Tuning Technical Point #1 - What is MBT timing?

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

mattr66usa

Active Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2025
Messages
144
Reaction score
105
Location
Texas
I will ask the mods to remove any response in this thread that isn't strictly technical in nature. I'm going to keep this semi-relative so I will over-generalize a few things so if this confuses anyone, or you want better elaboration, let me know.

MBT Timing:

MBT Timing is the timing at which the power to cylinder pressure gain starts going lopsided and you should stop advancing timing with unlimited octane (lets say 120 octane in this case). So let's just say you have good 93 octane fuel. At 6000 rpms with an IAT2 of 100 degrees you can run 16 degrees of timing at a VE (load) of 1.65 (165% Volumetric Efficiency) before you experience the knock sensors saying "nope" and pulling timing. Is this MBT timing? Absolutely not!

Now let's say you are running 100 octane unleaded race fuel. In this scenario, for every 1 point of octane gained, you get about 2 degrees of spark you can run extra before you experience knock. Let's say the MBT spark at this Load and RPM point is 23 degrees (timing that makes the max safe power). That means we would need about 3.5 octane points to allow for another 7 degrees of timing to get to that spot. But let's just call it 4 octane points to allow for a little safety margin. This means we need 97 octane fuel to get to the full MBT timing in that load/rpm point of the engine's operation.

But wait.... We have 3 extra octane points we aren't using, let's keep advancing the timing right? No, this isn't advisable. The further you are from the MBT (optimum) spark point, the more power is gained for every degree of spark you add. As you get close to the MBT timing, the returns keep get smaller and smaller. From 16-17 degrees you might see an extra 10 HP, 17-18 you may see 7, 18-19 you might see 5. Once you approach MBT, you will get smaller and smaller gains for every degree of spark you add. Here's why this is happening:

Engine power is generated through pressure produced by the combustion process. Timing is when the spark fires (usually before top dead center (BTDC)) to light the air/fuel mixture. I'm oversimplifying a bit here, but what you want is the cylinder pressure to occur after TDC when the engine is actually in the power stroke and can harness that miniature explosion to transmit power to the crankshaft. When you "advance" the timing, you are moving this pressure curve closer to TDC (earlier start point). You get to a point where you advance too far and you increase the cylinder pressure stress seen by the components, but don't gain any power because the engine is literally fighting against itself and wasting power to make the power (extra pressure before the crankshaft breaks over into the power stroke that literally does no good). This is past the point of MBT timing and very bad things start happening here.

Now Ford calls the timing that can be run on current fuel that is octane-limited BORDERLINE timing. The way most Ford logic works is that you have a borderline table that is trimmed by the knock sensors that allows addition of timing up to the MBT timing tables or the often artificially low "maximum spark for combustion pressure limit" table that only allows timing up to a point even if you haven't reached MBT for that load/rpm point of the system. We can touch on that aspect in another topic, but for now let's talk about MBT timing only because it will lead into the next topic.

Let's keep this technical so we can talk facts and not treat engine tuning like magic anymore. Once we put this topic to bed, we can move on so save other technical aspects of tuning for the appropriate thread.
Matt@Gearhead
 

SM105K

Streetlight Grand Prix Champ/ IG @fafomotorsports
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
7,266
Reaction score
9,510
Location
Arizona
Stupid question........

Does diesel tuning follow that line of logic? Instead of octane (you can always crank up the cetane I suppose) you would compensate with more fuel volume?
 

mattr66usa

Active Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2025
Messages
144
Reaction score
105
Location
Texas
Stupid question........

Does diesel tuning follow that line of logic? Instead of octane (you can always crank up the cetane I suppose) you would compensate with more fuel volume?
There is an optimum point of maximum timing for a given load condition as well, but since diesel is a fuel-throttled engine, you would be changing the loading and other dynamics like combustion temperature with a change in fuel quantity in that case.
 

SM105K

Streetlight Grand Prix Champ/ IG @fafomotorsports
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
7,266
Reaction score
9,510
Location
Arizona
There is an optimum point of maximum timing for a given load condition as well, but since diesel is a fuel-throttled engine, you would be changing the loading and other dynamics like combustion temperature with a change in fuel quantity in that case.
Makes sense. It is the kinda the same, but way different. Lol.
 

802SHO

Platform Myth Predator: Boost > VE, MBT, Cams
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,286
Location
Essex Junction Vermont
If we’re going to debate this, it needs to stay on physics and data.

