🔥 Project Black Pearl – Refined Directive

Project Black Pearl is a structured, AI-assisted performance build of a 2005 Subaru Impreza WRX into a reliable ~305whp street-focused performance car with entry-level rally capability.

This is not just a build.
It is:

A performance engineering project
A documented learning laboratory
A monetizable content engine

🎯 Primary Objectives

1. Performance Target

~305 wheel horsepower
Safe, conservative, reliable tune
Balanced street drivability
Rally-capable suspension, braking, and cooling
Data-driven ECU calibration

No dyno-queen numbers. No ego tuning.
Reliable power > peak power.

2. Engineering Philosophy

Reliability first
Data > guesswork
Incremental upgrades
Log everything
Tune conservatively
Always build with future headroom

Every change must answer:

Does this improve reliability?
Does this improve response?
Does this improve consistency?
Does this move us closer to 305whp safely?

3. ECU & Tuning Strategy

Controlled boost targets
Conservative timing
Knock-safe fueling
Gradual power scaling
Log → Analyze → Adjust → Repeat

No random map changes.
Every revision is documented, named, and justified.

4. Rally-Oriented Capability

Entry-level rally capability means:

Suspension travel and control
Brake endurance
Cooling resilience
Strong midrange torque
Predictable throttle modulation
Chassis stability under imperfect surfaces

This is a usable car, not a parking lot build.

5. Content Production Strategy (YouTube)

Black Pearl is also a content asset.

Each phase of the build must generate:

Install walkthroughs
Tuning breakdowns
Mistake analysis
Data log reviews
Cost transparency
Before/after comparisons
Real-world driving impressions

Content pillars:

“AI Tuned WRX”
Budget vs Performance Reality
What Actually Works
What I’d Do Differently
Data-Driven Builds

The goal:
Document the journey in a way that builds trust and authority.

💰 Monetization Intent

This project should evolve into:

Affiliate links (parts, tools, tuning gear)
Digital downloads (base maps, logging templates, tuning checklists)
Consulting/tuning assistance
Sponsorship positioning
Branded merch
Educational breakdown content

The build must fund itself over time.

📊 Operational Discipline

For every modification:

Document:

Cost
Purpose
Expected gain
Risk
Measured result
Long-term effect

If it doesn’t produce measurable value, it doesn’t move the project forward.

🧠 Strategic Mindset

Black Pearl is:

A system
A case study
A brand asset
A revenue engine
A proof of capability

It is not:

Random parts thrown at a car
Blind tuning
Ego horsepower chasing

🚀 Next-Level Refinement

If we want to elevate this:

Answer these:

Are we staying VF22 long-term or planning turbo evolution?
What is the final boost target at 305whp?
Are we building bottom-end headroom or staying stock internals?
What’s the suspension philosophy — street bias or rally bias?
What’s the realistic total budget cap?

Clarity here determines the entire roadmap.

If you want, I can now:

Turn this into a pinned project charter
Convert it into a YouTube channel “About” positioning statement
Or build a 12-month roadmap to hit 305whp + monetization simultaneously

Where are we pushing next — power refinement, reliability reinforcement, or revenue extraction?

AI-DRIVEN INTELLIGENT ECU Tuning ResearchThought for 8s

Here’s a research-grade, practical roadmap for AI-driven intelligent ECU tuning for Project Black Pearl (05 WRX), split into what’s real, what’s hype, and what we can actually build into your workflow.

What “AI ECU tuning” actually means (3 levels)

Level 1 — AI as a tuning assistant (real + useful now)

Learns patterns from your logs and suggests targeted map edits (MAF scaling, fueling trims, timing deltas, boost control tweaks).
Flags risk: knock trends, IAM drops, heat-soak sensitivity, injector duty issues, boost oscillation.
This is the best ROI path for open-source Subaru workflows.

Level 2 — Automated calibration with constraints (real in research + pro industry)

This is the big one: automatic tuning under safety bounds (EGT/knock/torque/pressure constraints), often using optimization + risk limits. There’s active research explicitly on risk-aware automated engine control calibration.

Level 3 — “Fully autonomous tuning” (mostly marketing)

A lot of “AI tuning file” services are basically template retrieval + pattern matching, not true closed-loop learning. Useful sometimes, but don’t confuse it with intelligent control.

The best research directions to steal for your WRX

1) Risk-aware optimization (your safest path to power)

Instead of “maximize power,” the objective becomes:

hit requested load/boost/AFR targets
minimize knock probability
obey constraints (timing limits, boost limits, temps, fuel system headroom)

This is exactly the framing used in recent automated calibration research.

Translation to WRX reality:
We can create an optimizer that proposes small deltas to:

Timing (base + compensations where relevant)
Boost WGDC (and dynamics)
OL fueling targets
…and only accepts changes if logs show safer margins.

2) Model Predictive Control (MPC) + learned models (industry-grade approach)

MPC is widely used because it can enforce constraints while optimizing behavior, and it pairs well with learned/ML models.

Translation to WRX:
You likely won’t replace Subaru’s control loops, but you can use MPC ideas offline:

predict boost response to WGDC changes
predict knock sensitivity vs IAT/load/RPM
choose edits that reduce oscillation and knock risk

3) Knock-control literacy is mandatory (or AI will hurt you)

Subaru knock strategy is nuanced; AI can’t “save you” if you don’t model the rules of the ECU (IAM, FBKC, FLKC, learned knock, etc.). Use RomRaider’s knock-control docs and deep community breakdowns as your baseline truth.

What to build for Black Pearl (high ROI, low risk)

A. “Log Intelligence Layer” (first milestone)

Create an AI analyzer that:

scores each pull: safe / caution / stop
detects patterns:
- knock clustered by RPM/load?
- IAM decay after heat soak?
- boost overshoot then correction?
- AFR error vs MAF scaling?
outputs a tight action list (“Change X table by Y in Z cells”)

This is where you get results without gambling the engine.

B. “Change Generator” with guardrails (second milestone)

The AI proposes map deltas, but your rules must be hard:

max timing change per iteration (ex: +0.5° / cell)
max WGDC change per iteration (ex: +1–2%)
no changes if IAM not stable
no changes if FBKC/FLKC appear in relevant regions
require repeatability across ≥2 pulls

This aligns with the “robust performance + monitoring + RL/optimization direction” highlighted in ML engine control work.

C. Content engine (this prints money if you do it clean)

Each iteration becomes a video:

“AI found knock pattern at 4400rpm”
“AI reduced boost oscillation by adjusting WGDC dynamics”
“AI fixed MAF scaling error causing lean tip-in”

You’re not just building a car — you’re building a repeatable “AI tuning methodology” brand.

Tools + ecosystem reality (Subaru open-source)

Your ecosystem is still:

RomRaider (logging + definitions + visualization)
ECUFlash (read/flash)
Tactrix OpenPort

Be strict: never log + flash simultaneously (common conflict).

