[427]

Waiting on the Mishimoto intercooler, I still think it will help if I run on a hotter day. The thing I learned was the cat and the silencer/muffler add enough power for reaching my goal. Blown up engines are most likely connected to people altering the tune and adding more load than the parts can take. The cal guys at GM are not fools, and they don't want the car slow. They are limited by engineering data telling them what level the parts can take, and they stay away from anything by the edge.



Kurt

Originally Posted by 95TA - The Beast

Kickass, that is real useful "realworld" data we can all use.

Nice to see that you proved out the "race gas" aspect that is part of the owners manual.

So, what that REALLY means is that the engine is designed to run hard under racegas and is marginal when run hard under pump gas.

Again, this comes down to "engineered parameters". ie, it is "on the edge" all the time and expects to compensate just ahead of "bad circumstances". Which, if you spec race gas is somewhat OK in regards to having margin. But, that is not unlike shooting for a 91 octane fuel requirement and then getting "bad gas" (or the stations tank was filled with the wrong octane) and the octane dropping to 87 and you needing the computer to "figure it out" and not blow anything up.

In other words, it is all a compromise. Again, it just illustrates how the factory really needed to put in forged rods and pistons from the start.

Again, good to know that the engineering really works "in the real world". But, I also have to wonder if you "just got a good one" compared to many horror stories of people popping their engines driving "normal".

I would bet that the closed-loop status of the system has some serious "holes" in it. What I mean by that is that a combination of "bad sensor data" that happens more often than expected can (and does) cause a "perfect storm" and the system applies more timing that it should.

Either that, or there are a lot of "bad batches" of either pistons or poorly gapped top rings that cause problems. Oh, and I am sure there are plenty of "bad tunes" out there as well that end up causing issues.

BTW, which intercooler have you been waiting for?

[95TA - The Beast]

I would have to say I completely agree with 427, in that higher octane gas won't keep an engine together if it can't take the stress, but it will stave off detonation that would normally occur because of compression/timing/heat factors.

Honestly, it is basically like putting in a bigger intercooler. We do that to keep temps down to help prevent detonation (which also allows the computer to add more timing due to higher air density, which produces more power and gets us closer to detonation again, but in general cooler intake temps result in a lower chance of detonation), but higher octane fuel won't increase power over what the computer figures is "max timing" based on temps.

I believe 427 stated that the computer was pulling timing, so it must have felt that intake temps were high enough to pull timing. I am sure it wasn't because it detected knock as it would gradually add back in until it knocked again. The calculations based on intake temps and engine speed will pull timing if it feels it is too close to detonation. It will also pull timing if it feels the torque is too high as it will keep torque at the level specified in the tune.

Our cars do not have a flex-fuel system engineered in (that is why adding E85 is a hack, since the rest of the tune is not optimized from the factory for the sensor and its input), thus they cannot sense octane capabilities, so they are designed with 93 octane in mind and anything above that is just as 427 stated, insurance against detonation.

Now, does that mean our cars won't detonate with 99+ octane fuel, per the stock program I would almost be assured of it, until temps get too high. But with the airflow 427 had across the intercooler it calculated enough timing retard to keep it from detonating even at high RPMs and high speeds.

Honestly, it would be interesting to see how a built engine with forged pistons and rods and a proper tune would fare under such circumstances. Say something putting out 400hp with all the rest of the parts designed around such output (larger intercooler, bigger cam fuel lobes, higher output low-pressure pump, bigger radiator, larger turbo, etc). Our cars get away with quick power "tweaks" without all the rest of that stuff because they don't spend much time in max power output. Quick pulls while driving are spikes in demand that don't really tax most of those systems. Even the stock intercooler doesn't really heat soak at all until you do sustained WOT driving.

[95TA - The Beast]

Originally Posted by 427

Blown up engines are most likely connected to people altering the tune and adding more load than the parts can take. The cal guys at GM are not fools, and they don't want the car slow. They are limited by engineering data telling them what level the parts can take, and they stay away from anything by the edge.



Kurt

I will agree with everything you said, but I will add I do think that "bad batches" of parts contributed a lot early on in the LTG production cycle. There were known-bad batches of pistons, bearings, and even way too smaller gapped top rings that all contributed to failures in the 2013-2015 engines.

By 2016+ they had everything worked out and as you stated, I think the majority of failures of 2016+ engines rests solely with bad tunes. People trying to run E85 (again a hack on this engine), bad driving, faulty parts (sorry a bypass valve change from stock is not proper and changes the parameters the computer expects to control) and any number of other factors contribute.

If you drive the snot out of a stock engine with no mods, it just flat out won't break as long as you don't do something stupid (ie, over-rev). Especially on an automatic I think anyone would be hard pressed to damage the engine no matter how hard they pushed things as long as it was well-maintained. And that means following the "competition" parameters of 99+ octane fuel and extra oil in the crankcase if you are going to be driving it as if you are in a competition (in other words, driving the snot out of it no matter what/where).