The VE and MBT limits observed on this platform are not airflow or engine breathing limits. They are the result of excessive drive pressure caused by turbine flow restriction. That applies to OEM stock-location turbos and to hybrid variants that retain essentially the same turbine constraint. Those data points describe where that specific turbine chokes, not where the engine stops flowing.

Cams are not the solution to exhaust backpressure. They never have been. Boost can compensate for intake-side flow limitations, but it cannot compensate for a choked turbine and rising drive pressure. That is the actual bottleneck.

Methanol is not “just cooling.” It is fuel mass, octane, and combustion control, and it must be tuned for at any dose or dilution. There is no physics-based exception to that.

Any data used to support a platform limit needs to include comparisons across turbine configurations. OEM turbines, hybrid stock-location turbines, and larger turbine solutions where applicable. Data taken exclusively from one turbine architecture is inherently one-sided and only shows where that specific choke occurs. Without showing how VE, MBT, and drive pressure move when the turbine constraint is actually relieved, the conclusions are circular.

If you disagree, address these points directly with data: drive pressure ratios, turbine flow capacity, and how VE and MBT change when the exhaust-side restriction is reduced.

If the response is “you don’t understand,” relies on false accusations, or deviates from the technical discussion, I’ll step away and the debate ends there.
 

802SHO

Platform Myth Predator: Boost > VE, MBT, Cams
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,286
Location
Essex Junction Vermont
One more thing that matters if this is going to stay technical: full disclosure of data. That means complete graphs or full photos that can be zoomed into, with axes, conditions, and context intact. Cropped screenshots, pre-zoomed plots, or isolated cells don’t qualify as evidence. If the full picture isn’t shown, all we’re doing is arguing interpretations instead of analyzing systems.

Also, to be clear, the MBT explanation itself was correct. Where it actually reinforces my point is why MBT appears where it does. MBT doesn’t exist independently of exhaust-side conditions. Excessive drive pressure shifts effective cylinder pressure earlier, flattens the torque response to additional spark, and makes MBT look like a hard ceiling when it’s really a turbine choke point. That’s not an airflow limit and not an engine breathing limit, it’s an exhaust swallowing limit.

So yes, MBT behavior was described correctly. The conclusion drawn from it is where the disagreement is. Without accounting for drive pressure and turbine flow capacity, MBT plateaus are being misattributed as platform limits when they are configuration-specific constraints.
 

802SHO

Platform Myth Predator: Boost > VE, MBT, Cams
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,286
Location
Essex Junction Vermont
@SM105K
If boost pressure is increased but turbine flow capacity is unchanged, what happens to the exhaust-to-intake pressure ratio and how does that impact high-RPM power?
 

802SHO

Platform Myth Predator: Boost > VE, MBT, Cams
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,286
Location
Essex Junction Vermont
@mattr66usa
On a speed-density system, methanol injection adds fuel mass, changes charge density, alters burn rate, and shifts MBT. If methanol is not explicitly modeled or tuned for, which mechanism in the PCM mathematically preserves correct load calculation and spark phasing as meth flow increases?
 

mattr66usa

Active Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2025
Messages
144
Reaction score
105
Location
Texas
One more thing that matters if this is going to stay technical: full disclosure of data. That means complete graphs or full photos that can be zoomed into, with axes, conditions, and context intact. Cropped screenshots, pre-zoomed plots, or isolated cells don’t qualify as evidence. If the full picture isn’t shown, all we’re doing is arguing interpretations instead of analyzing systems.

Also, to be clear, the MBT explanation itself was correct. Where it actually reinforces my point is why MBT appears where it does. MBT doesn’t exist independently of exhaust-side conditions. Excessive drive pressure shifts effective cylinder pressure earlier, flattens the torque response to additional spark, and makes MBT look like a hard ceiling when it’s really a turbine choke point. That’s not an airflow limit and not an engine breathing limit, it’s an exhaust swallowing limit.

So yes, MBT behavior was described correctly. The conclusion drawn from it is where the disagreement is. Without accounting for drive pressure and turbine flow capacity, MBT plateaus are being misattributed as platform limits when they are configuration-specific constraints.
Oh, you have dyno and other measured data to share? Awesome! Let's see it.
 

mattr66usa

Active Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2025
Messages
144
Reaction score
105
Location
Texas
@SM105K
If boost pressure is increased but turbine flow capacity is unchanged, what happens to the exhaust-to-intake pressure ratio and how does that impact high-RPM power?
That's a given... VE drops because of extra exhaust restriction. More flow through the same pipe is more pressure built up.
 

