Dynoed the Maggie!
06-10-2015, 05:46 AM
#41
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-10-2015, 06:36 AM
#42
TECH Fanatic
I don't have a gauge installed.
06-10-2015, 07:15 AM
#43
You are mixing two different concepts. Yes, blowers like large LSA because the flow into the cylinder is aided by the blower, With NA setups you need the scavenging effect to both fully expel the exhaust gases and aid in drawing the air and gas charge into the cylinder (if the exhaust pressure pulse is at a null during overlap this pulls the air and fuel charge into the cylinder more efficiently). However during overlap you are losing unburnt fuel (gas and air) out the exhaust so efficiency is reduced (at certain rpm/load ranges).
Not AS true with a blower. The blower producing increased map pressure to a large degree overwhelms the effects of the low pressure wave from the exhaust. So the intake fill effects of exhaust scavenging is greatly reduced. But obviously we still need to get the exhaust out of the cylinder. Without scavenging it is more difficult. That is why you see blower cams with larger exhaust durations. Beyond that you need to optimize scavenging as much as possible (without adding cam overlap). This becomes a balance between velocity and pressure. The exhaust needs to be tuned for the desired application. But keep in mind with FI you are getting a lot more air and fuel into the engine and therefore more exhaust out. So short of going through all of the measurement and calculations that are beyond most hobbyists you can typically just go with larger less restrictive pipes and be better off.
Having said all of this, will there be cases where you go to larger exhaust diameters and lose power sure. But in those cases the cam is likely not well suited to FI.
Not AS true with a blower. The blower producing increased map pressure to a large degree overwhelms the effects of the low pressure wave from the exhaust. So the intake fill effects of exhaust scavenging is greatly reduced. But obviously we still need to get the exhaust out of the cylinder. Without scavenging it is more difficult. That is why you see blower cams with larger exhaust durations. Beyond that you need to optimize scavenging as much as possible (without adding cam overlap). This becomes a balance between velocity and pressure. The exhaust needs to be tuned for the desired application. But keep in mind with FI you are getting a lot more air and fuel into the engine and therefore more exhaust out. So short of going through all of the measurement and calculations that are beyond most hobbyists you can typically just go with larger less restrictive pipes and be better off.
Having said all of this, will there be cases where you go to larger exhaust diameters and lose power sure. But in those cases the cam is likely not well suited to FI.
I am confused. I thought I would gain hp/tq by simple bolting headers on with high flow cats. I allready have a 2.6 JS pulley on the car so I wont pulley down to a 2.5.
barrok69 made 9 pounds of boost with headers and a 2.7 JS pulley. It appears that he gained boost with headers. I only made 7.66 pounds with a smaller pulley then him and stock manifolds. We are a country mile apart and I dont get it.
I like the idea of headers as every car I have had has gained power but this is my first supercharged car. We all know that headers arent cheap so I am doing my best to educate myself to see what gains will be had.
barrok69 made 9 pounds of boost with headers and a 2.7 JS pulley. It appears that he gained boost with headers. I only made 7.66 pounds with a smaller pulley then him and stock manifolds. We are a country mile apart and I dont get it.
I like the idea of headers as every car I have had has gained power but this is my first supercharged car. We all know that headers arent cheap so I am doing my best to educate myself to see what gains will be had.
Funny thing about the forum, is there is a collective amount of information, you just have to weed out the plausible and get your facts straight.
There was a case where another member had a similar setup to your but with headers and didnt have significant gains. Could be because he ran too big of a primary tube, could be because the tuner took a more cautious timing, we will never know.
Plz dont buy cheap headers...Pay the extra bit and get proper SS headers that will properly connect to your stock catback.
06-10-2015, 09:46 AM
#44
TECH Resident
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sssnake, said it right...
And you already made up your mind...So since you have your heart set on headers, i at least pointed you in the right direction with cam options to boot...
Funny thing about the forum, is there is a collective amount of information, you just have to weed out the plausible and get your facts straight.
There was a case where another member had a similar setup to your but with headers and didnt have significant gains. Could be because he ran too big of a primary tube, could be because the tuner took a more cautious timing, we will never know.