[cooper1965]

OMG, I think I remember why I stopped coming on this forum lol..

[BrandanK]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

OMG, I think I remember why I stopped coming on this forum lol..

I had to roll my eyes a few times also when reading this thread. Kind of wish I would have just scrolled past it. lol

[95TA - The Beast]

cooper1965, if you are referring to the fact that I called E85 compatibility a hack, sorry but it is.

It was never offered from the factory as a stock option for "flex fuel" on these vehicles. Because of that it is a hacked in place change.

Regardless if there are tables that allow for it, and that the tune "uses" those tables, it doesn't change the fact that GM never decided to offer it as an option. Considering how popular "flex-fuel" is, there has to be a reason, and that probably being that to get the tune 100% buleltproof for this application was unreasonable, otherwise they would have offered it.

This isn't some sort of "guess" it is fact. They did not offer it, period.

Thus I stand by my assessment that it is a "hack", just like meth-injection is a "hack". Anything added after the initial engineering is a matter of concern. Larger turbo, not a "hack" given the fact it was turbocharged from the factory. Modified tune to use a larger turbo, again, not a hack as it is using stock programming.

Now a LOT of tunes are pure "hacks" and not calculated modifications. Again, why lots of people have problems and blow engines.

[cooper1965]

Originally Posted by 95TA - The Beast

cooper1965, if you are referring to the fact that I called E85 compatibility a hack, sorry but it is.

It was never offered from the factory as a stock option for "flex fuel" on these vehicles. Because of that it is a hacked in place change.

Regardless if there are tables that allow for it, and that the tune "uses" those tables, it doesn't change the fact that GM never decided to offer it as an option. Considering how popular "flex-fuel" is, there has to be a reason, and that probably being that to get the tune 100% buleltproof for this application was unreasonable, otherwise they would have offered it.

This isn't some sort of "guess" it is fact. They did not offer it, period.

Thus I stand by my assessment that it is a "hack", just like meth-injection is a "hack". Anything added after the initial engineering is a matter of concern. Larger turbo, not a "hack" given the fact it was turbocharged from the factory. Modified tune to use a larger turbo, again, not a hack as it is using stock programming.

Now a LOT of tunes are pure "hacks" and not calculated modifications. Again, why lots of people have problems and blow engines.

You should probably refrain from tagging me. It's beyond clear, you have little to no background on any of the subjects you are referring too, much less, a basic understanding of how this PCM logic works and operates. Not to mention the claim of "Why" GM didn't offer it as a factory option, LOLOLOL.. You probably don't know this "FACT", but I was actually the first LTG in the country tuned in HPTuners by myself, for actual working flex-fuel operations. That was 3 years, and almost 70k miles ago.. I'm still here, stock engine, big turbo, bolt-ons galore, ect ect.. Zero issues.. You can not call something you don't understand a "Hack"...Its that simple.. 85% of this entire threads statements are absurdly in-accurate, yet posters act as though they are VERY adept to the subject matter.. Its almost comical.. Not trying to be rude, as I feel there is always something more to learn everyday in life. Good luck on your build, or lack of..

[95TA - The Beast]

Anything not offered from the factory is a "hack". That much is obvious. To argue otherwise is just ignorant.

It was not a factory option. End of subject. Anything else is stupid.

And the arrogance of people is just as ignorant as your comments.

If you are 56 years old (based on your name part of "1965") I would imagine you know the difference of "from the factory" and "hacked into place". Even if you are younger, to state otherwise is foolish.

Fact of the matter is people blow these engines. Plain and simple. There are, of course, contributing factors, a major part is the tune. Just because you may have tuned your setup "safe" doesn't mean everyone does and every tuner does.

From your generalized comments it is obvious your are far to arrogant to see what is being discussed and comment on any of it in a reasonable manner.

There have been people doing tuning for far longer, and there are those of us that have been waiting for OEM systems to use "calculated" calibrations for a very long time, so to say that people don't know or understand something is beyond arrogant, but foolhardy.

Just like there are people that say a given combo can't produce the power someone gets out of it. It all comes down to details and doing things to finite detail that can get gains that to most "don't add up", yet people figure it out and then are able to do what other cannot. Sure, they are outliers, but it happens. And what it consistently happens it is no longer considered "luck" or "circumstance" and falls completely into the realm of "skill" and "knowledge". There is a HUGE gap between those extremes with many many many builds required to get to that upper-level of accomplishment.

Far too many think that just because they accomplish something that they can consistently do it. To do that you need to understand all factors involved and account for all the parameters that are "less than ideal" to still fulfill the promise of a certain level of performance. That is why there are "factory freaks" in regards to certain engines performing extremely well. There are also a LOT of "factory duds" that require full builds to get them into a level of consistency and reliability.

