Kia Forte Forum banner

41 - 60 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
Exactly. On a stock engine with a stock tune you will not get any significant power increase on any fuel over 87 octane (if the fuels have similar ethanol content). If you want more power out of higher octane fuel then you need to change the tune to take advantage of the higher octane. That's all I'm saying.

But hey, don't listen to me. Apparently I have "nothing to add to the GT forum" and I'm "just another forum warrior that tries to troll people and fails". I only make "comments negative about peoples personal styles" and I'm "useless to the GT community"
I just posted to inform the ppl here to just ignore NovaResource just like I was told when i joined here. Must be a reason why. Just reading your past posts in other areas just confirms why they told me all this. That's all i was saying. Nothing else to be said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
I’m posting to inform the ppl here to just ignore Olszewski. Reading her past posts in other areas will confirm why. Nothing else to be said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olszewski

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
That depends on what your using to increase octane. Gasoline based racing fuels tend to slow down the flame front IE chemically retard the timing.

93 is not a race fuel, it's not even as good as Canada's 94 octane.

Do we need a full blown fuel test? I have Paypal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
Let's get back on topic, please.
What was the topic? I made a change and people here (and elsewhere) are calling me a liar because I won't produce incomplete data?

My initial findings were good enough to share but the tuner community is very immature which shouldn't be surprising given it's demographics. Such proof is not needed in the V8 community because there is a greater understanding of horsepower and how it's made.

I've only yet to start modding and I'll guarantee it will be controversial, we're off to a hot start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #46
Alright, I have finished for now my fuel testing.

The short -

I've been blending ethanol (E85) to pump gas (91).My initial results were promising, so I posted here and Facebook. Everybody jumped the gun and wanted to know what I did but as I explained here and there, the information was incomplete, how I have more data and can share.

Results as follows -

91 Octane only Peak HP = 217 - 9% = 197 whp and 227 ft of torque - 9% = 207
E20 (1.87 gallons of E85 to 91 octane full tank) Peak HP = 224 - 9% = 203 whp and 237 - 9% = 215 ft of torque
E30 (3.73 gallons of E85 to 91 octane full tank) Peak HP 210 - 9% = 191 whp and 228 - 9% = 207 ft of torque

The Dynopak Dyno calculates power at the crankshaft, so to get the correct reading at the wheels, you minus 9%. I used the same dyno each time. This was at Church Automotive Tuning, one of the best Honda, Subaru and GM tuners in Southern California, if not the country.

These numbers are better than DSport's Forte GT Manual but as reported in the story they don't know what was in the tank when they got the car from Kia North America. They made 184 whp and 194 ft of torque on their in-house Dynojet.

I will share the graphs in a bit, I need a few more screen captures to fully explain what happen. The gist of this that the torque limiters in the factory ECU start fighting you. As explained before E20 leaned out the mixture, E30 leaned it out some more, but each time past torque peak the PCM would command more fuel and drop the AFR down to below 10.8

Peak torque/HP typically happens at 12.5 AFR, peak torque is reached but then power takes a nose dive after 5300 rpm as the AFR's go rich. 91 octane alone runs rich as well, richer than E20.

On E30 peak boost as limited as well, the PCM is really trying to keep torque inline. I did log E30 and 91 but not E20, so again the data set is incomplete but results are fairly clear. You need a tune to take advantage of ethanol blends, I don't believe gains of 35-40 whp on ethanol blends is out of the question on otherwise stock car when tuned for it.

For now my fuel testing is done as more aggressive fuels just add more oxygen to the party. I went with ethanol because it's cheap $2.09 a gallon locally and I didn't want to slow the burn rate down which is what racing gasoline typically does. It's also more expensive, Sunoco 100 is $9 and Trick 100 is $9 as well, both are available at the pump locally.

So what's next?

I want to get some baseline numbers from the track.
 

·
Registered
2020 KIA Forte GT Manual
Joined
·
102 Posts
Alright, I have finished for now my fuel testing.

The short -

I've been blending ethanol (E85) to pump gas (91).My initial results were promising, so I posted here and Facebook. Everybody jumped the gun and wanted to know what I did but as I explained here and there, the information was incomplete, how I have more data and can share.