Plz dont buy cheap headers...Pay the extra bit and get proper SS headers that will properly connect to your stock catback.
And you already made up your mind...So since you have your heart set on headers, i at least pointed you in the right direction with cam options to boot...
Funny thing about the forum, is there is a collective amount of information, you just have to weed out the plausible and get your facts straight.
There was a case where another member had a similar setup to your but with headers and didnt have significant gains. Could be because he ran too big of a primary tube, could be because the tuner took a more cautious timing, we will never know.
Plz dont buy cheap headers...Pay the extra bit and get proper SS headers that will properly connect to your stock catback.
By my calculations a car with 8psi and headers should be around the 500whp mark on that mp112 blower.
So you are not to far off.
06-10-2015, 01:57 PM
#45
The car made the power because the iats were so low. How they were that low is a good question. Usually maggie cars with out headers make est 450's, cars with headers 475.
Headers will make more power than stock manifolds amd the maggies DO NOT like back pressure. They are a roots blower and boost comes on immediately.. Back pressure will only hinder the efficiency of the 112.
Headers will make more power than stock manifolds amd the maggies DO NOT like back pressure. They are a roots blower and boost comes on immediately.. Back pressure will only hinder the efficiency of the 112.
06-10-2015, 07:28 PM
#46
TECH Fanatic
First off, to the OP: I know you think you're comparing apples to apples but you're not. Any dyno can be made to read whatever the operator wants it to read, so comparing two different vehicles on two different dyno's is not a true comparison even if the modifications are exactly the same.
Your supercharger may have a rotor pack that isn't sealed very well, the consequence of a dirty air filter for example, which would limit boost since the charge is bypassing the rotors. There are many other things like belt slip, valve float, etc., but you get the idea. I'm just saying you can't use a completely different vehicle as a benchmark.
An engine is an air pump, nothing more. Anything you can do to get the charge in and out more efficiently will increase output. This is where cam, heads, headers, intakes, increased displacement, etc. all come into play whether you're using forced induction or not. As it has been previously stated, boost is a measurement of restriction to flow. Remove the restrictions, the boost will drop and power will increase.
There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding camshafts, esp the overlap. FWIW - I have never seen a negative overlap cam make more power than a positive overlap cam, all within reason of course. Yes, you will bleed some of the charge however the answer to that is to up the boost. If the FI is sized to be on the ragged edge (as the MP112 is for our applications) or emissions is required, the negative overlap is pretty much a requirement. Lobe separation (LSA) is a product of the valve events and do not tell the whole story in and of themselves.
Long story short, do the headers...the biggest you can get. You will make more power everywhere with the larger headers and you will lose nothing anywhere. If you want to go further, the Maggie will be your limitation, so don't waste your money on heads etc. but get a small cam like the LS9 or another cam where the valve events are intended to be used with a positive displacement roots blower.
Your supercharger may have a rotor pack that isn't sealed very well, the consequence of a dirty air filter for example, which would limit boost since the charge is bypassing the rotors. There are many other things like belt slip, valve float, etc., but you get the idea. I'm just saying you can't use a completely different vehicle as a benchmark.
An engine is an air pump, nothing more. Anything you can do to get the charge in and out more efficiently will increase output. This is where cam, heads, headers, intakes, increased displacement, etc. all come into play whether you're using forced induction or not. As it has been previously stated, boost is a measurement of restriction to flow. Remove the restrictions, the boost will drop and power will increase.
There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding camshafts, esp the overlap. FWIW - I have never seen a negative overlap cam make more power than a positive overlap cam, all within reason of course. Yes, you will bleed some of the charge however the answer to that is to up the boost. If the FI is sized to be on the ragged edge (as the MP112 is for our applications) or emissions is required, the negative overlap is pretty much a requirement. Lobe separation (LSA) is a product of the valve events and do not tell the whole story in and of themselves.
