09-25-2021, 10:01 AM | #99 |
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 929
|
Was watching som goatrope garage, and came across the method to calculate engine hp in hp tuners using engine torque value, and rpm. Wont go into details on everything talked about in that video, but I'm seeing some interesting correlations between my time I ran at the track, reverse engineering horsepower values from that time using online calculators... and using HPTuners to calculate horsepower.
I do NOT believe these numbers to be completely accurate and/or a substitution for a dyno, but what I am starting to believe is that this can be used as a measurement tool in lieu of having a dyno. What I mean is this can be useful for comparing one run to the next for improvements/changes, but I do NOT believe that the numbers represent ABSOLUTE values. So when I say I have 725 engine hp below... i dont necessarily believe I have an actual 725 hp, but it shows an improvement over prior runs. So the interesting bit is how much the calculated value in hp tuners, before I started the tuning, correlated with the reverse engineered hp based on 1/4 mi MPH. Calculating engine hp from my 1/4 mi MPH yielded 540 horsepower estimated at the engine. I assume this is average horsepower over the run, not peak hp. Calculating horsepower from Engine Torque and RPM at the start of my tuning yielded a calculated approx 580 peak engine hp at the highest. Probably averaging around 540 or so over the course of the rpm range I would have been traversing. Pretty cool correlation, whether true or not. After some of my tuning with MAF, PE, and timing, HP Tuners is now calculating 725 HP peak. This correlates with the higher MAF freq values I've been seeing as well. Ingest more air, add more fuel, burn it properly, get more hp. This is verified by seat of the pants feel. Do I think I have an actual 725 HP now at the engine???... meh... no way to know without a track run or dyno, but what I think it shows is a clear indication of improvement in the tune. |
09-25-2021, 10:02 AM | #100 | |
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 929
|
Quote:
|
|
09-25-2021, 12:16 PM | #101 |
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 929
|
3 bar installed. Feels to me like the throttle response is much better with the baro breakout.
Also... the 3-bar is measuring 154 kpa peak, which means my boost gauge is probably not very accurate. :( AEM boost gauge only shows 6.6 psi max, but 154 kpa minus baro is about 7.6 psi. I think there is still some gains to be had in terms of tweaking the timing. There's still some odd (to me) KR at the top end of the rpm range, and some light KR in the middle rpms too at times. I'm not confident it's for real... a couple of the runs it seemed to go away, but other runs with same settings it was there. Some experimentation with timing again should help. I'll try ramping up and down from my current and see where it takes me. Maybe I can run a bit more timing after all. I'll play with the PE again too. Was taking some baby steps in increasing the PE and watching low side fuel. So, up to this point, I feel very good about the tuning changes. Learned a lot. Not quite 100% sure where I want to go next. Prob try to get back to the track for another pass or three before I make any major changes, meaning new hardware. Hope someone else finds this useful. I'll continue to post anything I find significant. I feel like there's a lot of other folks out there that could save hundreds of dollars on custom tuning, or are interested in at least making their canned tune safer. Is my tune as good as on a dyno? Almost certainly not, but it was a lot of fun, and feel I have a much better understanding if I ever do get access to one. Or at the very least I can understand and validate changes someone else might want to make to the tune if I take it somewhere. Some eye candy from the very last run I did this AM: |
09-25-2021, 01:53 PM | #102 |
Did you change the linear and offset? 325 & -11.25....the baro breakout is nice and I noticed a difference when I installed mine too. Obviously, since the dyno tune it's a completely different animal.
I'd have to look at what mine maxes out at WOT for reference to yours. My aeroforce gauge is showing 7.5PSI close to redline. I installed the wideband today behind the first cat on bank 1. Much happier with the A pillar instead of the vent. I finally pulled the tune last night and saw a lot of the changes compared to the Procharger tune. I'm pretty happy just having to learn how to drive it again and with no TCS...
__________________
2017 Camaro 1SS
Procharger P1X Stage 2 intercooler |
|
09-25-2021, 05:19 PM | #103 | |
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 929
|
Quote:
|
|
09-25-2021, 06:06 PM | #104 |
Yes but there is a restraint that keeps it from doing that if the airbag deploys. I wasn't a fan of the dash pod so I changed it. The wideband is so nice to have in there. I also disconnected the negative during the install and of course upon reconnecting I had to re-index the windows and it now says service vehicle soon every time I start....