Results as follows -

91 Octane only Peak HP = 217 - 9% = 197 whp and 227 ft of torque - 9% = 207
E20 (1.87 gallons of E85 to 91 octane full tank) Peak HP = 224 - 9% = 203 whp and 237 - 9% = 215 ft of torque
E30 (3.73 gallons of E85 to 91 octane full tank) Peak HP 210 - 9% = 191 whp and 228 - 9% = 207 ft of torque

The Dynopak Dyno calculates power at the crankshaft, so to get the correct reading at the wheels, you minus 9%. I used the same dyno each time. This was at Church Automotive Tuning, one of the best Honda, Subaru and GM tuners in Southern California, if not the country.

These numbers are better than DSport's Forte GT Manual but as reported in the story they don't know what was in the tank when they got the car from Kia North America. They made 184 whp and 194 ft of torque on their in-house Dynojet.

I will share the graphs in a bit, I need a few more screen captures to fully explain what happen. The gist of this that the torque limiters in the factory ECU start fighting you. As explained before E20 leaned out the mixture, E30 leaned it out some more, but each time past torque peak the PCM would command more fuel and drop the AFR down to below 10.8

Peak torque/HP typically happens at 12.5 AFR, peak torque is reached but then power takes a nose dive after 5300 rpm as the AFR's go rich. 91 octane alone runs rich as well, richer than E20.

On E30 peak boost as limited as well, the PCM is really trying to keep torque inline. I did log E30 and 91 but not E20, so again the data set is incomplete but results are fairly clear. You need a tune to take advantage of ethanol blends, I don't believe gains of 35-40 whp on ethanol blends is out of the question on otherwise stock car when tuned for it.

For now my fuel testing is done as more aggressive fuels just add more oxygen to the party. I went with ethanol because it's cheap $2.09 a gallon locally and I didn't want to slow the burn rate down which is what racing gasoline typically does. It's also more expensive, Sunoco 100 is $9 and Trick 100 is $9 as well, both are available at the pump locally.

So what's next?

I want to get some baseline numbers from the track.
Nice. Very similar to Subarus. I'm not sure how big the injectors/fuel pump are, but it appears that this engine would work well with a flex fuel conversion. I'm not sure if the ecu can take sensor readings from an ethanol sensor, but a flex fuel kit would be sweet. My old STI had a flex fuel kit from Delicious tuning which had larger injectors, fuel pump, a piggy back with a GM ethanol sensor. It required 2 tunes, one from optimizing on 91 and the rest is flex fuel up to 85% ethanol. I figured that was what you where doing with ethanol blends.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #48
Nice. Very similar to Subarus. I'm not sure how big the injectors/fuel pump are, but it appears that this engine would work well with a flex fuel conversion. I'm not sure if the ecu can take sensor readings from an ethanol sensor, but a flex fuel kit would be sweet. My old STI had a flex fuel kit from Delicious tuning which had larger injectors, fuel pump, a piggy back with a GM ethanol sensor. It required 2 tunes, one from optimizing on 91 and the rest is flex fuel up to 85% ethanol. I figured that was what you where doing with ethanol blends.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Actually I got the idea from Phatbotti Tuning, a Subaru tuning specialist. He (Mike Botti) bought a then new 2015 Direct Injected WRX. Cobb had not updated their firmware so he could tune it, but he could data log it. Since he lives down here in SoCal he only has access to 91. But more Pearson ethanol stations are popping up where more people have access, so he worked up to 3 gallons of ethanol which was E24 in his car and make 30 whp and 40 ft of torque, stock tune.

The reason why the Kia/Hyundai 2019-up won't allow something like that is tighter control of the torque tables. That is why Tork Motorsport saw zero gain from intake and exhaust mods on their 2019 Veloster Turbo, when on 2013-2018 (US market) Veloster turbos did respond to bolt-ons without a tune. But that's just Hyundai/Kia catching up to the other OEMs. Ford has been doing this for a long time, the Focus ST won't respond to bolt-ons without a tune despite the anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

It's fairly simple, go into the PCM and raise the torque limits. They put them there to save the drivetrain long term, just as the short/long term fuel trims like to dump fuel to keep the catalyst cool @WOT.

I was curious it didn't cost me anything in real terms and using a dyno was the safest option as a speeding ticket could easily cost what it cost me for three dyno pulls at $80 a pop

In the end E20 resulted in 6 whp and 7 ft of torque. Not a huge gain but repeatable. No check engine light @ E30 either there still some room to go in the fuel system. I talked to a guy that runs full E85 in his Veloster, not flex fuel, flashed tune (HP Tuners) and only had to adjust fueling at E60. IMHO you don't need flex-fuel because if you put 91 octane in your flex-fuel car, it will run rich but modern turbo cars have wide band o2 sensors so they'll adjust to a target that leans out the mixture after a couple of key turns and the adaptives have time to make changes.