People can't promise others something without understanding the range of what they will encounter. That is why tuners for the LTG platform, if they have any brains whatsoever, never make a solid promise at all above and beyond "stock parts". Again, if you got a "bad one" anything that will produce more power runs the risk of making it let go sooner than later.

Oh, and because you did a flex-fuel tune before anyone means absolutely nothing. Again, GM did not enable it on this platform for a reason. Plain and simple. It does not exist as a factory option on any LTG platform out there, period. So, yes, it is a "hack".

Back in the day there was the ability to modify a car without traction control to use the traction control tables to impose a timing retard "on demand", which kept everything under PCM control including nitrous. That was a "hack" to use the PCM that way. same difference.

Again, if GM offered a flex-fuel LTG and people could go off that for their tune, great. But for all you know there is a "hole" in the programming, where under certain circumstances it doesn't account properly for something and can cause a lean condition. Not saying that is the case or not, but GM decided it wasn't worth the risk to add E85 compatibility to the LTG platform, so there is some engineering reason behind it. THAT is fact.

[cooper1965]

Originally Posted by 95TA - The Beast

Anything not offered from the factory is a "hack". That much is obvious. To argue otherwise is just ignorant.

It was not a factory option. End of subject. Anything else is stupid.

And the arrogance of people is just as ignorant as your comments.

If you are 56 years old (based on your name part of "1965") I would imagine you know the difference of "from the factory" and "hacked into place". Even if you are younger, to state otherwise is foolish.

Fact of the matter is people blow these engines. Plain and simple. There are, of course, contributing factors, a major part is the tune. Just because you may have tuned your setup "safe" doesn't mean everyone does and every tuner does.

From your generalized comments it is obvious your are far to arrogant to see what is being discussed and comment on any of it in a reasonable manner.

There have been people doing tuning for far longer, and there are those of us that have been waiting for OEM systems to use "calculated" calibrations for a very long time, so to say that people don't know or understand something is beyond arrogant, but foolhardy.

Just like there are people that say a given combo can't produce the power someone gets out of it. It all comes down to details and doing things to finite detail that can get gains that to most "don't add up", yet people figure it out and then are able to do what other cannot. Sure, they are outliers, but it happens. And what it consistently happens it is no longer considered "luck" or "circumstance" and falls completely into the realm of "skill" and "knowledge". There is a HUGE gap between those extremes with many many many builds required to get to that upper-level of accomplishment.

Far too many think that just because they accomplish something that they can consistently do it. To do that you need to understand all factors involved and account for all the parameters that are "less than ideal" to still fulfill the promise of a certain level of performance. That is why there are "factory freaks" in regards to certain engines performing extremely well. There are also a LOT of "factory duds" that require full builds to get them into a level of consistency and reliability.

People can't promise others something without understanding the range of what they will encounter. That is why tuners for the LTG platform, if they have any brains whatsoever, never make a solid promise at all above and beyond "stock parts". Again, if you got a "bad one" anything that will produce more power runs the risk of making it let go sooner than later.

Oh, and because you did a flex-fuel tune before anyone means absolutely nothing. Again, GM did not enable it on this platform for a reason. Plain and simple. It does not exist as a factory option on any LTG platform out there, period. So, yes, it is a "hack".

Back in the day there was the ability to modify a car without traction control to use the traction control tables to impose a timing retard "on demand", which kept everything under PCM control including nitrous. That was a "hack" to use the PCM that way. same difference.

Again, if GM offered a flex-fuel LTG and people could go off that for their tune, great. But for all you know there is a "hole" in the programming, where under certain circumstances it doesn't account properly for something and can cause a lean condition. Not saying that is the case or not, but GM decided it wasn't worth the risk to add E85 compatibility to the LTG platform, so there is some engineering reason behind it. THAT is fact.

This is GREAT! But, you should really stop posting.. lol

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by 95TA - The Beast

...GM decided it wasn't worth the risk to add E85 compatibility to the LTG platform, so there is some engineering reason behind it. THAT is fact.

I understand the overall point you're making (put simply, "not OEM" equals "hacked"), and it's fair enough.

However, you're also conflating "OEM" with "best possible" in the process. There is absolutely no reason to assume proper engineering reasons to be behind all corporate product decisions. Is there a risk in deviating from them? There sure is, mostly because not all pertinent information is made available, but then it would also be downright silly to assume that GM employs the best minds in the industry, so even with this handicap, excellent aftermarket solutions ("hacks") can be and are produced.

Again, if GM is anything like the megacorporation I work at, and chances are all big companies trend towards the same governing principles, then engineering concerns take a back seat in a growing number of cases, so I imagine it's quite possible to improve on OEM offerings or to fill a void such as flex fuel not being offered.