The 5 questions that decide your whole research path

Answer these straight — they determine what “intelligent tuning” can safely do:

Fueling hardware: injectors + pump are what right now? (stock? upgraded?)
Sensor strategy: do you have a wideband integrated into logs or only external?
Turbo + boost target: VF22 still the plan and what peak boost do you want on pump gas?
Fuel type: 93 only, or are you going flex fuel later?
Primary constraint: are we optimizing for reliability, response, or peak power first?

If you reply with those 5, I’ll turn this into a concrete Black Pearl research plan with:

required log channels
safety thresholds
scoring model
and the exact “AI recommendation format” that feeds your current tuning workflow.

Give me the new refined directive

Here is the new refined directive for:

🧠 Project Black Pearl

AI-Driven Intelligent ECU Tuning Program

Mission

Develop a data-driven, AI-assisted ECU calibration framework for a 2005 Subaru WRX that produces:

~305whp safely
Predictable, repeatable power delivery
Rally-capable drivability
Engine longevity
Documented, monetizable methodology

This is not “auto-tune.”
This is intelligent, constraint-based performance engineering.

Core Philosophy

Reliability is non-negotiable.
Every change must be measured.
AI assists — it does not replace judgment.
Power is earned through stability, not forced through aggression.
If it cannot be logged, it cannot be trusted.

System Architecture

Layer 1 — Data Acquisition

All tuning decisions are based on structured logs including:

RPM
Load
Boost (target vs actual)
WGDC
IAM
FBKC / FLKC
AFR (wideband integrated preferred)
MAF voltage
Injector duty cycle
IAT / Coolant temp
Throttle angle

No blind pulls. No street guessing.

Layer 2 — AI Log Intelligence Engine

The AI performs:

1. Pull Scoring

Each WOT pull receives:

Stability Score
Knock Risk Score
Boost Control Score
Fueling Accuracy Score

Output:
SAFE / CAUTION / STOP

2. Pattern Detection

The system identifies:

Knock clustering by RPM/load
Heat soak sensitivity
Boost overshoot/oscillation
AFR deviation vs target
MAF scaling error zones
Injector duty risk regions

No emotional tuning. Only patterns.

Layer 3 — Controlled Change Generator

The AI may propose changes under strict constraints:

Timing delta ≤ +0.5° per iteration
WGDC delta ≤ 2% per iteration
Fueling changes incremental only
No timing increases if:
- IAM unstable
- Active knock present
- Boost overshooting target
No boost increases if:
- Injector duty > safe margin
- AFR trending lean
- IAT excessive

Changes are small, deliberate, reversible.

Layer 4 — Validation Protocol

Before any power escalation:

Two repeatable clean pulls
Stable IAM
No sustained knock events
Boost tracking within tolerance
AFR within target margin

If validation fails → revert.

Performance Objective Framework

We optimize in this order:

Mechanical stability
Fueling accuracy
Boost control precision
Timing refinement
Torque smoothing
Peak output

Power is the last variable adjusted — not the first.

Safety Doctrine

Hard limits must exist:

Conservative boost ceiling
Conservative AFR targets on pump gas
Injector duty margin preserved
Thermal management respected

An extra 10whp is never worth engine damage.

Rally-Oriented Calibration Bias

Tuning emphasis:

Strong midrange torque
Predictable throttle modulation
Smooth boost ramp
No violent torque spikes
Heat consistency under repeated pulls

This is a usable car, not a dyno screenshot.

Iterative Loop Model

Log → Analyze → Score → Adjust → Flash → Validate → Repeat

Each iteration documented:

Map version name
Change summary
Reason for change
Before/after log comparison
Risk evaluation

Every revision becomes content and data.

Monetization Integration

This directive must evolve into:

AI log analysis templates
WRX tuning checklists
Safe-iteration playbooks
Map revision documentation frameworks
Educational breakdown videos
Digital download assets

You are building:

A performance car
A documented methodology
A monetizable system

Non-Negotiables

No ego tuning
No blind timing jumps
No “it feels faster” conclusions
No skipping validation

Strategic Outcome

At completion, Project Black Pearl should demonstrate:

A stable ~305whp calibration
A repeatable AI-assisted tuning framework
A documented roadmap others can follow
A performance car built on engineering discipline

If you want the next level, I can now:

Convert this into a printable “Black Pearl ECU Control Doctrine”
Build a scoring model formula for your log intelligence layer
Or design the exact log-analysis pipeline structure for automation

Where do you want to tighten the system next — scoring logic, boost control modeling, or timing strategy?

Black Pearl ECU Control Doctrine

🧠 BLACK PEARL ECU CONTROL DOCTRINE

Project Black Pearl – AI-Governed Calibration Framework
2005 Subaru WRX | Target: ~305whp | Rally-Capable | Reliability-First

I. Foundational Principle

The ECU is not a power lever.
It is a thermal, combustion, and load management system.

The objective is not maximum output.
The objective is controlled, repeatable combustion under defined constraints.

Power is the byproduct of stability.

II. Chain of Authority

Mechanical Reality — highest authority
Sensor Data — second authority
Structured Logs — third authority
AI Analysis — advisory only
Human Decision — final control

AI may recommend.
It may never override physical evidence.

III. Operational Hierarchy (Order of Optimization)

Tuning must follow this strict sequence:

Mechanical integrity
Fuel delivery accuracy
MAF scaling correctness
Boost control stability
Knock control stability
Timing refinement
Torque shaping
Peak output

Skipping levels is forbidden.

IV. Data Governance Standard

No map revision may occur without complete logs including:

RPM
Load
Boost (target vs actual)
WGDC
IAM
FBKC
FLKC
AFR (wideband preferred)
MAF voltage
Injector duty cycle
IAT
Coolant temp
Throttle angle

If it is not logged, it is not changed.

V. Pull Authorization Protocol

A WOT pull is authorized only if:

Coolant temp stable
IAT within safe margin
IAM at full or stable baseline
No active knock history in recent driving

If any condition fails → no pull.

VI. Pull Scoring Doctrine

Each pull must receive 4 scores:

Stability Score
- Boost tracking consistency
- WGDC behavior
- No oscillation
Knock Risk Score
- FBKC presence
- FLKC learning
- IAM behavior
Fueling Accuracy Score
- AFR vs target deviation
- Injector duty margin
Thermal Margin Score
- IAT sensitivity
- Coolant stability

Output classification:

SAFE
CAUTION
STOP

STOP mandates reversion or mechanical inspection.

VII. Change Governance Rules

No change may exceed:

+0.5° timing per iteration
±2% WGDC per iteration
Incremental fueling correction only

Timing increases are forbidden if:

IAM unstable
Any knock present in that cell
Boost not fully controlled

Boost increases are forbidden if:

Injector duty approaching unsafe threshold
AFR leaner than target
Heat soak detected

Changes must be:

Small
Reversible
Documented

VIII. Validation Protocol

Before advancing power:

Two consecutive clean pulls
No sustained knock
IAM stable
Boost within tolerance
AFR within acceptable deviation

If validation fails → revert to last stable revision.

No emotional overrides.

