I have ordered ACES IV. While it seems as though board members have been experiencing positive results, I'd like to conduct some testing on my own in order to help validate and add more users to the population in order to increase the sample size. I plan to use ACES in all three of my vehicles, though I only plan to perform data logging on the SHO (Mustang does not have OBD II, and the Escape is my wife's dd).
Word of warning- There are many variables that will be far beyond my control: Weather, Temp, Traffic, each tank of fuel while from the same station will possibly have variables. This is beyond my control and not something I will take measure to mitigate. Logging will be done as close to identical as possible, though will not be exactly the same.
Vehicle- 2014 SHO non-pp, bone stock vehicle with 21,xxx miles. 93 octane, primarily from Exxon. Timing has aligned well, and the typical 6mo maintenance schedule is due. I will be making an apt to get an oil change. Testing will be done starting after this maintenance is performed (this would in theory put ACES IV at a disadvantage as it will have slightly older oil by a few days. Acceptable risk).
OBD II interface- ScanTool 426101 OBDLink MX Bluetooth
Logging Device – Nexus 9. I will need to reformat and reinstall Android. I'll install Torque (or whatever the latest and greatest app is).
I would like logs to be saved to the device as well as uploaded to a location of my choosing (Google Drive would be ideal). I think this is possible, though I could use some assistance setting this up.
Testing Methodology – Determine which parameters need logged in order to best determine any positive/ negative results from adding ACES IV to the fuel.
Stock- The parameters will be logged while the vehicle is in stock form for a determined set of miles and/or time. Each log will be captured and provided to you all (added to this thread, or linked, or something) as quickly as I can add each one.
ACES- Product added to the tank in the proper amount. The parameters will be logged and gas/ACES will be continually added as necessary. Logging will take place for the same amount of time/ miles as in stock form. Logs will be provided in the same manner.
Analysis – Once all the logs are posted, I plan to perform data analysis on the different parameters to determine impact. I naturally assume you all will be forming your own conclusions. I anticipate this analysis portion to be a dialog as everyone that wishes to, combs over these logs.
Preliminary Questions:
What parameters need logged
How long should each logging window be?
What scenario is best for ACES to 'work'? In other words, would daily driving be sufficient? Would the product work better in high RPM scenarios (highway cruising speeds, not racing)? This scenario will need to be performed in stock and with ACES to try to reproduce the same tests as best as possible.
For me, it's not about MPG's it about performance and longevity of my fuel system and cylinder walls, and lowering demand on the fuel system with ACES getting more work (energy) out of the fuel. MPG did move from 14.8 to 15.8 (slowly) since the introduction of ACES, with my winter Blizzaks it did drop to 15.4. That is where I currently set for the entire 6600 miles of ownership. (One trip meter never gets reset) What I find interesting is about the same time I started ACES my work drive change so I'm 99% city driving now. Yet mileage increased. Yes, my car gets daily beatings, well it used to at least.
Knock Retard
Tuned and Virtually zero KR activity with E20 and Aces. The 2013 with E25 only had more KR activity. Nothing bad (till i ran out of fuel, lol) but I'd prefer it at zero. Knock activity is always lift knock. :evilmad:
STFT and LTFT
Fuel trims moved slowly backwards which to me means we are getting more work with less fuel as claimed.
Octane adjust ratio (LOR)
The car's octane happy meter didn't move on either car, pegged at -1. Others have seen movement and I don't know what to think about that. Hopefully some of the others will chime in.
This is my current setup via OBDlink. You will only see a KR max timing advance of -4 or +4 (depending on the formula you use) because you are stock. My max is -5 (or +5) because my tune has a degree of global timing added.
IMO Torque samples too slow for accurate logging. Great for daily monitoring and recording mins and maxes but I have no confidence in the logs I've seen.
Hopefully DX and some of the others will chime in with their experiences.
I agree with FoMoCo, its about performance when using the ACES for me as well. My SHO sits in the driveway 70% of the time and when I do drive it, its city driving. So mileage is not great! But performance, the ACES does allow me since I only have 91 octane gas available to run the 93 octane tune. One thing as you mention you should pay attention to is the difference in winter fuel vs summer fuel. When I first added the ACES into the winter fuel I was getting some weird numbers from Torque. Nothing really correlated as related numbers were seemingly way off from each other. But I stayed the course. When everything settled, the car runs silky smooth. The ACES seemingly helped quiet down the valve lash. My only complaint about the ACES now is because I run the 93 tune, the fans run all the time lol. (Not ACES related).