Long story short, do the headers...the biggest you can get. You will make more power everywhere with the larger headers and you will lose nothing anywhere. If you want to go further, the Maggie will be your limitation, so don't waste your money on heads etc. but get a small cam like the LS9 or another cam where the valve events are intended to be used with a positive displacement roots blower.
Last edited by DMM; 06-10-2015 at 07:36 PM.
06-10-2015, 08:11 PM
#47
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I didn't mention guys is the car has a Snow Performance Stage 3 Methanol kit on it that I haven't used yet.
I am thinking of tuning the car with meth for when I road race it or when it gets hot!
What's your opinion on meth guys?
I am thinking of tuning the car with meth for when I road race it or when it gets hot!
What's your opinion on meth guys?
06-10-2015, 08:40 PM
#48
TECH Fanatic
I'd definately use the meth but I would NOT adjust the tune for it.
06-11-2015, 04:05 AM
#51
TECH Resident
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-11-2015, 08:47 AM
#52
TECH Fanatic
OP, I know you PM'd me but I wanted the answer up here so that everyone can see it.
You said your tuner wanted to tune it to 11.0 with the meth from the current 11.5 WOT target AFR. In all honesty, I'm fairly certain your tuner has little if any experience with tuning FI...or they're just really bad at it.
The 11.5 AFR your tuner has targeted is way too rich to begin with, adding more fueling with the meth (which is additional fuel in and of itself) is a recipe for disaster as detonation can occur from an overly rich fuel mixture just as it can from a lean mixture.
I'd be inclined to have you look for another tuner or at least have your tune posted so we can take a look at it and see what else might be hiding in there. I'm pretty confident that if your tuner raped the PE without doing any other fueling adjustments and targeted an 11.5 AFR "for room to grow", which is absurd but a very common occurrence when the tuner has no idea what they're doing.
Your target at WOT under boost should be in the 11.8 AFR or 0.8 Lambda, the latter being the most accurate and preferable method. Use the meth for the benefits of lowering IAT's and to help guard against detonation and nothing more. There is only one eventuality if you come to rely on meth injection for more than that IAT and additional octane and it ain't pretty.
You said your tuner wanted to tune it to 11.0 with the meth from the current 11.5 WOT target AFR. In all honesty, I'm fairly certain your tuner has little if any experience with tuning FI...or they're just really bad at it.
The 11.5 AFR your tuner has targeted is way too rich to begin with, adding more fueling with the meth (which is additional fuel in and of itself) is a recipe for disaster as detonation can occur from an overly rich fuel mixture just as it can from a lean mixture.
I'd be inclined to have you look for another tuner or at least have your tune posted so we can take a look at it and see what else might be hiding in there. I'm pretty confident that if your tuner raped the PE without doing any other fueling adjustments and targeted an 11.5 AFR "for room to grow", which is absurd but a very common occurrence when the tuner has no idea what they're doing.
Your target at WOT under boost should be in the 11.8 AFR or 0.8 Lambda, the latter being the most accurate and preferable method. Use the meth for the benefits of lowering IAT's and to help guard against detonation and nothing more. There is only one eventuality if you come to rely on meth injection for more than that IAT and additional octane and it ain't pretty.
06-11-2015, 09:59 AM
#53
I would like to comment, it is 'somewhat' difficult to explicitly state a specific target. e.g. .8 Lambda. Ideally, AFR is adjusted (leaner) until little or no more power /tq is generated based on the timing set. Based on engine combination, cyl pressure etc, .78 might be better.. it might not. Guess what I am saying is.. IDEALLY, when using a 50K precision instrument called a dyno... one would not target an arbitrary number, but rather, find out what that ideal number is. Hence why the guy is paying the tuner.. he should be finding that out.
I agree.. most tuners are clueless or hacks.
I still agree, based on statistical groups and the setup mentioned, that .78 lambda is probably on the rich side.. there is more power to be had.
I agree.. most tuners are clueless or hacks.
I still agree, based on statistical groups and the setup mentioned, that .78 lambda is probably on the rich side.. there is more power to be had.