IX. Rally Calibration Bias

The calibration must prioritize:

Strong midrange torque (3k–5k RPM emphasis)
Smooth boost ramp
No torque spikes
Predictable throttle modulation
Heat resilience across repeated pulls

Street drivability > dyno bragging rights.

X. Hard Safety Limits

Non-negotiable ceilings must exist for:

Boost
Timing advance
Injector duty
AFR under load
IAT compensation

An additional 10whp is never worth a ringland.

XI. Iterative Loop Doctrine

Every revision must follow:

Log → Analyze → Score → Adjust → Flash → Validate → Document

Documentation must include:

Map version name
Exact table changes
Reason for change
Before/after log comparison
Risk evaluation

Every map is a data artifact.

XII. Monetizable Methodology Mandate

This doctrine must evolve into:

AI log analysis templates
ECU tuning checklists
Safe iteration frameworks
Map revision documentation templates
Educational breakdown content
Digital downloads

The system must outlive the car.

XIII. Prohibited Actions

No blind timing jumps
No boost spikes for “testing”
No tuning by feel
No ignoring knock
No escalating power during instability
No undocumented changes

XIV. Strategic Outcome

Upon completion, Project Black Pearl will demonstrate:

A stable ~305whp calibration
Repeatable AI-assisted tuning workflow
Rally-capable street drivability
Engine longevity under stress
A documented, teachable framework

If you want to tighten this further, the next upgrade would be:

A formalized numeric scoring model (weighted formula)
Defined safe thresholds for EJ205 pump gas operation
Or a version-control naming architecture tied to your actual .bin files

Which layer do you want to formalize next?

A formalized numeric scoring model (weighted formula)

Below is a formal, numeric, weighted scoring model you can run on every WOT pull. It outputs:

0–100 Overall Score
SAFE / CAUTION / STOP
Component subscores you can graph over time

It’s built to be knock- and safety-dominant (because that’s what keeps EJ205s alive).

Black Pearl Pull Scoring Model v1.0

1) Overall Score (0–100)

$S_{overall} = 0.35S_{knock} + 0.25S_{fuel} + 0.20S_{boost} + 0.15S_{thermal} + 0.05S_{repeat}$ Soverall=0.35Sknock+0.25Sfuel+0.20Sboost+0.15Sthermal+0.05Srepeat

Why these weights: knock + fueling are the biggest “engine-ending” failure modes on pump gas; boost control and thermal stability drive repeatability; repeatability is important but not more important than safety.

2) Subscores (each 0–100)

A) Knock Score $S_{knock}$ Sknock (0–100)

Use 3 penalties: IAM, FBKC, FLKC.

IAM penalty

Let $IAM_{start}, IAM_{end}$ IAMstart,IAMend
$\Delta IAM = IAM_{start} – IAM_{end}$ ΔIAM=IAMstart−IAMend

$P_{IAM} = \begin{cases} 0 & \Delta IAM = 0 \\ 60 & \Delta IAM > 0 \end{cases}$ PIAM={060ΔIAM=0ΔIAM>0

(Any IAM drop during/after the pull is a major red flag → heavy penalty.)

FBKC penalty

Let $FBKC_{min}$ FBKCmin be most negative FBKC during pull (e.g., -1.41, -2.81)

$P_{FBKC} = \min(60,\ 20 \cdot |FBKC_{min}|)$ PFBKC=min(60, 20⋅∣FBKCmin∣)

So: -1.41 → 28.2 penalty, -2.81 → 56.2 penalty, -4.22 caps at 60.

FLKC penalty

Let $FLKC_{min}$ FLKCmin be most negative learned knock in the pull region

$P_{FLKC} = \min(40,\ 15 \cdot |FLKC_{min}|)$ PFLKC=min(40, 15⋅∣FLKCmin∣)

Knock Score $S_{knock} = \max(0,\ 100 – (P_{IAM}+P_{FBKC}+P_{FLKC}))$ Sknock=max(0, 100−(PIAM+PFBKC+PFLKC))

B) Fuel Score $S_{fuel}$ Sfuel (0–100)

This score cares about AFR error + injector duty headroom.

AFR tracking penalty

You need: measured wideband AFR $AFR_{meas}$ AFRmeas and commanded/target AFR $AFR_{tgt}$ AFRtgt (or OL target if available).

Compute error over the pull window (e.g., 3500–6500 rpm):

$E_{AFR} = \text{median}(|AFR_{meas} – AFR_{tgt}|)$ EAFR=median(∣AFRmeas−AFRtgt∣)
$E_{AFR,max} = \text{max}(|AFR_{meas} – AFR_{tgt}|)$ EAFR,max=max(∣AFRmeas−AFRtgt∣)

$P_{AFR} = 30\cdot E_{AFR} + 10\cdot E_{AFR,max}$ PAFR=30⋅EAFR+10⋅EAFR,max

(Example: median error 0.2 and max 0.5 → $P_{AFR}=30(0.2)+10(0.5)=11$ PAFR=30(0.2)+10(0.5)=11.)

IDC penalty

Let $IDC_{max}$ IDCmax be peak injector duty cycle (%). $P_{IDC} = \begin{cases} 0 & IDC_{max} \le 85 \\ 2\cdot (IDC_{max}-85) & 85 < IDC_{max} \le 95 \\ 40 & IDC_{max} > 95 \end{cases}$ PIDC=⎩⎨⎧02⋅(IDCmax−85)40IDCmax≤8585<IDCmax≤95IDCmax>95

Fuel Score $S_{fuel} = \max(0,\ 100 – (P_{AFR} + P_{IDC}))$ Sfuel=max(0, 100−(PAFR+PIDC))

C) Boost Control Score $S_{boost}$ Sboost (0–100)

Reward accurate tracking; punish overshoot and oscillation.

You need boost target $B_{tgt}$ Btgt and actual $B_{act}$ Bact (same units).

Compute:

Peak overshoot: $O = \max(B_{act}-B_{tgt})$ O=max(Bact−Btgt)
Mean absolute tracking error: $E_B = \text{mean}(|B_{act}-B_{tgt}|)$ EB=mean(∣Bact−Btgt∣)
Oscillation proxy: $J = \text{std}(\Delta B_{act})$ J=std(ΔBact) (std of boost “rate of change”)

$P_{overshoot} = 25\cdot O$ Povershoot=25⋅O $P_{track} = 20\cdot E_B$ Ptrack=20⋅EB $P_{osc} = 10\cdot J$ Posc=10⋅J

Boost Score $S_{boost} = \max(0,\ 100 – (P_{overshoot}+P_{track}+P_{osc}))$ Sboost=max(0, 100−(Povershoot+Ptrack+Posc))

(If you don’t have a clean $J$ J, skip it and redistribute weight inside boost.)

D) Thermal Score $S_{thermal}$ Sthermal (0–100)

We’re scoring IAT and heat soak sensitivity.