For mileage, I also use the ACES in my '04 GMC Yukon XL. Thats my daily driver. My mileage has gone from 9-11 mpg to 12-14 mpg. This is all mixed driving. And when I put it on the highway, I have seen upwards of 15-16 mpg. Percentage wise thats 20%-50% increase in mileage.
FoMoCo, how is that test run with racing formula coming? I haven't pulled the trigger on it yet as I still have maybe a gallon left of the regular formula. But want to possibly try it out still when the summer blend gets good and going.
Thanks guys. I think we are all on the same page, which is always a good thing :) Again, my goal is to document the impact of the product in a vehicle in stock form. My eventual goal is to get a meth tune (without meth, and use ACES).
I have absolutely no issues with using OBDLink. I just need to know how to set it up, which parameters to log, and how I go about getting those logs.
SFFT and LTFT make perfect sense
LOR - I understand the potential impact of this reading but dont anticipate much movement as I use 93, and am probably already at or close to -1.
KR - absolutely. Again, as I'm stock I'd be surprised if this moves much. Still, worth logging
I was thinking CAT Temps?? Rationale- if ACES works to create a more efficient engine, heat by product should eventually decrease
Like you said, MPG is not a major concern for this car, though I would expect it to increase. Not something I can log, but will be mindful of this impact.
just got the box... how the heck do you use the bottle?
You know about the filler adapter in trunk, correct?
There is a small bottle that shuld come with the ACES that has two nozzles. You can use it for storage in the car and use the side with the graduated markings that you squeeze into.
I don't like that so I just put what I need in that bottle then dump it in using the non squeeze side.
I'm not sure about the cat temps but as far as EGT goes, decreasing temps can be a sign of a lean mixture as well.
"Some gauge manufacturers say you should tune to achieve maximum or peak EGT for maximum performance. This is incorrect. Peak EGT generally occurs at an AFR of around 14.7- 15.0 to 1 on gasoline. This is far too lean for maximum power and is dangerous under continuous WOT conditions. Many people think that the leaner you go, the higher the EGT gets. This is also incorrect. Peak EGT occurs at stoichiometry- about 15 to 1 for our purposes. If you go richer than 15 to 1, EGT will drop and if you go leaner than 15 to 1 EGT will ALSO drop. It is VERY important to know which side of peak EGT you are on before making adjustments. It is safe to say that peak power will occur at an EGT somewhat colder than peak EGT."
http://www.sdsefi.com/techegt.htm (http://www.sdsefi.com/techegt.htm)
http://www.forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=212424 (http://www.forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=212424)
"The other technique is a little more subtle but usable if attention is paid to EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature). Detonation will actually cause EGTs to drop. This behavior has fooled a lot of people because they will watch the EGT and think that it is in a low enough range to be safe, the only reason it is low is because the engine is detonating."
http://www.contactmagazine.com/Issue54/EngineBasics.html (http://www.contactmagazine.com/Issue54/EngineBasics.html)
Still capturing data logs with the SHO. I expect to have enough 'stock logging' done on the SHO later this week, and will start with the addition of ACES.
Added the proper amount of ACES to the Mustang, and the Escape. Both vehicles did a single stutter about 5 seconds after startup during idle. Seems to me that the new blend of gas hit the ECU like a truck and both immediately adjusted to compensate. Every indication with both vehicles is that the compensation is a positive one.
One thing that is somewhat disappointing is that there was no smoke (sort of being sarcastic here). I know that means that either the engine is not dirty (probably true with the Mustang); or that ACES slowly removes impurities stuck to the engine/ exhaust. I've done Seafoam in a v8 via gas, oil, and brake booster line and the amount of smoke there is incredible. Obviously the concern here would be that components such as the turbo would not be able to properly deal with this level of 'all at once cleaning'. Therefore, if ACES does clean either more efficiently to where the smoke is thinner; or slower over time, I think this is a better scenario in the long run of the health of the vehicle and its components.
Also, does anyone else think ACES smells like rubber cement or paint thinner?