06-11-2015, 11:03 AM
#54
TECH Fanatic
I used to run fish hooks on engine dynos, and we'd set MBT (minimum spark advance for best torque), LBT (leanest A/F for best torque), all at WOT (wide open throttle) as we went from about 800 RPM (yes ... WOT at 800 RPM!) to peak power and just beyond to confirm the peak. This was a lot of moons ago, but the principle hasn't changed.
As I recall, the A/F that yielded the best torque was usually in the 13.5 neighborhood with 14.7 (lambda = 1.0) being stoichiometric or "chemically correct." Anything richer than LBT is, by definition, going to yield less torque. (NOTE: These were carbureted engines and inherently had some cyl-to-cyl maldistribution so this "13.5" may not strictly apply to fuel injection where fuel is more closely controlled. The newer motors may differ somewhat.)
However, the advantage in running richer than LBT is that it has a cooling effect thereby reducing the risk of autoignition. Certainly running at 11.5 would help avoid detonation, but at the cost of some power. I would think a good tuner would try to get back some of the power and lean it out a bit from 11.5 depending on where the spark timing is set.
Seems to me I have a dyno sheet somewhere showing my A/F to be in the low to mid 12s and starts rising beyond that as engine speed gets closer to peak RPM where my lowly fuel pump can't keep up (I do not have a MagnaVolt).
As I recall, the A/F that yielded the best torque was usually in the 13.5 neighborhood with 14.7 (lambda = 1.0) being stoichiometric or "chemically correct." Anything richer than LBT is, by definition, going to yield less torque. (NOTE: These were carbureted engines and inherently had some cyl-to-cyl maldistribution so this "13.5" may not strictly apply to fuel injection where fuel is more closely controlled. The newer motors may differ somewhat.)
However, the advantage in running richer than LBT is that it has a cooling effect thereby reducing the risk of autoignition. Certainly running at 11.5 would help avoid detonation, but at the cost of some power. I would think a good tuner would try to get back some of the power and lean it out a bit from 11.5 depending on where the spark timing is set.
Seems to me I have a dyno sheet somewhere showing my A/F to be in the low to mid 12s and starts rising beyond that as engine speed gets closer to peak RPM where my lowly fuel pump can't keep up (I do not have a MagnaVolt).
Last edited by rand49er; 06-11-2015 at 11:15 AM.
06-11-2015, 02:35 PM
#55
TECH Resident
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to run fish hooks on engine dynos, and we'd set MBT (minimum spark advance for best torque), LBT (leanest A/F for best torque), all at WOT (wide open throttle) as we went from about 800 RPM (yes ... WOT at 800 RPM!) to peak power and just beyond to confirm the peak. This was a lot of moons ago, but the principle hasn't changed.
As I recall, the A/F that yielded the best torque was usually in the 13.5 neighborhood with 14.7 (lambda = 1.0) being stoichiometric or "chemically correct." Anything richer than LBT is, by definition, going to yield less torque. (NOTE: These were carbureted engines and inherently had some cyl-to-cyl maldistribution so this "13.5" may not strictly apply to fuel injection where fuel is more closely controlled. The newer motors may differ somewhat.)
However, the advantage in running richer than LBT is that it has a cooling effect thereby reducing the risk of autoignition. Certainly running at 11.5 would help avoid detonation, but at the cost of some power. I would think a good tuner would try to get back some of the power and lean it out a bit from 11.5 depending on where the spark timing is set.
Seems to me I have a dyno sheet somewhere showing my A/F to be in the low to mid 12s and starts rising beyond that as engine speed gets closer to peak RPM where my lowly fuel pump can't keep up (I do not have a MagnaVolt).
As I recall, the A/F that yielded the best torque was usually in the 13.5 neighborhood with 14.7 (lambda = 1.0) being stoichiometric or "chemically correct." Anything richer than LBT is, by definition, going to yield less torque. (NOTE: These were carbureted engines and inherently had some cyl-to-cyl maldistribution so this "13.5" may not strictly apply to fuel injection where fuel is more closely controlled. The newer motors may differ somewhat.)