Let:

$IAT_{start}, IAT_{end}$ IATstart,IATend
$\Delta IAT = IAT_{end}-IAT_{start}$ ΔIAT=IATend−IATstart

$P_{IATlevel} = \begin{cases} 0 & IAT_{start} \le 90F \\ 0.5\cdot (IAT_{start}-90) & 90F < IAT_{start} \le 130F \\ 30 & IAT_{start} > 130F \end{cases}$ PIATlevel=⎩⎨⎧00.5⋅(IATstart−90)30IATstart≤90F90F<IATstart≤130FIATstart>130F $P_{IATrise} = 2\cdot \Delta IAT$ PIATrise=2⋅ΔIAT

Thermal Score $S_{thermal} = \max(0,\ 100 – (P_{IATlevel}+P_{IATrise}))$ Sthermal=max(0, 100−(PIATlevel+PIATrise))

(If you log °C, adjust thresholds accordingly.)

E) Repeatability Score $S_{repeat}$ Srepeat (0–100)

This only makes sense once you have two pulls under similar conditions.

Let:

$\Delta B_{peak}$ ΔBpeak = |peak boost pull1 – pull2|
$\Delta AFR$ ΔAFR = median |AFR error pull1 – pull2|
$\Delta FBKC$ ΔFBKC = |FBKCmin pull1 – pull2|

$P_{rep} = 20\cdot \Delta B_{peak} + 50\cdot \Delta AFR + 10\cdot \Delta FBKC$ Prep=20⋅ΔBpeak+50⋅ΔAFR+10⋅ΔFBKC $S_{repeat} = \max(0,\ 100 – P_{rep})$ Srepeat=max(0, 100−Prep)

3) Classification Rules (hard gates + score bands)

Even if the weighted score looks okay, these gates override:

STOP (immediate)

$\Delta IAM > 0$ ΔIAM>0 (IAM drop)
$FBKC_{min} \le -2.8$ FBKCmin≤−2.8 in the WOT load cells
AFR goes lean beyond a hard limit you set (example: > 0.8 AFR lean vs target at high load)
$IDC_{max} > 95\%$ IDCmax>95%

CAUTION

$FBKC_{min}$ FBKCmin between -1.4 and -2.8
Any FLKC in the WOT region
Boost overshoot > 1.0 psi (or equivalent)
Thermal score < 70

SAFE

No IAM drop, minimal/no knock, fueling and boost stable

Score bands

SAFE: $S_{overall} \ge 85$ Soverall≥85
CAUTION: 70–84
STOP: <70 or any STOP gate triggered

4) How you use it (the money part)

Every revision gets a line item like:

v1.07: Overall 78 (CAUTION) → “Reduce timing 0.5° @ 4.2g/rev 4200–5200, fix WGDC overshoot”
v1.08: Overall 89 (SAFE) → “Proceed to small WGDC +1% in midrange”

This turns your tuning into a measurable product and your videos into evidence-based episodes.

Quick probing questions (so we set the right thresholds)

Are you logging wideband AFR into the ECU/log, or is it external only?
What units are you using for boost (psi or kPa), and do you have boost target logged?
What’s your typical fuel (91/93, ethanol blend, etc.)?

Answer those and I’ll tailor the hard limits + coefficients so the scoring matches your exact setup.

91/93, ethanol blend,

Got it. With 91/93 + ethanol blend, you should run the scoring model with fuel-profile switchable thresholds, because ethanol dramatically changes knock margin and “acceptable” timing/boost behavior.

Below is Black Pearl Pull Scoring Model v1.1 (Fuel-Aware): same structure, but with profiles for 91, 93, and E-blend (default E30).

Fuel Profiles (choose one per pull/session)

Profile A — 91 Pump (most conservative)

Knock penalties harsher
Lean events less tolerated
IDC headroom more protected

Profile B — 93 Pump

Moderately conservative

Profile C — Ethanol Blend (assume E30 unless you specify)

Knock tolerance can be slightly wider
Still zero tolerance for IAM drops and major knock
Fuel system limits matter more (ethanol increases fuel demand)

1) Weights (slightly revised for ethanol)

91 / 93

$S_{overall} = 0.38S_{knock} + 0.25S_{fuel} + 0.20S_{boost} + 0.12S_{thermal} + 0.05S_{repeat}$ Soverall=0.38Sknock+0.25Sfuel+0.20Sboost+0.12Sthermal+0.05Srepeat

Ethanol blend (E30 default)

$S_{overall} = 0.34S_{knock} + 0.30S_{fuel} + 0.18S_{boost} + 0.13S_{thermal} + 0.05S_{repeat}$ Soverall=0.34Sknock+0.30Sfuel+0.18Sboost+0.13Sthermal+0.05Srepeat

Why: ethanol usually improves knock margin, but it stresses fueling capacity, so fueling gets more weight.

2) Hard STOP Gates (these do not negotiate)

All fuels (91/93/E-blend)

STOP immediately if any:

IAM drops during/after pull
FBKC ≤ -2.8 in WOT/load region
IDC > 95%
Boost overshoot > 2.0 psi (or equivalent) with oscillation

Fueling STOP (AFR error vs your target)

This uses error vs commanded, not absolute AFR.

91: STOP if max error ≥ +0.6 AFR lean
93: STOP if max error ≥ +0.7 AFR lean
E30: STOP if max error ≥ +0.8 AFR lean
(Still not “safe,” just slightly more tolerant before hard stop.)

3) Knock Score $S_{knock}$ Sknock (fuel-adjusted penalties)

IAM penalty (unchanged)

$P_{IAM} = \begin{cases} 0 & \Delta IAM = 0 \\ 70 & \Delta IAM > 0 \end{cases}$ PIAM={070ΔIAM=0ΔIAM>0

FBKC penalty coefficient by fuel

Let $FBKC_{min}$ FBKCmin be most negative value.

91: $\;P_{FBKC} = \min(70,\ 25\cdot |FBKC_{min}|)$ PFBKC=min(70, 25⋅∣FBKCmin∣)
93: $\;P_{FBKC} = \min(65,\ 22\cdot |FBKC_{min}|)$ PFBKC=min(65, 22⋅∣FBKCmin∣)
E30: $\;P_{FBKC} = \min(60,\ 18\cdot |FBKC_{min}|)$ PFBKC=min(60, 18⋅∣FBKCmin∣)

FLKC penalty coefficient by fuel

91: $\;P_{FLKC} = \min(50,\ 18\cdot |FLKC_{min}|)$ PFLKC=min(50, 18⋅∣FLKCmin∣)
93: $\;P_{FLKC} = \min(45,\ 16\cdot |FLKC_{min}|)$ PFLKC=min(45, 16⋅∣FLKCmin∣)
E30: $\;P_{FLKC} = \min(40,\ 12\cdot |FLKC_{min}|)$ PFLKC=min(40, 12⋅∣FLKCmin∣)

$S_{knock} = \max(0,\ 100 – (P_{IAM}+P_{FBKC}+P_{FLKC}))$ Sknock=max(0, 100−(PIAM+PFBKC+PFLKC))

4) Fuel Score $S_{fuel}$ Sfuel (ethanol tightens IDC rules)

AFR penalty (same math, different sensitivity)

Let:

$E_{AFR} = median(|AFR_{meas}-AFR_{tgt}|)$ EAFR=median(∣AFRmeas−AFRtgt∣)
$E_{AFR,max} = max(|AFR_{meas}-AFR_{tgt}|)$ EAFR,max=max(∣AFRmeas−AFRtgt∣)
91: $P_{AFR} = 35E_{AFR} + 12E_{AFR,max}$ PAFR=35EAFR+12EAFR,max
93: $P_{AFR} = 32E_{AFR} + 11E_{AFR,max}$ PAFR=32EAFR+11EAFR,max
E30: $P_{AFR} = 30E_{AFR} + 10E_{AFR,max}$ PAFR=30EAFR+10EAFR,max

IDC penalty (this is where ethanol gets strict)

Let $IDC_{max}$ IDCmax be peak IDC.