__________________
2017 Camaro 1SS
Procharger P1X Stage 2 intercooler Last edited by ZachU; 09-25-2021 at 06:57 PM. |
|
09-26-2021, 06:58 AM | #105 |
Drives: 2017 Camaro 1SS Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NH
Posts: 1,692
|
Did you notice how the estimated hp was almost 50 less than the prior estimate? Estimated 725 hp screenshot had a bogus 118 kPa MAP reading while this new 677 hp estimate has the real manifold pressure, not sure how a lower MAP reading would have raised the estimated hp though. BARO reading was obviously bogus too before you did the breakout, not sure if that significantly messed up the estimate? Mine when I still had the BARO coming from the MAF with the supercharger, it had reported as much as 122 kPa barometer, which is obviously bogus.
|
09-26-2021, 11:22 AM | #106 | |
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 929
|
Quote:
|
|
09-26-2021, 11:41 AM | #107 |
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 929
|
Ok, some big changes to PE and spark.
#1 worked PE down to around .816 for most of the rpm range. Fuel still scary low at 35-ish psi at worst. prob not going to push PE much further. #2 I'm concluding that the knock retard is mostly false. With the lower EQ, I've pushed timing in the middle rpm ranges back up into the 15-17 range (was down around 13) and I'm not really seeing proportional increases in knock. It's SLIGHTLY higher, but where it was like .01 or .02 degrees before... it's more like .03 or .04 now, not really sure how much to worry about that level of KR, because even down at 12 degrees advance, there was still some KR showing up around .02-.03 even... #3 Related to #2... With the lower PE/EQ, I've pushed up the whole timing curve by a few degrees, it really seems to be making a big difference in power. So addl fuel + addl spark. At .85 EQ... 13 seemed to be a sweet spot. With .81 it's liking more timing. I have two issues now... Good issues I guess. Issue #1 - My PE/EQ ratio is laggy at the low rpm range, which seems to set off the KR that is there. Not getting the desired EQ on the wideband that is being commanded. Not sure if this is an issue of further MAF tuning... or something else. The delay factors and all that were turned off by the canned tune already... so I dont think this related to the PE settings. It kind of eventually meanders down to sync up between commanded and actual EQ right now. Issue #2 - With more power, I'm getting some torque management spark retard at two trouble spots. I've looked at the Driver Demand table... the canned tune maxed out the 98/100% throttle at like 12,000... so I'm thinking its not related to driver demand. Another source pointed to the VCP Spark tables, but the onset of this doesn't seem to correlate with any of the non-zero values in that table. Not sure what to look at next. See image for the TQ mgt interference |
09-26-2021, 06:56 PM | #108 |
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 929
|
Now realizing... maybe I just forgot to turn off the traction control on that last run for the torque management issue :( Will retest tomorrow.
|
09-27-2021, 08:47 AM | #109 |
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 929
|
Definitely not a traction control issue. I always turn off everything I can (track ode, hold down tc button for 10 seconds to disable TC and ESC). I am seeing the same thing in most of my recent logs. So something is not right.
|
09-27-2021, 10:04 AM | #110 | |
Drives: 2017 Camaro 1SS Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NH
Posts: 1,692
|
Quote:
Immediate Engine Torque Source Trans Engine Torque |
|
09-27-2021, 10:07 AM | #111 | |
Drives: HBM ZLE Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: In the garage
Posts: 802
|
Quote:
|
|
09-27-2021, 10:48 AM | #112 |
Drives: 2016 1SS NFG A8 Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: 46804
Posts: 6,793
|
It's hard saying, I just use the data to compare gains on my setup.
Mine hits 1.5g of cylinder airmass and 85lb/min on maf. HP based on TQ/RPM 918 which I doubt is accurate. But the cylinder airmass and maf tell me it's making good power. Especially for a Stock Engine LT1 with a fuel system and 10psi average 11psi peak on E50 with 18 degrees of timing.
__________________
2016 NFG 1SS A8
Options-2SS Leather/NPP Perf. mods-Whipple 2.9/Fuel System/Flex Fuel/103mm TB/Rotofab Big Gulp/Cat Deletes/Corsa NPP Per. times- 10.5 @ 137 w/ 1.8 60ft Full weight on 20's 1200DA |
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|