November Issue GM High Tech. Magazine Article "Punch to the mid-section"
09-02-2009, 10:13 AM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
November Issue GM High Tech. Magazine Article "Punch to the mid-section" Article Title (P. 80) : Punch to the Mid Section, Tuning a 2010 Camaro SS Gains 27 lb-ft of Torque and Tons More Under the Curve.
Tuned by http://www.corvettemasters.com/new/index.html.
Anyone else read/see this article? Don't think I can scan in any for viewing purposes due to legal stuff but...
Question: Does it look like they hacked the PE table to command a lower final AFR? Why no MAF/VE table tuning mentioned, hummm?
Using the data from their Hp Tuners screen shots they are commanding in their PE tables the following values (Assuming on my part Stoich is 14.63AFR) -
2,500 RPM-3,500 RPM : 1.204 = 12.15 AFR
4,000 RPM-4,250 RPM: 1.234 = 11.86 AFR
4,500 RPM-8,000 RPM: 1.239 = 11.81 AFR
Yet their data on the dynojet wideband shows they resulted in an actual.
My estimate from screen shot of dynos wideband measurements below -
3,000 RPM: 14.00 AFR
3,350 RPM: 12.25 AFR
3,500 RPM: 12.50 AFR
4,000 RPM: 12.50 AFR
4,500 RPM: 12.45 AFR
5,000 RPM: 12.25 AFR
5,500 RPM: 12.25 AFR
6,000 RPM: 12.25 AFR
My opinion: Shouldn't the commanded AFR be spot on to the actual AFR IF they tuned the MAF/VE as we are expecting from PRO Tuners?
Tuned by http://www.corvettemasters.com/new/index.html.
Anyone else read/see this article? Don't think I can scan in any for viewing purposes due to legal stuff but...
Question: Does it look like they hacked the PE table to command a lower final AFR? Why no MAF/VE table tuning mentioned, hummm?
Using the data from their Hp Tuners screen shots they are commanding in their PE tables the following values (Assuming on my part Stoich is 14.63AFR) -
2,500 RPM-3,500 RPM : 1.204 = 12.15 AFR
4,000 RPM-4,250 RPM: 1.234 = 11.86 AFR
4,500 RPM-8,000 RPM: 1.239 = 11.81 AFR
Yet their data on the dynojet wideband shows they resulted in an actual.
My estimate from screen shot of dynos wideband measurements below -
3,000 RPM: 14.00 AFR
3,350 RPM: 12.25 AFR
3,500 RPM: 12.50 AFR
4,000 RPM: 12.50 AFR
4,500 RPM: 12.45 AFR
5,000 RPM: 12.25 AFR
5,500 RPM: 12.25 AFR
6,000 RPM: 12.25 AFR
My opinion: Shouldn't the commanded AFR be spot on to the actual AFR IF they tuned the MAF/VE as we are expecting from PRO Tuners?
09-02-2009, 10:48 PM
#2
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver International Airport, Colorado USA
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not exactly sure of their methodology. I just thought it was an incredible amount of HP/TQ they picked up. I got all excited reading their exhaustive testing of cams & overlap, then saw it did not apply to my combination.
I am sure it is not easy trying to be 'all things to all people', but sometimes it is hard to know if their results from one experiment can be applied across the board. And in no way knocking their approach..but the weight of some these newer 'muscle' cars makes me wonder how big that target audience could be.
So, I was just intrigued you could pull out that much more power with the changes they did..perhaps they tuned it differently than implied..or I just missed it.
..WeathermanShawn..
I am sure it is not easy trying to be 'all things to all people', but sometimes it is hard to know if their results from one experiment can be applied across the board. And in no way knocking their approach..but the weight of some these newer 'muscle' cars makes me wonder how big that target audience could be.
So, I was just intrigued you could pull out that much more power with the changes they did..perhaps they tuned it differently than implied..or I just missed it.
..WeathermanShawn..
