[bishopts]

Seems like your shifts are pretty consistent. Just that one 2nd to 3rd was very slightly slower than all the rest. I guess repetition is paying off?

[vince3]

Originally Posted by bishopts

Seems like your shifts are pretty consistent. Just that one 2nd to 3rd was very slightly slower than all the rest. I guess repetition is paying off?

Now that you mentioned it, i can see a dip in my dragy screenshots today that are more than my previous runs. I've watched videos about Pray talking about shift recovery but can't get AI to pin point what exactly to change to help with that. The screenshots on my logs for Hptuners shows a big drop in timing and torque management kicking in on the shift.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by vince3

Now that you mentioned it, i can see a dip in my dragy screenshots today that are more than my previous runs. I've watched videos about Pray talking about shift recovery but can't get AI to pin point what exactly to change to help with that. The screenshots on my logs for Hptuners shows a big drop in timing and torque management kicking in on the shift.

You're shifting at 6800+ rpm on stock internals? Brave

[vince3]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

You're shifting at 6800+ rpm on stock internals? Brave

6800 is the goal. Tuner has warned me, but if I shift at 6600-6700, it costs a couple of tenths. Once I hit 7's it won't be worth the risk.

[bishopts]

Originally Posted by vince3

6800 is the goal. Tuner has warned me, but if I shift at 6600-6700, it costs a couple of tenths. Once I hit 7's it won't be worth the risk.

Do you have a dyno graph? Seems like your getting beyond the power range.

Like you are past peak power to an amount that when your shift you shift into a position that is still past peak power.

[vince3]

Originally Posted by bishopts

Do you have a dyno graph? Seems like your getting beyond the power range.

Like you are past peak power to an amount that when your shift you shift into a position that is still past peak power.

For whatever reason my car makes peak torque later and peak cylinder airmass is around 5200-5400rpm. If I shift at 6600-6700 rpms my car is about 1.5 to 2 tenths slower on average.

[bishopts]

Originally Posted by vince3

For whatever reason my car makes peak torque later and peak cylinder airmass is around 5200-5400rpm. If I shift at 6600-6700 rpms my car is about 1.5 to 2 tenths slower on average.

Have you tried shifting at 6000? Your intake moved the power range to a higher rpm than the stock one but i wonder if you could benefit staying closeer to your peak torque.

[vince3]

Originally Posted by bishopts

Have you tried shifting at 6000? Your intake moved the power range to a higher rpm than the stock one but i wonder if you could benefit staying closeer to your peak torque.

I want to go the opposite way and push to 6900 but i dont think it will gain anything. 6k is too low and if i shifted at that i would have an extra shift and be in 5th gear with my tire height.

In my logs i can see in almost all runs, my MAF runs richer at the higher speeds. Its like i have less airflow at higher speeds and I have a restriction. Maybe thats just how airflow works but I would think airflow would increase at higher speeds. Here is the same RPMs at around 90 and 120mph and you can see on the right for the MAF error, its running 1 percent richer. Wideband to desired is pretty close. At 125 its gets almost 2 percent off.

In the 2nd 125 pic, you can see the MAP is high, so no restriction in the intake, MAF is also high so that should also mean no restriction up to the MAF sensor.

I wonder if cutting the rotofab box might help?

[bishopts]

Why don't you read mass air flow in grams per second?

[vince3]

Originally Posted by bishopts

Why don't you read mass air flow in grams per second?

I just used what it defaulted to.

[vince3]

Still had great weather, but not nearly as good as yesterday and with no one on the road I abused the car a little today.

so -2000 DA vs - 700 DA is worth .2 to .3 in 60-130.

Did a couple of quarter mile runs and was happy I got a sub 2.0 60 foot with non drag radials. Did a quick 1st gear burnout and lowered tire pressure to 27lbs.

The one thing I will say is if you look at my previous 1/4 mile runs, the offroad setup is worth around 2mph and a couple of tenths.

I also did a 60-130 pull in 4th gear only that was a 9.04 and a 3rd gear and 4th gear pull that was a 8.66.

[bishopts]

Pretty solid numbers for no prep streets.

[vince3]

Here is the virtual dyno. I made some adjustments to timing when i had knock to try and clear it up BEFORE adjusting the knock sensors a little more and just left it.

The virtual dyno shows when my timing dips too low and I'm going to load the old timing tables back in and see if i have knock shows back up. Since I'm hardly below 5200 rpm, I didn't really pay attention and see it in my logs but timing from 4600 dips to 23 degrees and slowly climbs to 26 degree. Knock showed up in cold weather when cylinder airmass jumped from .94-.96 peak to up to 1.06 when the baro was high and temps dipped into the high 30s.

[vince3]

Since I have an LT1, the Vellossa Tech won't fit, but I removed the piece that restricts airflow that you remove when installing the Vellossa Tech. Will test again in similar weather to confirm corrected results by ChatGTP.

Raw numbers: Intake temps

Baseline IAT2: ~80.6°F

After #1 IAT2: ~93.2°F ✅ (warmer)

That’s a big deal because warmer air = slightly lower density and it can shift fueling a little, so it makes “before/after” harder to judge unless temps match.

Peak airflow / load

Peak cyl airmass

Baseline: 0.9988

After #1: 0.9930 (slightly lower, consistent with higher IAT2)

Peak MAF Hz

Baseline: 8948 Hz

After #1: 9009 Hz (tiny increase)

So: no huge airflow jump, but the MAF Hz peak is slightly higher even though air is warmer — that’s a mild sign the restriction removal may be helping.

Fueling trend (what you care about)

Average “WB EQ Ratio” (your lambda-ish channel) at 100+ mph:

Baseline: 0.86355

After #1: 0.86395 (basically the same)

Your temps (using IAT2 as the “air temp” proxy)

Baseline IAT2: 80.6°F

After #1 IAT2: 93.2°F

After #2 IAT2: 91.4°F

Convert to Kelvin:

80.6°F → 27.0°C → 300.15 K

93.2°F → 34.0°C → 307.59 K

91.4°F → 33.0°C → 306.15 K

Correction factors (multiply hotter run mass by this to estimate what it would be at 80.6°F):

After #1 factor: 307.59 / 300.15 = 1.0248 (≈ +2.48%)

After #2 factor: 306.15 / 300.15 = 1.0200 (≈ +2.00%)

Apply that to what we saw in your logs
Peak cylinder airmass

Baseline: 0.99875

After #1 measured: 0.99300
Temp-corrected: 0.99300 × 1.0248 = 1.0177

After #2 measured: 0.993875
Temp-corrected: 0.993875 × 1.0200 = 1.0138

✅ Interpreting that:

Once you normalize for the hotter IAT2, both “after” pulls would have higher effective airmass than baseline.

That’s exactly what we’d expect if removing that front restriction improved the pressure/flow quality feeding the intake.

Peak MAF g/s (same idea)

Baseline measured: 53.6676 g/s

After #2 measured: 53.9295 g/s
Temp-corrected: 53.9295 × 1.0200 = 55.01 g/s

That’s a meaningful difference if everything else was similar.