[Z OH 6]

Originally Posted by clj94104

My FBO ZL1 ran E40 on stock fuel system for months. No issues.

FBO with a stock blower and pullies? If so, I can buy that, maybe even a 2.3 upper. Anything beyond that and E40 is likely going to run into a fueling limitation around 640-650whp.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by radz28

I feel like that's right in the neighborhood of what I've seen all over the place. Jorge Loves Speed's ZL1 was around there, too, on E', if I recall. Just LTs, RFBG, and E', I think. And he was on the edge, too. It's been a while, so I could be missing something, but I think I'm close.

Anyhoo...

His car also had no torque management in the trans which was making it accelerate quicker than a lot of other examples out there with similar mods. Most guys are not tuning them that way for longevity. They will hold up for a little while around stock power like that but not ideal with mods. It also can be dangerous on the street as it's easy to break the tires loose on the shifts with no TM. For example, my car is a couple tenths quicker 60-130 with full torque shifts. It actually lunges the car forward on the shift, but I haven't run that way for a long time. Even with drag radials it was breaking the tires loose on the 3-4...not ideal.

That being said, I believe he ended up needing a low side upgrade.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

His car also had no torque management in the trans which was making it accelerate quicker than a lot of other examples out there with similar mods. Most guys are not tuning them that way for longevity. They will hold up for a little while around stock power like that but not ideal with mods. It also can be dangerous on the street as it's easy to break the tires loose on the shifts with no TM. For example, my car is a couple tenths quicker 60-130 with full torque shifts. It actually lunges the car forward on the shift, but I haven't run that way for a long time. Even with drag radials it was breaking the tires loose on the 3-4...not ideal.

That being said, I believe he ended up needing a low side upgrade.

That was a Pray tune, too, wasn't it? Yeah - I hear you on the TM shifting. After the VB upgrade, I think I'm going to have to soften some of what I changed before, and put some TM back, for example (I already removed some timing in the MIN SPARK table). I can only imagine what it can be like on these aggressive tunes and just roll onto the throttle on a freeway onramp and hit an aggressive shift in the middle of the turn - let alone with any moisture on the ground...

[Patriot Motorsports USA]

Originally Posted by radz28

That was a Pray tune, too, wasn't it? Yeah - I hear you on the TM shifting. After the VB upgrade, I think I'm going to have to soften some of what I changed before, and put some TM back, for example (I already removed some timing in the MIN SPARK table). I can only imagine what it can be like on these aggressive tunes and just roll onto the throttle on a freeway onramp and hit an aggressive shift in the middle of the turn - let alone with any moisture on the ground...

This is the exact reason I want to do the throttle body upgrade before going deeper with the transmission tuning. The low-end hit on the torque when the track tires are warm is what I need when getting the car to rotate around and through the corners faster to keep up and actually go faster than the C8 Z06s and even stay within eyesight of my friend's Porsche GT3RS. Having the grunt is what let me catch Vaughn Gittin Jr in the Mustang GTD at CMP. Then he put Billy Johnson in as driver and I witnessed for the first time every worrying about running into the back of a car having better brakes!

[Patriot Motorsports USA]

Originally Posted by RobZL1

What we ARE convinced of, is that your brother's dyno is not calibrated correctly. It doesn't matter if you hit the road course, the drag strip, or the street. What we are saying is that those mods simply don't produce that much power.

Just for the record I asked my brother when the last time he calibrated his dyno... he said he always drops the 49# weight on the dyno load arm when switching between couple AWD cars like the 550whp Evo that was on the dyno before us, to 2wd cars. His load voltage variance was within One-Hundreth of a Volt... which truly translates to it didn't even need to be calibrated for our pulls, but did so since the LAST time I dyno'd my car and you posted the Dyno needed to be Calibrated.

[ZLRob]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

His car also had no torque management in the trans which was making it accelerate quicker than a lot of other examples out there with similar mods. Most guys are not tuning them that way for longevity. They will hold up for a little while around stock power like that but not ideal with mods. It also can be dangerous on the street as it's easy to break the tires loose on the shifts with no TM. For example, my car is a couple tenths quicker 60-130 with full torque shifts. It actually lunges the car forward on the shift, but I haven't run that way for a long time. Even with drag radials it was breaking the tires loose on the 3-4...not ideal.

