WOT A/R ratio
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
WOT A/R ratio hello guys
i have tuned a 2003 holdn ls1 engine after tunning the a/r ratio with EFI LIVE the a/r ratio is 13.3-13.6 at wot what do you think guys the engine made 306 whp (we are using 95 octane pump gas)?
i have tuned a 2003 holdn ls1 engine after tunning the a/r ratio with EFI LIVE the a/r ratio is 13.3-13.6 at wot what do you think guys the engine made 306 whp (we are using 95 octane pump gas)?
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by SSpdDmon
too lean imo...try 12.8-13.0 at peak power.
Then you should be pretty close. Maybe just a touch too lean. You need to ask the dyno guys what they have seen with tailpipe placement vs. collector placement. Could be anywhere from .3 to .6 difference.
The perfect AFR is exactly 12.984245
Joking..
Why does everyone look for one specific number? See what works best for your particular motor. Thats what dyno tuning is for.. not to punch in a AFR number and a timing number everyone else runs.
Joking..
Why does everyone look for one specific number? See what works best for your particular motor. Thats what dyno tuning is for.. not to punch in a AFR number and a timing number everyone else runs.
anywhere from 12.5~ 13.4 dependent on a lot of things....
you have to play with it on the dyno to findout what your cars ideal AFR is at all rpm's
and it will not be the same at 4000 rpm as it will be at 5200 or at 6000 or at 6400
it should not be a flat value for max power
you have to play with it on the dyno to findout what your cars ideal AFR is at all rpm's
and it will not be the same at 4000 rpm as it will be at 5200 or at 6000 or at 6400
it should not be a flat value for max power
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Interesting thread.
Most people advocate a flat PE / afr. Soundengineer is probably correct that a non-linear WOT afr will give a better result. It only makes sense that the low rpm range needs a leaner afr, as does peak torque.
Sound, can you post what you consider to be a good non-linear set of PE values so that this fellow can scale them up or down to meet his needs?
Most people advocate a flat PE / afr. Soundengineer is probably correct that a non-linear WOT afr will give a better result. It only makes sense that the low rpm range needs a leaner afr, as does peak torque.
Sound, can you post what you consider to be a good non-linear set of PE values so that this fellow can scale them up or down to meet his needs?
Trending Topics
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 usualy its a little leaner down low..like from 800-2000ish rpms
then its Rich at peak Torque and leaner at peak HP and then richer again at Redline/revlimiter
a good example would be something like
1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.14355 1.15625 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.15918 1.14844 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992
basically 13.0 low...12.5 by peak torque, 12.8 by peak HP, and back to 12.5 at revlimiter
this is on my car...with stock cam and a few boltons
then its Rich at peak Torque and leaner at peak HP and then richer again at Redline/revlimiter
a good example would be something like
1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.14355 1.15625 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.15918 1.14844 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992
basically 13.0 low...12.5 by peak torque, 12.8 by peak HP, and back to 12.5 at revlimiter
this is on my car...with stock cam and a few boltons
Just an FYI ... if you look at AFR Spark Correction Table GM provides, it clearly mimick's what Scott is saying. They add more spark in the same respective areas being recommended. Kind of tells you something doesn't? 
Originally Posted by soundengineer
usualy its a little leaner down low..like from 800-2000ish rpms
then its Rich at peak Torque and leaner at peak HP and then richer again at Redline/revlimiter
a good example would be something like
1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.14355 1.15625 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.15918 1.14844 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992
basically 13.0 low...12.5 by peak torque, 12.8 by peak HP, and back to 12.5 at revlimiter
this is on my car...with stock cam and a few boltons
then its Rich at peak Torque and leaner at peak HP and then richer again at Redline/revlimiter
a good example would be something like
1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.12988 1.14355 1.15625 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.15918 1.14844 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992 1.16992
basically 13.0 low...12.5 by peak torque, 12.8 by peak HP, and back to 12.5 at revlimiter
this is on my car...with stock cam and a few boltons
Originally Posted by 12secSS
Just an FYI ... if you look at AFR Spark Correction Table GM provides, it clearly mimick's what Scott is saying. They add more spark in the same respective areas being recommended. Kind of tells you something doesn't?
exactly 