I did this on my Focus ST, I had 91 and E30 tunes. Eventually the car ran best with a E30 tune and since I don't really drive the car aggressively on the street it wasn't a big deal. I take my cars to the drag strip, again safe, legal and no risk to the car if you do it right.

Sacramento Raceway will be open for Test and Tune next Friday. No data I can find other than 2019 Elantra GT N-Line manual trans tested by Car & Driver did [email protected]

Oh when I post the graphs you'll see that it had bigger gains than those peak numbers, especially torque.
 

·
Registered
2020 KIA Forte GT Manual
Joined
·
102 Posts
It's fairly simple, go into the PCM and raise the torque limits. They put them there to save the drivetrain long term, just as the short/long term fuel trims like to dump fuel to keep the catalyst cool @WOT.
I would think running an ethanol sensor would do adjustments sooner than a wide band considering the placement of the sensor itself while the wideband does the fine tuning in closed loop. And with the electronics with a wideband, it would stay in closed loop even at WOT, I would think. What is the hardware? Something like a tactrix cable? Software for the tune? I think I would be satisfied with just raising the torque limits enough to put it near Veloster N territory. Nothing crazy.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
I would think running an ethanol sensor would do adjustments sooner than a wide band considering the placement of the sensor itself while the wideband does the fine tuning in closed loop. And with the electronics with a wideband, it would stay in closed loop even at WOT, I would think. What is the hardware? Something like a tactrix cable? Software for the tune? I think I would be satisfied with just raising the torque limits enough to put it near Veloster N territory. Nothing crazy.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
A flex-fuel sensor could work, I don't know what's all involved so I can't comment on that. Mike used the Tactrix cable to log his WRX.

All I'm saying is if you exercise restraint, switching tunes and automatic tune switching isn't really needed, not for blends; for full E85 that's a different.

I don't know what Sixth, 845 or Tork are using. Some minor searching online turned up a couple of software solutions. Obviously it's out there I guess you have to talk to the right person. I asked Tork what they were using and suggested it was HP tuners. Other than saying no that's not what he was using he wouldn't divulge anything else on that subject.

Speaking as a drag racer, I am not sure what extra torque would do for you without being able to really take advantage of it.

This time I am going a different direction. I could have bought some wheels and some 26x8.5x17 slicks as should fit, only slightly taller than the stock tires and little wider. That would make instant 1.7 60 ft times and the car would run low 14's as it sits.

A bit of a rant, the reason why most people don't go to the strip is not because it doesn't interest them, they are concerned they would do badly and they also want the results to reflect on the street. They also don't go enough to justify the investment in race only tires. But they will make that investment in race only autocross tires with nearly zero opportunity to make a return on that investment.

Anyway the reason I'm going a different route this time is because of what I found out with my Focus ST. I had ran slicks on since I got it. When I finally broke into the 12's, I was excited and made the first turnout a Famoso. Because you run slicks down so low on a FWD car (11 psi in this case), I damaged the side wall of one the slicks, not repairable.

I wasn't finished running, so I bolted the street tires back on and went for a pass. The car picked up nearly 2 mph, despite running nearly a second slower in ET. Most think wheel spin has something to do with that, not true, excessive wheel spin is wasted energy period. That energy could be used to propel the car forward which is why 60 ft time is heavily linked to running a good pass period.

My solution is not so much to run the factory tires, but to move to a drag radial. The Tuner/FWD community is the last to see the advantage of drag radials so I'm willing to jump on that train now because the obvious will become very apparent soon.

That said you can't drive a drag radial like a slick, otherwise you'll end up with marginal results, which is what most FWD drivers see when they bolt-on a set of drag radials on a car and mindset built around using slicks.

Slicks are easy to deal with, bolt-on, do a short burnout and keep dropping the tire pressure and launch rpm until it stops spinning out of the hole (1.8 or better). It will spin a little but not excessively like street tires. But the low tire pressure slows you down at the end of the strip where less torque is being generated. Also you can't make sharp turns just what I witnessed and if you want you can always air up drag radials and drive on them back home.

The problem is getting the same good short times with the radials as you do with the slicks. It takes a different mindset and all I will say is the thing you basically don't want in a slick because it breaks things, is exactly what you want with drag radials.