Prelim Results- STOCK Averages taken from the entire data set:
Short term fuel % trim - Bank 1 (%)
180.7907975
Long term fuel % trim - Bank 1 (%)
-0.540271387
Short term fuel % trim - Bank 2 (%)
8.043360174
Long term fuel % trim - Bank 2 (%)
-0.45053681
Ignition timing advance for #1 cylinder (deg)
1284.834697
Fuel rail pressure (psi)
27.24301295
Prelim Results- with ACES IV Averages taken from the entire data set:
Short term fuel % trim - Bank 1 (%)
185.0675864
Long term fuel % trim - Bank 1 (%)
-0.489864683
Short term fuel % trim - Bank 2 (%)
6.480527533
Long term fuel % trim - Bank 2 (%)
-0.536081514
Ignition timing advance for #1 cylinder (deg)
1538.198356
Fuel rail pressure (psi)
32.53849558
COMPARISON:
When comparing the data, I subtracted the averages [STOCK - ACES] for each parameter.
Positive number means the value present in the STOCK log was higher than the average value in the ACES log.
Negative number means that the value present in the ACES log was higher.
Short term fuel % trim - Bank 1 (%)
-0.050172865
Long term fuel % trim - Bank 1 (%)
1.562520211
Short term fuel % trim - Bank 2 (%)
0.085824152
Long term fuel % trim - Bank 2 (%)
0.182696309
Ignition timing advance for #1 cylinder (deg)
-5.292402188
Fuel rail pressure (psi)
-72.85693565
My initial impressions:
nothing categorically, jaw-dropping amazing here. Again, the vehicle is stock, and if the assumptions are correct that the performance tune from factory is 91 then me using 93 is already maxing (or nearly) the stock ECU. With that said, there do seem to be some evidence of ACES IV improving the overall health
Looking over the fuel trim % it looks like the vehicle is moving ever so slightly closer to 0
Ignition timing also improved
Both of these are backed up by another metric, which I did not purposely state previously, but which is gas mileage. I went from 17.8 to 21.37
Some of those numbers look weird,
Bank 1 STFT- 180%?
Rail pressure, is that 3200 PSI? I think the rail is rated to 3K
I'm not sure what the weirdness on initial start is about, Would it have even made its way into the lines that fast? Others have reported as well but mine never skipped a beat.
Noticed any drop in KR activity or max?
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on March 21, 2016, 06:46:25 PM
Some of those numbers look weird,
Bank 1 STFT- 180%?
Rail pressure, is that 3200 PSI? I think the rail is rated to 3K
I'm not sure what the weirdness on initial start is about, Would it have even made its way into the lines that fast? Others have reported as well but mine never skipped a beat.
Noticed any drop in KR activity or max?
I'll take a look at the entire sample of numbers, I only posted averages. One high number could throw that number off.
Yea, the initial start "stutter" happened on 2/3 vehicles, and therefore I do not think is an anomaly. That said, it is of no concern. All three vehicles are running well.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on March 21, 2016, 06:46:25 PM
Some of those numbers look weird,
Bank 1 STFT- 180%?
Rail pressure, is that 3200 PSI? I think the rail is rated to 3K
I'm not sure what the weirdness on initial start is about, Would it have even made its way into the lines that fast? Others have reported as well but mine never skipped a beat.
Noticed any drop in KR activity or max?
Yeah maybe a misplaced decimal point on the STFT? As for the rail pressure, same thing with the decimal but why the huge jump from 2700 to 3200? I'm sure if he posted the full logs someone would love to dig into them. That is a massive increase in mileage, are you sure all the driving conditions where the same?
Looks like something did get messed up when I merged the CSVs into a single file to look at the data. I do not see numbers nearly that high individually. As far as the driving conditions... they are close to the same, but not exactly identical.
Stock Logs:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ph6l3i6zrb38lnl/AABtiMyGiK_VNQD7Toprggw3a?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ph6l3i6zrb38lnl/AABtiMyGiK_VNQD7Toprggw3a?dl=0)
ACES Logs:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tfuxxth1oxva7tp/AABlsUISybrUc2iFHYSNvaRXa?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tfuxxth1oxva7tp/AABlsUISybrUc2iFHYSNvaRXa?dl=0)
I'll look to re-merge them again into a single file for each. I'll do it manually this time, instead of using a CMD prompt command to do it for me :/
I recompiled all the CSVs. I originally had an error (it was actually with the way Excel manipulated the CSV when it was opened, which was my mistake for opening the CSV in Excel in the first place... but I was anxious to see the data. Below are the averages from the logs.