[95TA - The Beast]

arpad_m, I am not arguing any (or even all the points you make up, as they are all quite valid), but what I am saying is that "Flex Fuel" is a MAJOR selling point to many. It opens a lot of different markets, both domestic and foreign and it would be absolutely INSANE from a marketing perspective to NOT add it if it was possible.

That is the whole point. That GM felt that adding it was too risky. And, yes, I have confirmed that with engineers at GM. (to cooper1965: pointing out that you have no clue who you are talking to and your arrogance shows a lack of maturity, since there are plenty of us that have been quite accomplished and have connections of our own cultivated over a lifetime of accomplishments).

Plenty of the other "variants" of the ecotec platform have and are Flex-Fuel enabled.

One of the engineering decisions for the LTG was because it was offered as a crate-engine and as such they had no clue what it might be powering, thus flex-fuel would be too risky in regards to running lean in a boosted application. Their major concern was lack of load vs too much load (ie, the vehicle it would be installed in could be too light, vs too heavy), in regards to quick-state transitions that could be anticipated (ie, racing a super-light vehicle with too many gears).

[cooper1965]

Originally Posted by 95TA - The Beast

arpad_m, I am not arguing any (or even all the points you make up, as they are all quite valid), but what I am saying is that "Flex Fuel" is a MAJOR selling point to many. It opens a lot of different markets, both domestic and foreign and it would be absolutely INSANE from a marketing perspective to NOT add it if it was possible.

That is the whole point. That GM felt that adding it was too risky. And, yes, I have confirmed that with engineers at GM. (to cooper1965: pointing out that you have no clue who you are talking to and your arrogance shows a lack of maturity, since there are plenty of us that have been quite accomplished and have connections of our own cultivated over a lifetime of accomplishments).

Plenty of the other "variants" of the ecotec platform have and are Flex-Fuel enabled.

One of the engineering decisions for the LTG was because it was offered as a crate-engine and as such they had no clue what it might be powering, thus flex-fuel would be too risky in regards to running lean in a boosted application. Their major concern was lack of load vs too much load (ie, the vehicle it would be installed in could be too light, vs too heavy), in regards to quick-state transitions that could be anticipated (ie, racing a super-light vehicle with too many gears).

Huh,.. That's convenient you have a friend that's just happens to be one of the LTG engineers. Wow, small world. You should have asked him to proof read your message before sending it, as you must have got a few things confused. A: The crate engine would have nothing in the world to do with a flew fuel sensor.. Its not even mounted to the engine in any form or fashion. B: Even if it was, it wouldn't matter as the LTG crate engine uses a specially calibrated PCM for, YOU guessed it,... stand alone applications...


My guess is A: Your conversation never happened... B: The reason it was not a factory option has nothing in in the world to do with anything other than Cost, and that final price on the window sticker.. Thats it... Nothing more, nothing less..

[95TA - The Beast]

Cooper you are laughable.

A standalone PCM has nothing to do with the fact that they couldn't get flex fuel to be reliable on this setup.

And who said I knew a LTG engineer. GM employs thousands of engineers. And a large portion of certain powertrain engineers (as well as people on the PCM side, testing, patent side, product reliability, government compliance, etc, etc) have access to engineering notes, designs, test results, etc, etc. They can read and see for themselves exactly why and how things did or did not get implemented.

You are reaching and it is obvious you have no clue. Being able to have the LTG flex fuel compatible MAKES them a TON more money. Cost for a $15 sensor (GM cost and $90 aftermarket cost, which goes to show how much of a rape job the flex-fuel kits for $250+ are) and a couple of fittings, two wires and connector and fuse-block pin are negligible compared to benefit of having a Flex Fuel certification.

I just find it funny that you get all upset because I called a hack a hack. Grow up.

[Davescamaro]

Both of you are hilarious with your ecm 2 cents worth which is great info, but overkill. The poor guy who started this thread wanted nothing more than 20 more reliable hp in which true fact, comes standard in any 6.2L platform. Thr fact you two drive an argument over engineering fact that this 2.0 turbo came as an option only in the later 2016 production cars and was previously an ATS motor for us less affordable guys. I simply bought it as a turbo car sedan option and see the faster way of gaining hp and tq than the v6 option weighs in that your pushing limits too far than what we can get. Fact: fastest recorded 2.0 ltg camaro is pushing 10s in the 1/4 while we're getting our hands dusted by i4's by honda and other competitors is a shame. We have limited resources due to the fact we don't have accessible resources as the 6.2 cause they don't have a huge demand for it.
400hp or less is quite remarkable for an i4 daily driven. Technology is great, but look at your front case cover, see an oil seep at it that gm knows about it and won't do a thing?