That being said, I believe he ended up needing a low side upgrade.

Where in the trans settings of the tune file is the TM you are referring to? I want to see if mine has it enabled or disabled. I've always felt like my car lunges forward in the shifts.

[djctoto]

The question of safely running E40 with a modified pulley is still confusing to me.

On one hand we have a post by Z OH 6 stating:
"FBO with a stock blower and pullies? If so, I can buy that, maybe even a 2.3 upper. Anything beyond that and E40 is likely going to run into a fueling limitation around 640-650whp."

David's dyno results on E40 are reportedly stated as:
"on the Mustang Dyno. Our final "Track Safe" pull hit 788whp and 839Lb-Ft of torque."


For a car running a 9.20 lower pulley.

Then in a subsequent post David is quoted as saying:

"This car was built so it will be reliable... the runs we made were Pump Shell 93oct, 20%, 30% and then 40% E85 purchased at Racetrac locally here in Florence. I have run my car all the way to E47% and only in the hot South Carolina humidity did I ever begin to have fueling issues with an IAT of 110º which lead me to adding more 93oct to reduce it to 40% to eliminate the issue."


Which indicates that taking his car from e47 to E40 eliminated the issue or concern.

And then as I stated in an earlier post and was told by David and will swear in court this is true:
"Because I also distinctly remember you telling me when you tuned my car on E30 that you had run yours with the stock fueling system on E40 but this was on the "hairy edge"

So this is confusing not so much for me personally as it should be for the owner of this car who under the advise of David and Patriot Motorsports USA has been informed by them that it's safe to run their car under the most demanding track conditions at E40.

Something is not adding up.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by ZLRob

Where in the trans settings of the tune file is the TM you are referring to? I want to see if mine has it enabled or disabled. I've always felt like my car lunges forward in the shifts.

MINIMUM SPARK [12701] is one that I know of, if I understand what you're looking for correctly. This used to be the primary cheat table before we had access for later TCMs.

VTT can be altered, too. I believe the AIRMASS tables control shift pressures which can cause behavior along the lines to which it sounds like you're talking.

DRIVE DEMAND tables can, kinda', add to this sort of behavior, but from a different way. Values that are too high can cause shifting such that cause the car to unexpected go out of control. Even s little too much at the wrong time can cause a torque request that's way more than what you're requesting with your foot (pedal). One time I lost control because this table commanded the throttle to stay open, literally, for more than a second, after I lifted off the pedal, and because I was pedaling to keep control, that torque cause me to lose control of the car and I went across 4-lanes of traffic sideways toward a ditch. Too much torque in the wrong part of the map created a correlation to the pedal input that hung the actual throttle open. All that to say: these tables could influence, in smaller part, what it sounds like you might be talking about.

Even adding more in the MAF table can do this.

[ZLRob]

Originally Posted by radz28

MINIMUM SPARK [12701] is one that I know of, if I understand what you're looking for correctly. This used to be the primary cheat table before we had access for later TCMs.

VTT can be altered, too. I believe the AIRMASS tables control shift pressures which can cause behavior along the lines to which it sounds like you're talking.

DRIVE DEMAND tables can, kinda', add to this sort of behavior, but from a different way. Values that are too high can cause shifting such that cause the car to unexpected go out of control. Even s little too much at the wrong time can cause a torque request that's way more than what you're requesting with your foot (pedal). One time I lost control because this table commanded the throttle to stay open, literally, for more than a second, after I lifted off the pedal, and because I was pedaling to keep control, that torque cause me to lose control of the car and I went across 4-lanes of traffic sideways toward a ditch. Too much torque in the wrong part of the map created a correlation to the pedal input that hung the actual throttle open. All that to say: these tables could influence, in smaller part, what it sounds like you might be talking about.

Even adding more in the MAF table can do this.