Neither require hard motor mounts. I refuse to live with the noise, vibration and harshness associated with stiffer mounts when they really don't solve the problem. I was able to launch my Focus ST @6000 rpm and it only spun a little on street tires. I was out of range of adjustment, so I couldn't take advantage that anymore. Stock mounts....

I am going to apply that to the Forte GT.

One math formula says if I can run 94 mph in the 1/4 I can get into the 13's, while another formula says I'll run low, low 14's (14.04).

That was the main reason behind the fuel test, I wanted make sure the car was knock free. Excessive heat won't be a problem racing at night and DA is better.

Sac is open for Test N Tune next Friday.
 

·
Registered
2020 KIA Forte GT Manual
Joined
·
102 Posts
A flex-fuel sensor could work, I don't know what's all involved so I can't comment on that. Mike used the Tactrix cable to log his WRX.

All I'm saying is if you exercise restraint, switching tunes and automatic tune switching isn't really needed, not for blends; for full E85 that's a different.

I don't know what Sixth, 845 or Tork are using. Some minor searching online turned up a couple of software solutions. Obviously it's out there I guess you have to talk to the right person. I asked Tork what they were using and suggested it was HP tuners. Other than saying no that's not what he was using he wouldn't divulge anything else on that subject.

Speaking as a drag racer, I am not sure what extra torque would do for you without being able to really take advantage of it.

This time I am going a different direction. I could have bought some wheels and some 26x8.5x17 slicks as should fit, only slightly taller than the stock tires and little wider. That would make instant 1.7 60 ft times and the car would run low 14's as it sits.

A bit of a rant, the reason why most people don't go to the strip is not because it doesn't interest them, they are concerned they would do badly and they also want the results to reflect on the street. They also don't go enough to justify the investment in race only tires. But they will make that investment in race only autocross tires with nearly zero opportunity to make a return on that investment.

Anyway the reason I'm going a different route this time is because of what I found out with my Focus ST. I had ran slicks on since I got it. When I finally broke into the 12's, I was excited and made the first turnout a Famoso. Because you run slicks down so low on a FWD car (11 psi in this case), I damaged the side wall of one the slicks, not repairable.

I wasn't finished running, so I bolted the street tires back on and went for a pass. The car picked up nearly 2 mph, despite running nearly a second slower in ET. Most think wheel spin has something to do with that, not true, excessive wheel spin is wasted energy period. That energy could be used to propel the car forward which is why 60 ft time is heavily linked to running a good pass period.

My solution is not so much to run the factory tires, but to move to a drag radial. The Tuner/FWD community is the last to see the advantage of drag radials so I'm willing to jump on that train now because the obvious will become very apparent soon.

That said you can't drive a drag radial like a slick, otherwise you'll end up with marginal results, which is what most FWD drivers see when they bolt-on a set of drag radials on a car and mindset built around using slicks.

Slicks are easy to deal with, bolt-on, do a short burnout and keep dropping the tire pressure and launch rpm until it stops spinning out of the hole (1.8 or better). It will spin a little but not excessively like street tires. But the low tire pressure slows you down at the end of the strip where less torque is being generated. Also you can't make sharp turns just what I witnessed and if you want you can always air up drag radials and drive on them back home.

The problem is getting the same good short times with the radials as you do with the slicks. It takes a different mindset and all I will say is the thing you basically don't want in a slick because it breaks things, is exactly what you want with drag radials.

Neither require hard motor mounts. I refuse to live with the noise, vibration and harshness associated with stiffer mounts when they really don't solve the problem. I was able to launch my Focus ST @6000 rpm and it only spun a little on street tires. I was out of range of adjustment, so I couldn't take advantage that anymore. Stock mounts....

I am going to apply that to the Forte GT.

One math formula says if I can run 94 mph in the 1/4 I can get into the 13's, while another formula says I'll run low, low 14's (14.04).

That was the main reason behind the fuel test, I wanted make sure the car was knock free. Excessive heat won't be a problem racing at night and DA is better.

Sac is open for Test N Tune next Friday.
I'm sure there is some "open source" solution that shops are not divulging. They are just protecting their interests. I'm not a drag racer but spent over 25 years in the mountain passes. I grew up in the Japanese car culture and I consider Japan as my second home. The extra torque would be nice in the upper mid range as the engine seems to run out of steam past 4500 rpm and I think its partly ecu limited. Plus, I'm used to cars with a narrow upper band like a Toyota 4AGE. It's hard to break old habits. Besides, I'm for for feel than power numbers. Just a bit more up top would satisfy what I would like with this car. That and an LSD.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #52
I would agree that more torque in the area that the car spends the most time in, say Angeles Crest Hwy, that would make sense. I was thinking more along the lines of grudge/street racing/stop light grand prix where it would be considerably more difficult to launch the car smartly without excessive wheel spin.

