haven't tried Map 4, but they don't line up on Map 0 with 93 octane either (log attached). I saw a log from Get Stung a while back that said it included all cylinders, but they were perfectly on top of each other for the entire 1/4 mile. Is that even possible? I only saw a screenshot, not the actual csv.

What else could it be, other than a plug?

I pulled your map 0 log into Excel because I like to pull raw data to view min/max/avg on timing. Typically I find cylinder 1 is the "weird" cylinder since it'll usually dump timing to zero for 2 to 3 cells from first to second gear, and it's usually the least aligned with the other cylinders I find on most logs, 2 thru 6 are usually consistent. That said, on the Map 0 log, if I remove the zeroes on gear changes, I only see cylinder variations greater than 3 degrees in 5 out of 28 cells, and all are variations between first cylinder and the rest, the "normal" anomaly. Basically, I don't see anything unusual on that log, except maybe a "long" gear shift going first to second showing 3 cells of zero ignition advance, I like to see 2 at most on a quicker shift in my experience.

 

[Tonkabob]

I dont think small gap is an issue. I did a rush regap during a drag race day and accidently gapped a few at .018, .019 .020 and it ran fine. Back ip to .026- .028 now.

 

[Mr. Tech]

I pulled your map 0 log into Excel because I like to pull raw data to view min/max/avg on timing. Typically I find cylinder 1 is the "weird" cylinder since it'll usually dump timing to zero for 2 to 3 cells from first to second gear, and it's usually the least aligned with the other cylinders I find on most logs, 2 thru 6 are usually consistent. That said, on the Map 0 log, if I remove the zeroes on gear changes, I only see cylinder variations greater than 3 degrees in 5 out of 28 cells, and all are variations between first cylinder and the rest, the "normal" anomaly. Basically, I don't see anything unusual on that log, except maybe a "long" gear shift going first to second showing 3 cells of zero ignition advance, I like to see 2 at most on a quicker shift in my experience.

Thanks @Revvdmedia for digging into this for me! Do you know of anything that would cause a "long" shift? The difference of one cell sounds to me like it could just be a variance from car to car, but if you think there's some science behind that, I'm all ears.

And thanks @Tonkabob for the input! Also, you changed spark plugs at a drag strip? Took me an hour to change mine, not counting gapping. You should be in a pit crew or something haha.

I just saw this post from @Terry@BMS when I was researching spark plugs.


Son of a gun, this might be my problem. I used a gapper similar to the one Terry sells. However, looking closer at the picture for Terry's version, I see that it's rounded where it touches the electrode. The one I used isn't and I noticed it put a small cut into the top of at least one electrode. I noted it, and put the worst looking spark plug in cylinder 4 since it's the easiest to get out. Surprise surprise, cylinder 4 generally has the worst timing. I totally forgot about this until recently, when I saw that cyl 4 was one of the issues.

I also found out that I may have gotten knock-off Denso's from the company I ordered them from. I reached out to Denso yesterday to confirm whether or not they completely redesigned their plugs because the ones I got look nothing like the picture Denso has on their site. Mine don't have the blue rings and the post is dark grey, not brass colored. The text also looks slightly different.

I think the next steps for me are to buy new Densos direct from Denso, buy Terry's gapper, and replace my plugs. Hopefully that makes a considerable difference in the tightness of my timing. And who knows, maybe I'll start seeing performance that more closely matches other tuned Stingers.

 

[Revvdmedia]

I don't have anything scientific regarding long shifts, all I have is general data that I can draw a conclusion from. My car and your car seem to be a bit slower than the faster ones. One commonality I found was the duration of the first to second shift which reflects in an Excel dump of our logs, showing 3 cells of ignition zero on Cyl 1 during the shift. I also feel that my first to second gear shift is long, especially when compared to some YouTube videos I've seen of tuned Stingers. Also, sometimes my shifts are quicker than others, it is inconsistent. If the shift is long and timing is pulled, that is going to slow us down.

Let us know if your plugs change your situation though. I don't see much cylinder variation in my logs, so I don't think there is any issue with my plugs, especially since the mechanic buddy of mine closed the gap by pushing down the electrode on a flat surface, no tools that could cause burrs. I think the only thing holding me back is our not-fantastic Canadian gasoline.

 

[Mr. Tech]

I don't have anything scientific regarding long shifts, all I have is general data that I can draw a conclusion from. My car and your car seem to be a bit slower than the faster ones. One commonality I found was the duration of the first to second shift which reflects in an Excel dump of our logs, showing 3 cells of ignition zero on Cyl 1 during the shift. I also feel that my first to second gear shift is long, especially when compared to some YouTube videos I've seen of tuned Stingers. Also, sometimes my shifts are quicker than others, it is inconsistent. If the shift is long and timing is pulled, that is going to slow us down.