Ah right, I was assuming you were talking about some sort of enable/ disable area of TM within the TCM tune which you could manually change, but all this other stuff... I believe all of my stuff is actually fairly close to factory levels minus the driver demand stuff. If you lived close to me I would totally take you for a spin so you can see how the set up performs, it definitely runs great and is very controlled by my right foot. I definitely have no external factors (the tune itself) influencing how the car drives and behaves by giving false engagements pre or post pedal control.

[Patriot Motorsports USA]

Originally Posted by djctoto

The question of safely running E40 with a modified pulley is still confusing to me.

David's dyno results on E40 are reportedly stated as:
"on the Mustang Dyno. Our final "Track Safe" pull hit 788whp and 839Lb-Ft of torque."


For a car running a 9.20 lower pulley.

Then in a subsequent post David is quoted as saying:

"This car was built so it will be reliable... the runs we made were Pump Shell 93oct, 20%, 30% and then 40% E85 purchased at Racetrac locally here in Florence. I have run my car all the way to E47% and only in the hot South Carolina humidity did I ever begin to have fueling issues with an IAT of 110º which lead me to adding more 93oct to reduce it to 40% to eliminate the issue."


Which indicates that taking his car from e47 to E40 eliminated the issue or concern.

And then as I stated in an earlier post and was told by David and will swear in court this is true:
"Because I also distinctly remember you telling me when you tuned my car on E30 that you had run yours with the stock fueling system on E40 but this was on the "hairy edge"

So this is confusing not so much for me personally as it should be for the owner of this car who under the advise of David and Patriot Motorsports USA has been informed by them that it's safe to run their car under the most demanding track conditions at E40.

Something is not adding up.

The highest I have ever run my car NOT on the dyno but on the track was an E47% which caused the car on a 120º track temp, 98º ambient temp and 400-feet above sea level where Road Atlanta is just under 1000' of sea level. It was at CMP where I had the car hiccup due to not enough fuel and Thank GOD the Banks iDash gave me a bright alert that I was hitting a knock due to running her lean AF! I immediately went into the paddock, added some Sunoco straight no ethanol fuel at $14/gallon and the ethanol content dropped to 30-ish percent. From there I reset the code and CEL to go back on the track to beat this bish a little more!

There is a vast difference in fueling between E40 & E47% and depending upon how the car is tuned, with the environment it is being operated within, safe. Once again... my car is tuned to the absolute edge, so when I have an issue, I know it is at a threshold my customers should or unable to reach. There is always a buffer there which is why I stated earlier that I could give my customer more power and with Jeni as witness I sat down in our waiting area, explaining to the customer how close I still took the car and he told me to push it. We went a little further, but not anywhere this car could be determined to be unsafe at tracks like Sebring which is almost at Sea Level.

Once again... Density Altitude is a huge factor when tuning and knowing where you can and cannot go determines if you win or lose some days. If you do not know where that edge is, then you can never deliver your best work. There is so much more than just reflashing the ECU and watching the car go away in the hands of the customer and I certainly am not here to share everything we do to get there... but I share more than most in hopes that the effort to resolve issues when on the road course are made clear.

[Patriot Motorsports USA]

Originally Posted by radz28

MINIMUM SPARK [12701] is one that I know of, if I understand what you're looking for correctly. This used to be the primary cheat table before we had access for later TCMs.

VTT can be altered, too. I believe the AIRMASS tables control shift pressures which can cause behavior along the lines to which it sounds like you're talking.

DRIVE DEMAND tables can, kinda', add to this sort of behavior, but from a different way. Values that are too high can cause shifting such that cause the car to unexpected go out of control. Even s little too much at the wrong time can cause a torque request that's way more than what you're requesting with your foot (pedal). One time I lost control because this table commanded the throttle to stay open, literally, for more than a second, after I lifted off the pedal, and because I was pedaling to keep control, that torque cause me to lose control of the car and I went across 4-lanes of traffic sideways toward a ditch. Too much torque in the wrong part of the map created a correlation to the pedal input that hung the actual throttle open. All that to say: these tables could influence, in smaller part, what it sounds like you might be talking about.

