60 grams per cyl is that correct
0.8 g/cyl is about normal but it's all subject to your VE and MAF
fidelity, what airflow & air mass you calculate. Tuning to an AFR
result, with an existing short fuel error, is one way to end up at
a clean running tune that simply has a wrong airflow scaling (two
wrongs make a right, style).
fidelity, what airflow & air mass you calculate. Tuning to an AFR
result, with an existing short fuel error, is one way to end up at
a clean running tune that simply has a wrong airflow scaling (two
wrongs make a right, style).
i also suggest cleaning the maf. there's a few threads you can search for about that. basically use electrical cleaner (???) and spray it on the wires. you could possibly use a q-tip and VERY CAREFULLY/GENTLY (they break easily) wipe the dirty side of the wires.
in my 99 with lid, catback and stock ls1 intake i was seeing about .68-.76.
after throwing on the ls6 intake it was up past .8, but that could have something to do with the bigger stock cam.
in my 99 with lid, catback and stock ls1 intake i was seeing about .68-.76.
after throwing on the ls6 intake it was up past .8, but that could have something to do with the bigger stock cam.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
From: Katherine N.T Australia
Just an FYI and probably wont relate to this car because its relatively stock. But I do know of cases where tuners will fudge the IFR table to give extra range in the timing tables. How this works is by altering the IFR and subsequently having to lower the VE values to dial in fuel you trick the engine into thinking that its getting less dynamic air than it actually is. For Boost this can aid the tuner as you won't bottom out at 1.2g/cyl quite so early or at all if your really aggressive on it.
0.8 g/cyl is about normal but it's all subject to your VE and MAF
fidelity, what airflow & air mass you calculate. Tuning to an AFR
result, with an existing short fuel error, is one way to end up at
a clean running tune that simply has a wrong airflow scaling (two
wrongs make a right, style).
fidelity, what airflow & air mass you calculate. Tuning to an AFR
result, with an existing short fuel error, is one way to end up at
a clean running tune that simply has a wrong airflow scaling (two
wrongs make a right, style).
I would expect to see no more than .68~.76 grams/cyl from 3K RPM on up at WOT on a near stock f-body. As altitude rises, that number will fall. Being you're at moderately low elevation, I'd suggest there's something wrong with your MAF. If cleaning it doesn't help, try swapping with a known "good" MAF. 
Last edited by SSpdDmon; Nov 21, 2008 at 09:24 AM.
Trending Topics
I would expect to see more than .68~.76 grams/cyl from 3K RPM on up at WOT on a near stock f-body. As altitude rises, that number will fall. Being you're at moderately low elevation, I'd suggest there's something wrong with your MAF. If cleaning it doesn't help, try swapping with a known "good" MAF.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo I would expect to see more than .68~.76 grams/cyl from 3K RPM on up at WOT on a near stock f-body. As altitude rises, that number will fall. Being you're at moderately low elevation, I'd suggest there's something wrong with your MAF. If cleaning it doesn't help, try swapping with a known "good" MAF.
But isn't .68 to .76 a really big gap?
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
From: wisconsin
would lowering the timing play a role in this or more fuel in this case.
by lowering the maf or raising it does that kinda give a false readings
in the gpc map. somtimes i see like -12% long trim at 55 .. and at
wot it goes down to 8% both banks smells fat!! will a
air pump shut down have anything to do with this. the car runs 13.5 @106.
by lowering the maf or raising it does that kinda give a false readings
in the gpc map. somtimes i see like -12% long trim at 55 .. and at
wot it goes down to 8% both banks smells fat!! will a
air pump shut down have anything to do with this. the car runs 13.5 @106.
Yes - if you alter the MAF curve, it'll affect the grams/cyl. calculation in a directly proportional fashion (up is more, down is less). The cars will run fat from the factory. If you're running no cats and no AIR, you'll smell it. But, that shouldn't affect your AFR - UNLESS you have an air leak (i.e. measured air is escaping before it reaches the cylinders). Pulling timing won't affect it as much IMO. Sounds like you need to evaluate the mechanicals before you point to the tune on a mostly stock car.
With regards to your tune AFTER you make sure the mechanicals are working right - I wouldn't alter the MAF or VE if I were you given the car is mostly stock. Just lean out the PE some. As for timing, you can add a little in as long as you don't get any knock retard. But, I wouldn't mess around with timing unless I was on a dyno. No reason to add timing if you can't justify it as a proven gain.
With regards to your tune AFTER you make sure the mechanicals are working right - I wouldn't alter the MAF or VE if I were you given the car is mostly stock. Just lean out the PE some. As for timing, you can add a little in as long as you don't get any knock retard. But, I wouldn't mess around with timing unless I was on a dyno. No reason to add timing if you can't justify it as a proven gain.
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
From: wisconsin
that all make sense, and yes it does smell on a roll then wot, the pe is
set at 1.20 3000 up to 5000 then bump to 1.30afr to 7000 and it seems fat but not upper rpms. i think wide
band was down at 11.8-13 afr. thanks very much everyone !!
set at 1.20 3000 up to 5000 then bump to 1.30afr to 7000 and it seems fat but not upper rpms. i think wide
band was down at 11.8-13 afr. thanks very much everyone !!