| Engine coolant temperature (F) | Short term fuel % trim - Bank 1 (%) | Long term fuel % trim - Bank 1 (%) | Short term fuel % trim - Bank 2 (%) | Long term fuel % trim - Bank 2 (%) | Intake manifold absolute pressure (inHg) | Engine RPM (RPM) | Ignition timing advance for #1 cylinder (deg) | Fuel rail pressure (psi) | Catalyst temperature (Bank 1 sensor 1) (F) | Catalyst temperature (Bank 2 Sensor 1) (F) | Fuel/Air commanded equivalence ratio |
Stock | 183.4241 | -0.43174 | 7.428606 | -0.23039 | 8.952383 | 13.12357 | 1237.95 | 25.34733 | 343.4247 | 1028.197 | 1028.089 | 0.981977 |
ACES IV | 185.0636 | -0.4901 | 6.48084 | -0.53636 | 9.461774 | 16.68595 | 1538.106 | 32.53542 | 427.5513 | 1099.534 | 1099.377 | 0.986512 |
|
(Comparison Stock - ACES) | -1.63945 | 0.058356 | 0.947766 | 0.305972 | -0.50939 | -3.56237 | -300.156 | -7.18808 | -84.1266 | -71.337 | -71.2884 | -0.00453 |
Im not sure what you will gather..the driving is different and will be hard to control on the street...in the data above...the rpm is different...map is different and spark is different....and i dont even see load which is important.....load would have to be the same as well as rpm and iat and coolant to make any kind of comparison
Quote from: AJP turbo on March 25, 2016, 09:37:34 AM
Im not sure what you will gather..the driving is different and will be hard to control on the street...in the data above...the rpm is different...map is different and spark is different....and i dont even see load which is important.....load would have to be the same as well as rpm and iat and coolant to make any kind of comparison
Well no kidding man, I realize that I don't have a full lab and scientific process in place with all of the capabilities of performing multiple and redundant tests exactly the same. I identified that in my first post. Be realistic.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
When I'm trying to test I will use a combination of WOT logs, Torque mins and maxes, experiences between the 2 cars, etc.
For example, my car starts up in a climate controlled garage so I watched fuel trims at startup and after the initial and subsequent ACES treatment they clearly moved backwards....and after startup and when the idle drops. Scientific proof? No. Different result than I'd noticed before? definitely.
I know that KR activity on the 2013 was definitely higher on that car with E25 VS the 2015 with E20 and ACES, which at this point doesn't exist. Performance of the two cars very similar comparing ET's and trap.
I know the only thing Torrie will look at when adjusting my tune are good WOT logs. Finding a safe, low traffic stretch is super helpful. Every log I send is on the same on ramp done usually after midnight.
AJP is blessed with tuning knowledge, time, and apparently an awesome wife that supports his datalogging/tuning habit so he definitely has the upper hand over most of the rest of us. Get him some good logs though and there's no one better on this forum to help interpret the results.
I will say having an X4 and the supplied software is a much better logging tool than any of the OBD platforms that I've seen. If you were contemplating a tune in the future buying the package now would probably help you even if you held off on the actual tune itself.
Only thing i dont like about mins and max values over a random drive period is sometimes there values that are just anomalies like when u lift or step on the throttle ...transients....like you can have a well tuned car but get a -20 stft when u lift...it only lasts a split second and isnt a good representation of the fuel trims but it will be recorded in the logger
I like to throw out the extremes highs and lows that dont seem to follow suit with the averages
Quote from: AJP turbo on March 25, 2016, 09:10:24 PM
Only thing i dont like about mins and max values over a random drive period is sometimes there values that are just anomalies like when u lift or step on the throttle ...transients....like you can have a well tuned car but get a -20 stft when u lift...it only lasts a split second and isnt a good representation of the fuel trims but it will be recorded in the logger
I like to throw out the extremes highs and lows that dont seem to follow suit with the averages
I agree with that which is why I don't have mins and maxes for certain items. You were right about the LPFP ramping up on lift. Maxes are good for certain things, like KR. I'd like to have a min value for for Lambda but since the stream likes to drop out it's useless.
I'm really hoping the SCT GTX is the whole package, accurate data logging with useful e gauges that don't look a vintage LCD watch.