Oh, I guess it's not just the exhaust and blowoff valve, I have an intercooler too, but I'm sure I've mentioned that before in another thread.
Yeah, winter here means turbo weather lol
But this is just on 93 octane pump gas (93 (RON+MON)/2), though I've also ran 91 before and didn't see any difference in knock readings.
I guess it's possible your engine might have some flaw that could cause it under load, but seems unlikely since you're basically running stock load in that log.
Something else you might try, clear you keep alive memory (KAM), that will reset all learned adaptations, then give it time to readapt and get the octane adjust back up and see where things settle at.
fail.hpl
No effect so far. Set start at 70 and max at 100. Factory was set at 200 so that should mean percentage is being used.
We'll get you sorted out eventually!
Tighten up the gap a bit since boost is higher. At least make sure they are on the small side of spec.
Yep. I gap plugs at .028" for EB rigs. Also just ordered the Ford Performance plug that is supposed to be 1 step cooler. Hopefully that upgraded intercooler will have your timing numbers improving. My huge intercooler sure helped my Expedition.
Ok so I have noticed that cyl #3 seems to run less timing than the other three cylinders. It is often times the one lagging behind when tracking knock +/- per cylinder. It will often receive the least amount of advance and sometimes be in knock detection where as the other three are advancing. Ive heard that the balance shaft is driven close to cyl #3. Could this be why? Or could this elude to a cylinder defect of some sort? Screenshot (62).png
Screenshot (61).png
Screenshot (60).png
Screenshot (59).png
Could be balance shaft noise.
On my engine, it tends to favor #3 and also #4, but those negative numbers aren't much to worry about, I try to keep it above -2, and get concerned when I see -4.
I suppose that's possible too, but the system does need to be fairly sensitive, since this is how dynamic timing on these engines work.
To combat that some, you can up the recovery rate, so it bounces back faster from false knock.
I might get trashed on here for admitting this but...
Back in 2012 a friend of mine got a new Focus ST, intake, exhaust, and a COBB tune. Within 10,000 miles the balance shaft gears really came apart. To our amazement the rod and mains still looked OK and since the balance shafts were not immediately available he asked me to button it up without the shafts. People argued online about the affects but as far as we could tell it did not show any more vibration than before, revved much more quickly and seemed to gain about 20 HP.... He decided not to have me install new balance shafts.
Maybe it would be worth the time to pull the balance shafts out (at least temporarily) to see if the #3 cylinder noise goes away.
That's something I've been wanting to do, I just don't want to deal with dropping the subframe. lol
I don't see the need for it either, all the 4 cylinder engines I've ever owned never had balance shafts, never any problem.
If you do use Octane Boosters, steer clear of the ones with MMT (which most off the shelf octane boosters and "race gas" concentrates will contain). It will not only foul your plugs, but will jack up you Wideband O2 as well with regular use. Torco does make a race gas concentrate that does NOT contain MMT and it's about the same price as the Lucas and VP boosters that contain the MMT).
I might have been missing something at first, but I found it confusing reading the initial post and log since I didn't see any mention of what vehicle we were talking about. From reading other people's comments, I think I have figured out that this is a Ford Focus ST. Is that correct? Also, posting the log along with your current tune file is the BEST way to make sure that you get relevant answers to your question.
Since I cannot see the current tune file to look up values you may be hitting in your limiters, etc here are my $0.02
1. Your AFR commanded vs actual under WOT is off, and is running richer than commanded. Have you attempted to use the Speed Density Calculator yet to correct your VE across the Mapped Points? Rich AFRs in Direct Injection cars can create higher than desired cylinder pressure, which can lead to knock. Also, too many people ignore tuning the Speed Density values on Ecoboosts, which would be like Ignoring MAF tuning on an LS3. Yes, on the surface it appears more complicated than MAF frequency tuning, but HPTuners gave us this awesome scanner and awesome tools to be able to calculate the coefficients needed to properly adjust our VE Mapped Points.
2. Under LSPI Reduction on the Torque Management tab, you may want to make sure that your limits are set high enough for the amount of boost you are trying to achieve. I know it says that it is the "Load Limit", so most people draw the conclusion that this is the Airload value they are referencing (where I see a max of around 2.20 Airload in your log), but from my observations over the years I believe this to actually be a Pressure Ratio limit (Manifold Absolute Pressure / Ambient Barometric Pressure), in which case I see you hitting values closer to 2.40 in your log. Then be sure your Combustion Max table and others related to that limiting are also in check.
3. Looking at your Spark Source in the log around some of your higher KR events (-3.0 or worse in the first pull of the log) you are hitting your Cylinder Pressure Limit (See #1 about Speed Density tuning recommendation to get your WOT AFR closer to commanded)