91 / 93

0 penalty ≤ 85%
linear penalty 85–95%
hard cap >95%

$P_{IDC} = \begin{cases} 0 & IDC_{max} \le 85 \\ 2.2\cdot (IDC_{max}-85) & 85 < IDC_{max} \le 95 \\ 45 & IDC_{max} > 95 \end{cases}$ PIDC=⎩⎨⎧02.2⋅(IDCmax−85)45IDCmax≤8585<IDCmax≤95IDCmax>95

E30 (more fuel required → protect headroom)

0 penalty ≤ 82%
linear penalty 82–92%
hard cap >92% (because you’ll run out of injector fast with E content swings)

$P_{IDC,E30} = \begin{cases} 0 & IDC_{max} \le 82 \\ 2.8\cdot (IDC_{max}-82) & 82 < IDC_{max} \le 92 \\ 55 & IDC_{max} > 92 \end{cases}$ PIDC,E30=⎩⎨⎧02.8⋅(IDCmax−82)55IDCmax≤8282<IDCmax≤92IDCmax>92 $S_{fuel} = \max(0,\ 100 – (P_{AFR} + P_{IDC}))$ Sfuel=max(0, 100−(PAFR+PIDC))

5) Boost Score $S_{boost}$ Sboost (keep it tight on all fuels)

Same structure, but overshoot matters slightly less on ethanol only if knock is clean (still not a free pass).

All fuels:
$P_{overshoot} = 25O,\quad P_{track} = 20E_B$ Povershoot=25O,Ptrack=20EB
Oscillation penalty stays:
$P_{osc} = 10J$ Posc=10J

$S_{boost} = \max(0,\ 100 – (P_{overshoot}+P_{track}+P_{osc}))$ Sboost=max(0, 100−(Povershoot+Ptrack+Posc))

6) Thermal Score $S_{thermal}$ Sthermal (ethanol still heat-soaks)

Keep thermal strict. Ethanol helps knock, not physics.

Use your existing IAT-based penalties, but trigger CAUTION earlier if:

Thermal score < 75 (all fuels)
Or IAT rise is steep pull-to-pull

7) Classification Bands (same, but smarter)

SAFE: $S_{overall} \ge 85$ Soverall≥85 and no gates triggered
CAUTION: 70–84
STOP: <70 or any STOP gate

The one detail I need to lock this down

When you say ethanol blend, are you usually:

E20–E30, or
E40–E60, or
“whatever the pump gives” (variable)?

Because IDC limits and AFR tolerance need different ceilings once you push past ~E30. If you tell me your typical blend range, I’ll finalize the E-profile into E30 vs E50 with correct IDC headroom rules.

Pump Options

Good. Let’s define clear fuel operating profiles for Black Pearl so the scoring model, boost ceilings, and timing strategy automatically adapt.

We’ll assume three real-world pump scenarios:

91 Octane
93 Octane
E30 Blend (controlled mix of pump 93 + E85)

Anything beyond E30 on stock-style fuel systems becomes a hardware conversation, not a tuning conversation.

🔵 Fuel Profile 1 — 91 Octane (Most Conservative)

Intended Use

Daily driving
Hot weather
Long pulls
Worst-case fuel quality

Target Philosophy

Stability > output
Slightly richer under load
Lower peak boost
Conservative timing

Recommended Calibration Envelope (EJ205 Safe Bias)

Peak Boost: ~15–16 psi (VF22 dependent)
WOT AFR target: 10.8–11.0
Timing ramp conservative midrange
Zero tolerance for repeat knock
Injector duty ceiling: 90%

Scoring Sensitivity

Highest knock penalty
Tightest AFR lean tolerance
CAUTION if any FLKC in WOT

Use this profile when ambient temps are high or fuel quality is questionable.

🔵 Fuel Profile 2 — 93 Octane (Primary Power Target)

Intended Use

Performance street
Controlled pulls
Main 305whp attempt baseline

Target Philosophy

Controlled midrange torque
Smooth boost ramp
Clean combustion

Recommended Calibration Envelope

Peak Boost: ~17–18 psi (depending on turbo efficiency)
WOT AFR target: 10.8–11.2
Timing modest but progressive
Injector duty ceiling: 92–93%

Scoring Sensitivity

Moderate knock penalty
AFR tracking must stay tight
Boost overshoot tolerance slightly higher than 91

This should be your primary tuning fuel for developing the 305whp calibration.

🔵 Fuel Profile 3 — E30 Blend (Controlled Ethanol Strategy)

This is where things get serious — but also risky if fuel system isn’t upgraded.

Intended Use

Maximum safe pump-based output
Knock resistance increase
Thermal stability improvement

Target Philosophy

Maintain knock margin
Protect fuel system headroom
Do not chase timing aggressively

Recommended Calibration Envelope

Peak Boost: ~18–19 psi (only if airflow supports it safely)
WOT AFR target: 11.3–11.5 equivalent gasoline scale
Timing slightly increased vs 93, but incremental
Injector duty ceiling: 90–92% max (ethanol consumes more fuel)

Critical Rule

If IDC exceeds 92% at E30 → stop increasing boost immediately.

Ethanol gives knock headroom.
It does NOT give fuel system headroom.

⚠️ Fuel Strategy Doctrine

Never Tune on Mixed Unknown Fuel

If you don’t know ethanol content, treat it as 93.

Never Increase Timing and Boost in the Same Revision

Especially on E blends.

Always Log Before Power Escalation

Fuel trims, IAM stability, and IDC must be clean first.

🧠 Strategic Recommendation

For Project Black Pearl:

Develop base stability on 93
Validate repeatability
Then introduce controlled E30 map
Compare log scores side-by-side

That gives you:

Content
Data
A monetizable comparison framework
A safety buffer

Now the real question:

Are your injectors and pump stock or upgraded?

Because if they’re stock, your ethanol ceiling determines your entire 305whp strategy.

Stock OEM 440cc injectors (20 years old) / Fuel Pump = AEM 440 High Performance Fuel Pump

Alright — with stock OEM 440cc injectors (20 years old) + AEM 340 lph pump, your hard limit is the injectors, not the pump.

Tell-it-like-it-is:

E30 is not a “go make more power” button on 440cc injectors.
Ethanol increases fuel demand ~25–35% depending on blend.
That pushes IDC into the danger zone fast, and old injectors add unknown flow variance.
Your pump is fine. Your injectors are the choke point.