However, the advantage in running richer than LBT is that it has a cooling effect thereby reducing the risk of autoignition. Certainly running at 11.5 would help avoid detonation, but at the cost of some power. I would think a good tuner would try to get back some of the power and lean it out a bit from 11.5 depending on where the spark timing is set.
Seems to me I have a dyno sheet somewhere showing my A/F to be in the low to mid 12s and starts rising beyond that as engine speed gets closer to peak RPM where my lowly fuel pump can't keep up (I do not have a MagnaVolt).
That's one reason why I wouldn't recommend doing the lean it out till it stops making power. But I also think 11.5 is to rich.
06-11-2015, 04:13 PM
#56
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, to the OP: I know you think you're comparing apples to apples but you're not. Any dyno can be made to read whatever the operator wants it to read, so comparing two different vehicles on two different dyno's is not a true comparison even if the modifications are exactly the same.
Your supercharger may have a rotor pack that isn't sealed very well, the consequence of a dirty air filter for example, which would limit boost since the charge is bypassing the rotors. There are many other things like belt slip, valve float, etc., but you get the idea. I'm just saying you can't use a completely different vehicle as a benchmark.
An engine is an air pump, nothing more. Anything you can do to get the charge in and out more efficiently will increase output. This is where cam, heads, headers, intakes, increased displacement, etc. all come into play whether you're using forced induction or not. As it has been previously stated, boost is a measurement of restriction to flow. Remove the restrictions, the boost will drop and power will increase.
There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding camshafts, esp the overlap. FWIW - I have never seen a negative overlap cam make more power than a positive overlap cam, all within reason of course. Yes, you will bleed some of the charge however the answer to that is to up the boost. If the FI is sized to be on the ragged edge (as the MP112 is for our applications) or emissions is required, the negative overlap is pretty much a requirement. Lobe separation (LSA) is a product of the valve events and do not tell the whole story in and of themselves.
Long story short, do the headers...the biggest you can get. You will make more power everywhere with the larger headers and you will lose nothing anywhere. If you want to go further, the Maggie will be your limitation, so don't waste your money on heads etc. but get a small cam like the LS9 or another cam where the valve events are intended to be used with a positive displacement roots blower.
Your supercharger may have a rotor pack that isn't sealed very well, the consequence of a dirty air filter for example, which would limit boost since the charge is bypassing the rotors. There are many other things like belt slip, valve float, etc., but you get the idea. I'm just saying you can't use a completely different vehicle as a benchmark.
An engine is an air pump, nothing more. Anything you can do to get the charge in and out more efficiently will increase output. This is where cam, heads, headers, intakes, increased displacement, etc. all come into play whether you're using forced induction or not. As it has been previously stated, boost is a measurement of restriction to flow. Remove the restrictions, the boost will drop and power will increase.
There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding camshafts, esp the overlap. FWIW - I have never seen a negative overlap cam make more power than a positive overlap cam, all within reason of course. Yes, you will bleed some of the charge however the answer to that is to up the boost. If the FI is sized to be on the ragged edge (as the MP112 is for our applications) or emissions is required, the negative overlap is pretty much a requirement. Lobe separation (LSA) is a product of the valve events and do not tell the whole story in and of themselves.
Long story short, do the headers...the biggest you can get. You will make more power everywhere with the larger headers and you will lose nothing anywhere. If you want to go further, the Maggie will be your limitation, so don't waste your money on heads etc. but get a small cam like the LS9 or another cam where the valve events are intended to be used with a positive displacement roots blower.
Yes it seems like headers are the way to go, and I wont loose any power, and gain hp and tq! I will price them out and go from there. I don't wanna dig into the motor in regards to a camshaft and cylinder heads.
06-11-2015, 04:15 PM
#57
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wont do that. Its why I wanted to get it tuned without spraying any meth what so ever. I plan to re dyno next week with the meth. Ill post the results.
06-11-2015, 06:54 PM
#58
Ok I have been watching this tread grow and conversing with Rick about questions he has and I was happy to answer his questions and response to post on the tread.
But when people step into a peaceful thread and start calling me a hack I get rather defensive.