The engine's torque band is broad, basically from 2K to 4500 it makes the same amount of torque, the biggest advantage of a turbo on a small engine. More torque would be welcome for lots of reasons as long as it can be used...

If you can find enough people interested in an LSD, I'm sure Wavetrac or Quaife would make them; that is the quickest way to fund parts into reality, much like Kickstarter but working directly with the company. You typically need about 10 people with money in-hand and a car they can borrow for prototyping.

The car's ride height is about the same as the other Forte's, so there's still a fair amount of body roll. I like to bomb freeway transitions and on ramps. The transition from the 134 to the 5 I could take at 70 in my Focus ST, with the Forte, the body roll allows the car's safety systems to interfere, so the corner can be taken at 65-67 mph.

I want to lower the Forte but I am going to make a wheel upgrade at the same time. I also want to use coil-overs but I don't think the coil-overs available have the range of adjustment I need. The back of the car is going to sit down in the back with a hard launch, it's just physics. That unloads the front tires considerably if I had to simulate the launch on scales it would be easily seen. Coilovers help helping to keep the tire square to the road surface on launch, you don't want the additional disadvantage of less contact patch with either excessive camber or unloading of the wheel which creates positive rather than negative camber.

One secret to the Neon SRT-4 was the factory setup the car to be able to launch it hard, which is why the engineers used to harass Mustang and Camaro owners around the Detroit area with engineering mules. The car would sit down in the rear and the front wheels would (1) camber zero (2) zero toe.

Which is another reason the car went straight with a hard launch, I drove it with one hand easily at the drag strip, even on slicks, no need to manhandle it.

Good alignment is not just a road racing, autocross, canyon running thing. For FWD it's more important because you're asking the driven wheels to also steer...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #53
I mentioned on Facebook and Reddit but not here yet.

My entry to Rocky Mountain Race Week 2.0 has been accepted. The event is a replacement for Hot Rod Drag Week which the 2020 edition was cancelled over Covid-19 concerns as two tracks opted out because of that and location regulations.

The people behind Rocky Mountain Drag Week which ran in early June of this year quickly sprung into action believing they could give Hot Rod Drag Week entries a place to race. They were able to get Tulsa, Topeka, Thunder Valley and Great Bend. The event runs in that order, tech inspection starts at 7 am CST at Tulsa Raceway Park, track goes hot at 4 pm and will run until 10 pm. No official side by side drag racing, it's time trials.

The class I am entered in is 13.00 Index. IE the person who averages the closest to 13.00 over the week is declared the winner.

I have an aggressive testing schedule planned but I haven't even gotten a tracking number for the most important thing I ordered....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #54
Update: Order is on it's way, delivery set for Friday (August 7th 2020).

Much more to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #55
80464


Pre-determine fuel wire also showed up. I'm dying for a power boost; As I've said my Focus ST ran low 13's and my Neon SRT-4 ran 12.7's. So while it feels quick especially in Sport mode, it's not fast and I know it's being held back by the super conservative stock tune.

This is only the beginning
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
I just picked up a Burger/Cooling Mist Water Methanol System off Facebook Marketplace. Original post appeared on N54 forums.

Should be here August 18th
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Discussion Starter #57
ETA Saturday the 15. I need the map sensor adapter for a seemless installation.

I think the nozzle (only two choices) I need is BM7 or CM7 aka [email protected] or max speed of the pump.

That is plenty.

Also the JB4 is in. Map 1 but I just filled up with E20 and will try Map 2. But for now the car is off to Burger Motorsports as they want to test somethings.

Haven't really laid into it. It's still very warm outside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
ETA Saturday the 15. I need the map sensor adapter for a seemless installation.

I think the nozzle (only two choices) I need is BM7 or CM7 aka [email protected] or max speed of the pump.

That is plenty.

Also the JB4 is in. Map 1 but I just filled up with E20 and will try Map 2. But for now the car is off to Burger Motorsports as they want to test somethings.

Haven't really laid into it. It's still very warm outside.
That your car we see Terry Burger working on?
 
41 - 60 of 70 Posts
Top