Even adding more in the MAF table can do this.

It is exactly for these reasons I refuse to use the RotoFab Big Gulp intake and the JLT's airflow is SO SILKY SMOOTH in comparison. It makes this scalability so much easier and with such the control of the car and how the torque is applied so when you are flying from having the car weighted racing up the hill to Road Atlanta's turn-11 bridge to being at -Gs floating over the top of hill to charging down the 80-90ft drop in Elevation hangin' onto the last inch of the track... nothing abrupt happens that will upset the car.

We've have tried different throttle bodies on Jeremy's M6 car so we could rule out the transmission doing things on it's own and just looked at the data based on the throttle alone. Once we determined the best path here, we transferred such to my car to see how the transmission would react with both PTM engaged and completely turned off.

[djctoto]

So the concern and risk with running on track with an E40 mix and running lean is real since you went from 47% down to 30%-ish to be safe and correct the problem?

"I was hitting a knock due to running her lean AF! I immediately went into the paddock, added some Sunoco straight no ethanol fuel at $14/gallon and the ethanol content dropped to 30-ish percent."

Do you have any on track experience running consistently with an E40% mix.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by ZLRob

Ah right, I was assuming you were talking about some sort of enable/ disable area of TM within the TCM tune which you could manually change, but all this other stuff... I believe all of my stuff is actually fairly close to factory levels minus the driver demand stuff. If you lived close to me I would totally take you for a spin so you can see how the set up performs, it definitely runs great and is very controlled by my right foot. I definitely have no external factors (the tune itself) influencing how the car drives and behaves by giving false engagements pre or post pedal control.

I would just leave it then. If we are talking about the same thing, if you were to change that single table near WOT and above, closer to stock, it would bring some TM back in, and help soften the shifts. My stock calibration allows as much as -10 to -12* spark advance near-to-and-at-WOT redline (yours could be the same or close but sometimes GM's engineers make little changes. Anyways - as timing goes negative, the more TM can come in at shifts and soften them. As timing goes up, so does the torque, so the shifts have less TM and get more aggressive. I was running as much as 9* in these areas and on street tires, it was... aggressive. I pulled it back more, and it's better, but aggressive, lol.

There ARE shift-related tables in the TCM, and I don't remember seeing if you or JRE tuned it, but quickening shifts could require more line pressure to keep clutches from slipping, and just adding line pressure could make shifts harder without much benefit. You could change GENERAL LINE PRESSURES but I'd be cautious of clutch slip, too.

King' could definitely set me straight on m,y thoughts, and point you in a good direction. IMO, though, I'd compare what your MINIMUM SPARK is in those areas. If they are not in the negatives, (like I believe they would be in a stock tune table), someone has changed them (probably higher). If that's the case, and let's just say you see values of 5* in those cells, I'd think about pulling a few degrees out of those cells, and see if it's more to your liking. I think this method would be the safest way all-around, because it would only be adding TM back in, again - assuming it has been increased.

JMVHO

[Patriot Motorsports USA]

Originally Posted by djctoto

So the concern and risk with running on track with an E40 mix and running lean is real since you went from 47% down to 30%-ish to be safe and correct the problem?

"I was hitting a knock due to running her lean AF! I immediately went into the paddock, added some Sunoco straight no ethanol fuel at $14/gallon and the ethanol content dropped to 30-ish percent."

Do you have any on track experience running consistently with an E40% mix.

When I send Jeni out in the car to be on track she gets the car between 15-30% but when I was running with Vaughn and the GTD at CMP, I turned it up to 40% to pass him. Where I got greedy was with Billy Johnson driving the GTD, I added another few gallons and it hit 47% which ran like a raped-ape for a few laps til he out-braked me going into turn-1. What I think made the car hiccup was chasing him down and catching very little clean air behind him and at this point I had not realized the data which came a month later at Road Atlanta to short-shift the car.

Dan, E30% is a really safe place to be and it fulfills all the needed safety parameters for beating on the engine without any loss of power. I have also considered adding a BAP to spin the low side harder when the car is running Spicy, just to add measure.