So let start with a few things to make this a level playing field.
The car made peak power at a commanded afr of 11.77 and achieved 11.75 at WOT through out the pull. Which is within 1% of my target. I DO NOT hack PE tables I command and make the correct fueling adjustments to the MAF calibration curve.
When Rick and I discussed tuning the I spent the time to find good oem injector data for the injectors supplied by Magnason.
I start all my calibrations with a solid injector tables and pride myself on that.
I spend more time tuning driveability and street tuning the MAF tables than I do on the dyno....there is much more to these cars than just WOT performance.
I hide nothing when I'm tuning if customers want to sit in with me I'm always open to that, if customers want to ask a question while I'm tuning ask and I answer.
I do ask of that others on the forum not to bash others when it comes to tuning as it really does not help anyone in the end.
The reason I chose to send Ricks car out on the street with a commanded AFR of 11.55 vs 11.77 was simply for the cooling effect of the additional fuel while he was driving the car at the track.
If we add meth to this calibration to aid in cooling I explained to Rick that he would end up with an AFR of 11.0-11.25 from the meth.
The meth would simply cool the charge temps down causing the timing table to add 2* as I have them set up to add and subtract based on IAT temps.
I understand that if I remove fuel from the calibration to pull the afr back the car will make more power but I do not like relying on meth systems for fueling...it's not a good practice.
I appreciate people looking out for Rick and his car best interest but I assure you Rick is in good hands...and yes I have lots experience with FI vehicle and Meth systems.
But when people step into a peaceful thread and start calling me a hack I get rather defensive.
So let start with a few things to make this a level playing field.
The car made peak power at a commanded afr of 11.77 and achieved 11.75 at WOT through out the pull. Which is within 1% of my target. I DO NOT hack PE tables I command and make the correct fueling adjustments to the MAF calibration curve.
When Rick and I discussed tuning the I spent the time to find good oem injector data for the injectors supplied by Magnason.
I start all my calibrations with a solid injector tables and pride myself on that.
I spend more time tuning driveability and street tuning the MAF tables than I do on the dyno....there is much more to these cars than just WOT performance.
I hide nothing when I'm tuning if customers want to sit in with me I'm always open to that, if customers want to ask a question while I'm tuning ask and I answer.
I do ask of that others on the forum not to bash others when it comes to tuning as it really does not help anyone in the end.
The reason I chose to send Ricks car out on the street with a commanded AFR of 11.55 vs 11.77 was simply for the cooling effect of the additional fuel while he was driving the car at the track.
If we add meth to this calibration to aid in cooling I explained to Rick that he would end up with an AFR of 11.0-11.25 from the meth.
The meth would simply cool the charge temps down causing the timing table to add 2* as I have them set up to add and subtract based on IAT temps.
I understand that if I remove fuel from the calibration to pull the afr back the car will make more power but I do not like relying on meth systems for fueling...it's not a good practice.
I appreciate people looking out for Rick and his car best interest but I assure you Rick is in good hands...and yes I have lots experience with FI vehicle and Meth systems.
06-11-2015, 08:08 PM
#59
TECH Fanatic
Ok I have been watching this tread grow and conversing with Rick about questions he has and I was happy to answer his questions and response to post on the tread.
But when people step into a peaceful thread and start calling me a hack I get rather defensive.
So let start with a few things to make this a level playing field.
The car made peak power at a commanded afr of 11.77 and achieved 11.75 at WOT through out the pull. Which is within 1% of my target. I DO NOT hack PE tables I command and make the correct fueling adjustments to the MAF calibration curve.
When Rick and I discussed tuning the I spent the time to find good oem injector data for the injectors supplied by Magnason.
I start all my calibrations with a solid injector tables and pride myself on that.
I spend more time tuning driveability and street tuning the MAF tables than I do on the dyno....there is much more to these cars than just WOT performance.
I hide nothing when I'm tuning if customers want to sit in with me I'm always open to that, if customers want to ask a question while I'm tuning ask and I answer.
I do ask of that others on the forum not to bash others when it comes to tuning as it really does not help anyone in the end.