So your “Pump Options” doctrine needs to be injector-aware.

Black Pearl Fuel Doctrine (Injector-Limited Edition)

✅ Allowed Operating Profiles (with 440cc injectors)

1) 91 Octane Map (Daily / Hot Weather / Worst Fuel)

Purpose: survive anything.

Boost: conservative
Timing: conservative
Goal: reliability + knock-free

IDC guardrail: keep ≤ 85–88% at WOT.

2) 93 Octane Map (Primary Performance Map)

This is your best path to ~305whp if the hardware/turbo supports it.

Boost: moderate-high but controlled
Timing: incremental
Fueling: stable and rich enough to protect

IDC guardrail: keep ≤ 90–92% (absolute).

3) “Light Ethanol” Blend Only (E10–E20 max)

This is the only ethanol strategy that makes sense on 440s unless you accept high risk.

Target range: E10–E20

Use it for knock margin and consistency
Not for turning the boost knob to the sky

IDC guardrail: keep ≤ 88–90%.

E30? On 440s: not recommended for WOT tuning unless you’re okay with living on the edge.

🚫 Prohibited Profile (for your current setup)

E30 “Power Map” on 440cc injectors

Hard no as a repeatable strategy.
If you do it anyway, the scoring model should treat:

IDC > 92% as STOP
Any lean deviation as STOP
Any IAM drop as STOP

Because you have no headroom, and ethanol content variation will bite you.

Update to the Scoring Model for Your Setup

Injector Duty STOP Gates (tightened)

Because injectors are old and small:

STOP if IDC > 92% (all fuels)
CAUTION if IDC 88–92%
SAFE zone ≤ 88%

(Yes, this is stricter than before — that’s what “20-year-old 440s” demands.)

Fuel Profile Weights (injector-limited)

Even on pump gas, fueling deserves more weight because you’re near the ceiling. $S_{overall} = 0.36S_{knock} + 0.30S_{fuel} + 0.18S_{boost} + 0.11S_{thermal} + 0.05S_{repeat}$ Soverall=0.36Sknock+0.30Sfuel+0.18Sboost+0.11Sthermal+0.05Srepeat

What this means for your 305whp target (realistic)

With 440cc injectors, the build is usually capped by:

IDC headroom
AFR stability at high airflow
consistency between cylinders (old injectors)

You can still build a fast WRX, but 305whp is “possible but not guaranteed” depending on turbo efficiency, intercooling, and your boost curve.

If you want 305whp reliably and safely, injectors are the next mandatory move.

The smartest money move (ROI)

Option A — Replace injectors with something modern

STI “pinks” (565cc) if you want simple and proven
ID1050x / similar if you want future flex / bigger turbo headroom

Option A is the move that prevents you from wasting time “tuning around” injector limits.

Option B — Keep 440s and cap the mission

Focus on response and midrange
Target a lower whp goal but very reliable
Build the rally drivability angle

Two quick, high-value questions

What turbo are you actually on right now (still VF22?) and what boost are you commanding?
Do you have wideband AFR integrated into logs, or external only?

Answer those and I’ll give you a tight, injector-safe boost/AFR envelope for each fuel profile and lock in the STOP/CAUTION thresholds for your scoring model.

NOTE: Block Stamp Says = EJ20, Turbo = VF22 OR TD04 (unsure)

Good. This matters a lot.

You just identified two completely different airflow ceilings.

VF22 and TD04 are not remotely the same conversation.

Before we even talk about 305whp, we need to anchor reality.

Step 1 — Engine Reality

Block stamp “EJ20” tells us almost nothing useful.

What matters:

Is it still an EJ205 (USDM 2005 WRX)?
Has it been swapped?
Compression?
AVCS?
Heads original?

For now, we assume EJ205 longblock unless proven otherwise.

Step 2 — Turbo Identification Is Critical

Scenario A — You Have a TD04 (Stock WRX Turbo)

Airflow Reality:

~14–16 psi efficient range
~240–260whp realistic
Spools very fast
Falls off up top

With 440cc injectors:

This setup is actually balanced.
Injector ceiling aligns with turbo airflow.

305whp?

Not happening.
Physics says no.

But you can build:

Very responsive
Rally-friendly midrange
Extremely repeatable

If you’re on TD04, your mission changes from “305whp” to:
“Maximum usable torque within injector limits.”

Scenario B — You Have a VF22

Different animal entirely.

Airflow Reality:

Much larger compressor
Supports 300+ whp
Slower spool
More boost potential

With 440cc injectors:

You will hit injector ceiling before turbo ceiling.

That means:
You will not safely exploit the VF22’s potential on stock injectors.

Step 3 — How to Identify Turbo Immediately

Do this:

Look at compressor housing.
Look for stamping plate.
TD04 usually marked “TD04L”.
VF22 will have IHI stamping and specific compressor shape.
Measure inlet size — VF22 inlet is larger.

If you want, describe what you physically see and I’ll narrow it down.

Now Let’s Be Strategic

With 440cc injectors:

If TD04:

Peak boost ceiling: ~16 psi
IDC limit: 88–90%
Target AFR: 10.8–11.2
305whp target: abandon
Build torque curve, not peak power

If VF22:

You must upgrade injectors before chasing 305whp
Or cap boost early and accept wasted turbo potential

Here’s the Bigger Question

Are you trying to:
A) Build the cleanest, smartest TD04 rally street weapon?
B) Or build a legitimate 300+ whp VF22 car?
C) Or are you unsure what hardware you actually have?

Because the next 10 tuning decisions depend entirely on that answer.

Let’s lock the hardware truth first.

EJ205 (USDM 2005 WRX) = verified USDM motor, NOT JDM

Good. That removes a lot of unknowns.

You have:

EJ205 USDM
8.0:1 compression
AVCS intake
Stock 440cc injectors (aging)
AEM 340 pump
Turbo = still unknown (VF22 or TD04)

Now we build the doctrine around what that engine actually tolerates.

EJ205 Reality Check (Non-Negotiable)

The EJ205 is:

Ringland-sensitive
Knock-intolerant under high cylinder pressure
Not forgiving of lean spikes
Very sensitive in the 3,500–4,800 RPM high-load range

That midrange area is where most 205s die.

So your scoring model must weight midrange knock more heavily than top-end knock.

Updated Black Pearl Knock Doctrine (EJ205-Specific)

High-Risk Zone Multiplier

If knock occurs between:

3,200–5,000 RPM
Load > 1.8 g/rev (or equivalent high load region)

Then multiply FBKC/FLKC penalties by: $1.5\times$ 1.5×

This makes midrange knock significantly more expensive in your scoring system.

Because that’s where ringlands crack.

EJ205 Safe Operating Envelope (Pump Gas, 440cc Injectors)

On 93 Octane (realistic max scenario)

With stock injectors:

Peak Boost: 16–17 psi
Midrange Boost: must ramp smoothly
AFR Target: 10.8–11.2
IDC ceiling: 90% hard
Timing: conservative in 3.5–5k

Trying to push 18–19 psi on 440s is where things get unstable.