Let us know if your plugs change your situation though. I don't see much cylinder variation in my logs, so I don't think there is any issue with my plugs, especially since the mechanic buddy of mine closed the gap by pushing down the electrode on a flat surface, no tools that could cause burrs. I think the only thing holding me back is our not-fantastic Canadian gasoline.

Have you tried using octane booster? I've heard of people having decent success with that. Granted, it didn't help me much, but I'm hoping it's just because of having bad plugs.

Also, update on the plugs. I spoke with one of the lead customer support techs from Denso. Unfortunately, he's unsure whether or not my plugs are knock-offs because the terminal was changed from a gold color to a dark gray recently. The only detail he's a bit concerned on is the blue rings. Some of their plugs have them, some don't, but he couldn't confirm whether or not the 5346's have them (none on hand). He at least gave me the name of their direct distributor who are guaranteed to be selling genuine plugs. I just ordered a set and will report back once I know if my original set matches the new set.

 

[Revvdmedia]

Have you tried using octane booster? I've heard of people having decent success with that. Granted, it didn't help me much, but I'm hoping it's just because of having bad plugs.

Also, update on the plugs. I spoke with one of the lead customer support techs from Denso. Unfortunately, he's unsure whether or not my plugs are knock-offs because the terminal was changed from a gold color to a dark gray recently. The only detail he's a bit concerned on is the blue rings. Some of their plugs have them, some don't, but he couldn't confirm whether or not the 5346's have them (none on hand). He at least gave me the name of their direct distributor who are guaranteed to be selling genuine plugs. I just ordered a set and will report back once I know if my original set matches the new set.

Octane booster is on my list of things to test, but with winter pretty much rolling in any day now, that might not be until next May or so. I also wanted to test other things like open intakes vs. with my heatshields vs. stock air box to see what finds the best balance of performance, ease and fun.

 

[Stinger-Performance]

I put in Lucas Oil Octane Booster which is supposedly good for 3-4 octane, giving me roughly 96-97 octane.

The "off the shelf" octane boosters don't boost octane that far. When they say 3-4 octane points, that means 0.3-0.4, not 3-4. Points means tenths, numbers means a whole number. If the octane booster doesn't provide mix ratios for different octane boosts, you can assume it's not going to boost it significantly. Simply saying it treats "up to 25 gallons" isn't very helpful as it won't raise octane the same amount in different amounts of fuel. Is it 3 points in 25 gallons or 3 points in 5 gallons?

Octane boosters like Torco will legitimately raise octane to 100+ depending on the ratio you mix it.

 

[xot1]

Lucas booster only increases by 2~2.5 octane.
For solid octane you'd better use Torco or Boostane. But make sure you use an injector cleaner along with such these products.

 

[Hapa88]

The Lucas Booster supposedly can boost octane by 3 full octane numbers. It was tested a while back.

When mixed in a 100:1 ratio of fuel to additive the Lucas Octane Boosted averaged a RON reading of 101.4 and a MON rating of 91.8. Giving Lucas in a concentration of 100:1 an AKI of 96.6 when mixed with 93 pump fuel. With a ratio of 100:1 this make Lucas the most concentrated additive.

When used an a concentration of 50:1 103.1 RON was achieved with a MON of 93.5 giving it a AKI of 98.4.

To date Lucas octane booster is the only booster tested that had significant results with only one bottle in the tank. One bottle is enough to make 10 gallons of 96.6 octane out of 93.

Source: Lucas Octane Booster Test. One Tank One Bottle

Basically you need 93 octane gas to start and 1.28 oz per every gallon of gas added.
Since the Stinger has a 15.9 Gallon tank, you'd need 20.4 oz of the Lucas Octane booster to get there on a full tank.

For reference, the large bottle of Lucas Octane booster is 15 oz. So you can also get the right mixture if you have about 11.7 gallons in the tank with the full bottle of Octane Booster.

 

[xot1]

Field tests do not back up these results.
Torco or boostane produce much better results.

 

[Stinger-Performance]

Torco or boostane produce much better results.

Agreed, that stuff can make "race fuel" out of pump gas and it doesn't take nearly as much so it's a super concentrate compared to Lucas brand and the price is similar.

 

[Hapa88]

Field tests do not back up these results.
Torco or boostane produce much better results.

I just posted a link of someone that did a full on test on the Lucas. Not sure what you mean by field tests don’t back up those results...

Sure, Boostane and Torco may be “better” but the tests show you could get a few octane numbers with the right mix of Lucas, unless you have data to prove otherwise.

 

[CoconutRob]

Why would octaine booster even be needed on map 2 with 93 octane fuel?

 

[xot1]

I just posted a link of someone that did a full on test on the Lucas. Not sure what you mean by field tests don’t back up those results...

Sure, Boostane and Torco may be “better” but the tests show you could get a few octane numbers with the right mix of Lucas, unless you have data to prove otherwise.

I am aware of this test.
But when comparing ignition timings and trap speed, Lucas performs as well as +2ish octane at best, while advertised +3.