The reason I chose to send Ricks car out on the street with a commanded AFR of 11.55 vs 11.77 was simply for the cooling effect of the additional fuel while he was driving the car at the track.
If we add meth to this calibration to aid in cooling I explained to Rick that he would end up with an AFR of 11.0-11.25 from the meth.
The meth would simply cool the charge temps down causing the timing table to add 2* as I have them set up to add and subtract based on IAT temps.
I understand that if I remove fuel from the calibration to pull the afr back the car will make more power but I do not like relying on meth systems for fueling...it's not a good practice.
I appreciate people looking out for Rick and his car best interest but I assure you Rick is in good hands...and yes I have lots experience with FI vehicle and Meth systems.
But when people step into a peaceful thread and start calling me a hack I get rather defensive.
So let start with a few things to make this a level playing field.
The car made peak power at a commanded afr of 11.77 and achieved 11.75 at WOT through out the pull. Which is within 1% of my target. I DO NOT hack PE tables I command and make the correct fueling adjustments to the MAF calibration curve.
When Rick and I discussed tuning the I spent the time to find good oem injector data for the injectors supplied by Magnason.
I start all my calibrations with a solid injector tables and pride myself on that.
I spend more time tuning driveability and street tuning the MAF tables than I do on the dyno....there is much more to these cars than just WOT performance.
I hide nothing when I'm tuning if customers want to sit in with me I'm always open to that, if customers want to ask a question while I'm tuning ask and I answer.
I do ask of that others on the forum not to bash others when it comes to tuning as it really does not help anyone in the end.
The reason I chose to send Ricks car out on the street with a commanded AFR of 11.55 vs 11.77 was simply for the cooling effect of the additional fuel while he was driving the car at the track.
If we add meth to this calibration to aid in cooling I explained to Rick that he would end up with an AFR of 11.0-11.25 from the meth.
The meth would simply cool the charge temps down causing the timing table to add 2* as I have them set up to add and subtract based on IAT temps.
I understand that if I remove fuel from the calibration to pull the afr back the car will make more power but I do not like relying on meth systems for fueling...it's not a good practice.
I appreciate people looking out for Rick and his car best interest but I assure you Rick is in good hands...and yes I have lots experience with FI vehicle and Meth systems.
"Just curious why wouldn't u change the tune? This is simple a question. My AF is 11.5 and he mentioned that he may want to drop it to 11.0 and run 100% meth. I know 0 about meth so I better learn quickly!"
I get a lot of PM's like this from various members and try to help to the best of my ability. Hell, I've helped over a half dozen people that John B. of BEHE screwed with his famous 60 lb. injector data, raped PE, and almost 30* of ignition advance on FI setups. I read this as the OP saying the tuner wanted to first enrich the PE target even further to 11.0 and then add 100% meth on top of that.
I'm sure you've fixed more than a few hack jobs yourself so please don't take any offense. I was trying to give the best advise possible armed with only the information presented. I just didn't want this guy to need a motor in the near future.
Last edited by DMM; 06-11-2015 at 08:22 PM.
06-11-2015, 08:32 PM
#60
I think maybe my conversation with Rick was a little misunderstood and sometimes I'm better off just showing people on the dyno and lap top how things work...Which I love doing by the way...nothing better than showing someone something new and watching as they learn and understand how things are now working in their vehicle.
What I was saying to Rick is the AFR with the meth added is going to drop to 11.0-11.25 with the meth....I would not drop the commanded afr to 11.0 and then add the meth on top and I believe that's where things got crossed up.
Any ways I will set up the meth system for him next week and show him how it controls iat temps very well and he can make his decision on if he like it or not.
Glad we got things cleared up.
Cheers.
What I was saying to Rick is the AFR with the meth added is going to drop to 11.0-11.25 with the meth....I would not drop the commanded afr to 11.0 and then add the meth on top and I believe that's where things got crossed up.
Any ways I will set up the meth system for him next week and show him how it controls iat temps very well and he can make his decision on if he like it or not.
Glad we got things cleared up.
Cheers.