If You Actually Have a TD04

Your car becomes:

Extremely responsive
Torque-biased
Safer at moderate boost
Limited in peak power

And honestly?
That’s a fantastic rally-street configuration.

If You Actually Have a VF22

Then:

You’ll run out of injector before turbo
You’ll see IDC climb fast above 15–16 psi
305whp requires injector upgrade
Ethanol becomes fuel-system-limited immediately

Hard Truth About 305whp on 440cc Injectors

Possible?
Maybe.

Stable and repeatable?
Very unlikely.

Sustainable?
Not if you’re near 95% IDC.

If your mission is “documented, intelligent, repeatable 305whp,” injectors are the gating item.

Strategic Fork in the Road

You now have two intelligent paths:

Path A — Stay 440cc

Target ~270–285whp (depending on turbo)
Optimize torque curve
Make it bulletproof
Market it as “Smart Stock Injector Build”

Path B — Upgrade Injectors

565cc minimum
Or 1000cc modern injectors
Then 305whp becomes a controlled engineering target

Now I need one final piece of truth:

When you roll into boost, how does it feel?

Full boost by ~2,800–3,000 RPM? → likely TD04
Doesn’t wake up until ~3,800–4,200 RPM? → likely VF22

Describe spool behavior and I’ll narrow it down before we finalize your control doctrine.

3rd gear feels like the kick-in spot

That description alone doesn’t confirm the turbo — but it tells me something important.

If it only “feels alive” in 3rd gear, that usually means one of three things:

The turbo is modest (TD04-like) and load in 3rd allows it to hit full boost cleanly
The boost curve is ramping hard midrange (aggressive WGDC spike)
You’re not feeling real spool delay — you’re feeling load-dependent torque

So let’s cut through it logically.

Turbo Identification Through Behavior

Answer this precisely:

When you floor it in 2nd gear at ~2,500 rpm:

Does it hit strong boost by ~3,000–3,200 rpm?
Or does it feel soft until ~3,800–4,000+ rpm?

If boost comes in by ~3k → TD04 behavior

If boost doesn’t wake up until near 4k → VF22 behavior

The VF22 is noticeably lazier down low.

Why This Matters for Doctrine

Because:

If TD04:

440cc injectors are correctly matched
305whp goal is unrealistic
Best strategy: torque curve shaping + repeatability
Safer build, more rally-friendly

If VF22:

Injector ceiling becomes immediate constraint
You’re airflow-capable of 300+ whp
440cc injectors become the bottleneck
Boost escalation becomes risky without injector upgrade

Now Let’s Think Like Engineers

You said “3rd gear feels like the kick-in spot.”

That’s normal for both turbos because:

3rd gear loads the engine more
Boost builds more completely
Torque feels stronger

That doesn’t distinguish turbo type.

Quick Physical Check (Fastest Answer)

Look at the compressor inlet:

TD04: small inlet, compact housing, stock WRX look
VF22: visibly larger compressor housing and inlet

Or:

Do you hear strong spool whistle early (~2.5–3k)?
TD04 tends to spool early and audibly.

Strategic Reality Right Now

Until we confirm turbo:

Your scoring model must assume injector-limited strategy.

So:

IDC > 90% = CAUTION
IDC > 92% = STOP
No midrange timing escalation
No boost increases until clean repeatable pulls

Now I’m going to ask the question that determines everything:

Have you logged a WOT pull yet with IDC and boost?

Because one single 3rd gear log will tell us turbo type indirectly.

### If boost doesn’t wake up until near 4k → VF22 behavior The VF22 is noticeably lazier down low.

I’m going to say this – because no matter the throttle pressure 1,2 gear NEVER wakes up, AVCS = non-existent (as far as I can tell)

Good. That statement changes things.

If:

1st and 2nd never really “wake up”
Boost feels lazy down low
Power doesn’t come alive until later
AVCS feels nonexistent (no early torque swell)

Then this strongly leans toward VF22 behavior, not TD04.

A TD04 on an EJ205 absolutely wakes up in 2nd gear. It hits early and hard around 2.8–3.2k RPM. You would feel it.

A VF22, on the other hand:

Spools later
Feels soft below ~3.5k
Comes alive closer to 3.8–4.2k
Feels stronger in 3rd due to load

What you described fits that profile much better.

Now the Important Part

If you are on a VF22 with:

Stock 440cc injectors
AEM 340 pump
EJ205

Then your system is airflow-capable but fuel-limited.

That means your current doctrine must shift from:

“Find more boost”

“Protect injector headroom at all costs.”

What This Likely Means in Practice

On VF22 + 440cc:

Boost above ~15–16 psi will push IDC very quickly
Midrange cylinder pressure becomes dangerous fast
Ethanol blends will crush injector headroom
305whp is mechanically possible from airflow
But not safely possible on 440s long-term

This is the classic “big turbo, small injector” mismatch.

Critical EJ205 + VF22 Risk Zone

The danger band becomes:

3,500–4,800 RPM
High load
High boost ramp
Old injectors near saturation

That is where ringlands crack.

So your scoring model must:

Apply 1.5× knock penalty in 3.2–5k band
Treat IDC > 88% as CAUTION
Treat IDC > 92% as STOP
Forbid boost increases unless IDC < 85%

Strategic Decision Point

If this is truly VF22:

You have two intelligent paths.

Path A — Cap the VF22

Keep boost ~15–16 psi
Focus on smooth ramp
Build midrange torque
Stay injector-safe
Accept lower peak number

Path B — Upgrade Injectors

565cc minimum
Or modern 1000cc
Unlock real VF22 potential
305whp becomes realistic

Hard Truth

Chasing 305whp on VF22 with 440cc injectors is not intelligent engineering.

It’s gambling.

And Project Black Pearl is not a gambling platform.

Now I want one more data point:

When you roll into WOT from 3k in 3rd, does boost climb smoothly and then surge near 4k?

Or does it spike quickly and then settle?

That tells me whether boost control is also part of the “kick” you’re feeling.

Feels like a spike

Good. That’s the most useful answer so far.

If it feels like a spike, here’s what that usually means on an EJ205:

Boost is ramping too aggressively in midrange
WGDC is front-loaded
Turbo is hitting target abruptly instead of progressively
Torque rise is steep, not linear

That “kick” you feel is likely boost control behavior, not just turbo size.

Now let’s dissect this properly.

What a Spike Usually Means

In 3rd gear:

Boost undershoots slightly
WGDC overcompensates
Boost overshoots
Torque jumps suddenly
ECU trims it back

That creates a surge sensation.

This can happen with both TD04 and VF22.

So the spike does NOT confirm turbo size.

It confirms:

⚠️ Boost control is not smooth.

And on an EJ205, that’s dangerous.

Why This Matters (Very Important)

The EJ205 hates:

Sudden midrange torque spikes
Rapid cylinder pressure increases
High load + aggressive timing

Ringlands fail when torque rises too sharply, not just when peak power is high.

Your doctrine must now include:

“Torque rate-of-change control.”