802SHO

Platform Myth Predator: Boost > VE, MBT, Cams
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,286
Location
Essex Junction Vermont
Oh, you have dyno and other measured data to share? Awesome! Let's see it.
I’m not surprised. Of course you can’t answer questions.

I’m not presenting an alternative dataset. You know that. I don’t need one either to understand it.

I’m questioning whether conclusions about VE and MBT limits can be made without measuring turbine inlet pressure in a speed-density system.

That’s a methodology question, not a results comparison.

If you believe VE and MBT can be fully characterized without drive pressure data, explain why.
 

802SHO

Platform Myth Predator: Boost > VE, MBT, Cams
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,286
Location
Essex Junction Vermont
Again..... VE calculated drops because total engine airflow drops.
Exactly…..VE drops because exhaust restriction raises drive pressure and reduces effective cylinder filling.

That’s not an airflow limit, that’s a turbine flow limit.

Which is why VE and MBT move when drive pressure is reduced, even at the same boost.
 

802SHO

Platform Myth Predator: Boost > VE, MBT, Cams
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,286
Location
Essex Junction Vermont
@mattr66usa
If VE is dropping due to exhaust restriction and rising drive pressure, how are you distinguishing a turbine flow limit from an engine airflow limit in your conclusions?
 

mattr66usa

Active Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2025
Messages
144
Reaction score
105
Location
Texas
Exactly…..VE drops because exhaust restriction raises drive pressure and reduces effective cylinder filling.

That’s not an airflow limit, that’s a turbine flow limit.

Which is why VE and MBT move when drive pressure is reduced, even at the same boost.
Never said it wasn't a turbine limit. That's why we go to bigger turbos. Not ported before the turbine as that does no good, but bigger actual housings and turbine wheels.
But you aren't sticking to the point at hand. On an engine that has meth flowing vs not meth flowing. How does MBT change with this change in exhaust backpressure or whatever else you are alleging isn't being accounted for with the way I tune? This is a thread about MBT timing and not your changes to the car.
 

802SHO

Platform Myth Predator: Boost > VE, MBT, Cams
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,286
Location
Essex Junction Vermont
Never said it wasn't a turbine limit. That's why we go to bigger turbos. Not ported before the turbine as that does no good, but bigger actual housings and turbine wheels.
But you aren't sticking to the point at hand. On an engine that has meth flowing vs not meth flowing. How does MBT change with this change in exhaust backpressure or whatever else you are alleging isn't being accounted for with the way I tune? This is a thread about MBT timing and not your changes to the car.

To answer that cleanly, are you logging turbine inlet pressure (drive pressure) during the meth-on vs meth-off comparison, or holding drive/boost ratio constant? Without that variable, how are you separating combustion-limited MBT changes from exhaust backpressure-driven MBT changes in a speed-density system?

If you’re not measuring drive pressure, the correct conclusion is simply “MBT changed with meth,” not why it changed.
 

802SHO

Platform Myth Predator: Boost > VE, MBT, Cams
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,286
Location
Essex Junction Vermont
Never said it wasn't a turbine limit. That's why we go to bigger turbos. Not ported before the turbine as that does no good, but bigger actual housings and turbine wheels.
But you aren't sticking to the point at hand. On an engine that has meth flowing vs not meth flowing. How does MBT change with this change in exhaust backpressure or whatever else you are alleging isn't being accounted for with the way I tune? This is a thread about MBT timing and not your changes to the car.
Earlier you framed it as an airflow/engine breathing limit (VE drop = airflow drop), but now you’re saying you never claimed it wasn’t a turbine limit. Which is it: a platform airflow limit, or a configuration-specific turbine/drive-pressure limit? Because those lead to very different conclusions and next steps.

You said “VE calculated drops because total engine airflow drops.” I agree airflow drops — the question is why. Is the causal limit intake airflow/head flow, or turbine restriction/drive pressure increasing residuals and pumping losses?
 

mattr66usa

Active Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2025
Messages
144
Reaction score
105
Location
Texas
To answer that cleanly, are you logging turbine inlet pressure (drive pressure) during the meth-on vs meth-off comparison, or holding drive/boost ratio constant? Without that variable, how are you separating combustion-limited MBT changes from exhaust backpressure-driven MBT changes in a speed-density system?

If you’re not measuring drive pressure, the correct conclusion is simply “MBT changed with meth,” not why it changed.
Okay, so if MBT is shifting with the change in drive pressure, if the drive pressure increases, what direction does MBT need to go?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
106,890
Messages
1,179,083
Members
15,971
Latest member
malekabadizadehalireza@gm

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top