Immediate Doctrine Adjustment

Your scoring model needs an added metric:

Torque Ramp Penalty (Boost Ramp Proxy)

We use boost rate of change as a torque proxy.

Let: $R = \max\left(\frac{dBoost}{dt}\right)$ R=max(dtdBoost)

If boost rises more than a defined threshold per second:

Add ramp penalty.

Example logic:

Mild ramp → 0 penalty
Moderate spike → -10 points
Aggressive spike → -25 points

Because violent torque ramps are mechanically abusive.

What This Suggests About Your Current Tune

One of the following is likely true:

WGDC table is too aggressive in midrange
Turbo dynamics compensation is not smooth
Boost target ramp is steep
Timing is stacking with boost ramp

You don’t “feel horsepower.”
You feel torque change.

Now Let’s Think Strategically

If you are on:

TD04

A spike usually means overly aggressive WGDC.

VF22

A spike can mean:

Turbo lag + hard hit when it finally lights
WGDC ramp too aggressive

Either way, the fix is similar:

Smooth the boost ramp.
Protect the 3.5–5k zone.
Don’t chase peak psi.

Critical Question

Have you logged:

Boost target
Boost actual
WGDC
RPM
IAM
FBKC
FLKC
IDC

If not, that’s the next move.

Because we need one clean 3rd gear pull log to:

Identify turbo behavior indirectly
Confirm injector headroom
Score midrange knock risk
Quantify the spike

Right now, based on behavior alone:

You likely have:

Larger-than-stock turbo
Aggressive midrange WGDC
Injector headroom risk
No AVCS torque smoothing benefit

But we need data to stop guessing.

Are you ready to log a structured 3rd gear pull?

Fold the updated doctrine under the original

Understood. Below is the fully integrated Black Pearl ECU Control Doctrine, with all updated injector, EJ205, fuel, and boost-ramp protections folded cleanly under the original structure.

This is now the authoritative version.

🧠 BLACK PEARL ECU CONTROL DOCTRINE

EJ205 USDM | Injector-Limited | Boost-Ramp Controlled | AI-Governed

I. Foundational Principle

The ECU is a combustion stability controller.

Power is a byproduct of:

Controlled cylinder pressure
Stable fueling
Smooth torque delivery

The EJ205 does not tolerate:

Lean spikes
Injector saturation
Midrange torque surges

II. Chain of Authority

Mechanical integrity
Sensor data
Structured logs
AI scoring
Human decision

AI advises. It does not command.

III. Hardware Reality (Locked Assumptions)

Engine: EJ205 USDM (verified)
Injectors: OEM 440cc (20 years old)
Fuel Pump: AEM 340
Turbo: Likely VF22 (behavior-based assumption)
AVCS: Present (USDM), but torque behavior suggests minimal smoothing

Primary constraint: Injector headroom

IV. Optimization Hierarchy

Mechanical stability
Fuel delivery accuracy
Injector headroom preservation
Boost ramp smoothness
Knock stability
Timing refinement
Torque shaping
Peak output

Peak power is last.

V. Data Governance Standard

Required logging channels:

RPM
Load
Boost target
Boost actual
WGDC
IAM
FBKC
FLKC
AFR (wideband)
Injector Duty Cycle
IAT
Coolant Temp
Throttle angle

No log → no revision.

VI. Fuel Profiles (Injector-Limited Edition)

91 Octane

Conservative boost
AFR 10.8–11.0
IDC SAFE ≤ 88%

93 Octane (Primary Development Fuel)

Boost moderate (likely 15–17 psi ceiling)
AFR 10.8–11.2
IDC SAFE ≤ 90%

Light Ethanol (E10–E20 Only)

Not for power escalation
IDC SAFE ≤ 88%
No E30 power tuning on 440cc injectors

VII. Hard STOP Gates (Absolute)

STOP if any:

IAM drops
FBKC ≤ -2.8 in WOT region
IDC > 92%
AFR error exceeds fuel-profile lean limit
Boost overshoot > 2 psi
Severe boost oscillation

CAUTION if:

IDC 88–92%
Any FLKC in high-load zone
Aggressive boost ramp
Thermal score < 75

VIII. Midrange Risk Multiplier (EJ205-Specific)

If knock occurs between:

3,200–5,000 RPM
AND high load

Then:

Knock penalties × 1.5

This protects ringlands in the most failure-prone band.

IX. Boost Ramp Control Doctrine (New Layer)

Sudden torque rise is prohibited.

Define Boost Ramp Rate:

R = max(dBoost/dt)

If ramp exceeds threshold:

Mild spike → -10 score
Moderate spike → -20
Aggressive spike → -30

Boost must build progressively.
No midrange “hit.”

Torque smoothness > sensation.

X. Injector Preservation Doctrine

Because injectors are:

Small
Aged
Primary bottleneck

Rules:

No boost increase unless IDC < 85%
IDC 85–88% = caution zone
IDC 88–92% = danger zone
IDC > 92% = STOP

Injector saturation is silent engine damage.

XI. Weighted Scoring Model (Revised)

Injector-limited weighting: $S_{overall} = 0.36S_{knock} + 0.30S_{fuel} + 0.18S_{boost} + 0.11S_{thermal} + 0.05S_{repeat}$ Soverall=0.36Sknock+0.30Sfuel+0.18Sboost+0.11Sthermal+0.05Srepeat

Knock remains dominant.
Fueling nearly equal importance due to injector ceiling.

XII. Validation Protocol

Before power escalation:

Two clean repeatable pulls
IAM stable
IDC below safe threshold
Boost tracking stable
No ramp spike penalties
AFR within tolerance

If validation fails → revert.

XIII. Rally Bias Reinforced

Calibration must deliver:

Linear throttle response
Smooth torque rise
No violent midrange surge
Repeatable pull-to-pull behavior
Thermal resilience

Dyno shock factor is irrelevant.

XIV. Strategic Fork Doctrine

Given current hardware:

Path A — Injector-Limited Optimization

Cap boost
Shape torque
Maximize drivability
Likely 270–285whp range
Market as intelligent stock-injector build

Path B — Injector Upgrade (Required for 305whp Goal)

565cc minimum
Or 1000cc modern injectors
Unlock VF22 potential
Ethanol strategy becomes viable

Without injector upgrade:
305whp is unstable engineering.

XV. Prohibited Actions

No boost increase while IDC > 85%
No timing increase in 3.2–5k until knock-free for 2 sessions
No simultaneous boost + timing escalation
No tuning on unknown ethanol content
No spike-based “feels fast” conclusions

XVI. Strategic Outcome

Black Pearl will demonstrate:

Injector-aware engineering discipline
Torque-controlled boost strategy
Knock-weighted scoring system
Data-backed calibration decisions
A monetizable tuning methodology

This is now a fully unified doctrine:

Original framework

Fuel profile logic
Injector ceiling governance
EJ205 midrange multiplier
Boost ramp control layer

Next escalation options:

Formal numeric ramp-rate thresholds
Define exact boost ceiling per suspected turbo
Build version-control naming tied to your .bin files

Where do you want to tighten the system next?