[Evil-Bee-NH]

Originally Posted by Start The Machine

Very well said. I'd like to add, the first thing you need to know is, this car is EXTREMELY unconventional. Trying to tune this car is not for the faint of heart. It's a total PITA to figure out the best, safest, responsible tune for it. Your HP #'s are close though. On the stock turbo 270 - 290 HP max. You are going to need a larger turbo beyond those HP #'s. The next step up is larger wheel upgrade in the stock housing. That's going to "safely" net you an additional 40-50 HP = 320 - 340 HP max. Anything beyond that is going to be the ZZP ZFR Turbo. At that point, you're definitely going to need stock internals and everything else = $$$$$. Not sure if it's worth it at that point....

I'll second the unconventional headache this platform is. Anything and everything you add almost always requires you to restart from scratch to get it done right. I wouldn't even bother getting tuned until you've pieced together your bolt-on build. You can safely run without a tune a catted downpipe and cai amongst a few other things and feel the car open up but won't be able to fine tune things without a proper tune.

[wookwook]

Sanity check in a bottle. PASSED.. From least to most aggressive in a row. All anyone needs to know!

Happy Hunting!

Wooowhoook.

[JJ2218]

Here is a FB post I just saw with Racechip saying they have corrected some software issues for the Camaro. Just FYI.

6w
Ty Crittenden
Ty Crittenden: Chris McCollum I know previous turbo camaro had some issues racechip was working on correcting
Chris McCollum
Chris McCollum: You are correct and we have worked thru those . We have new software in the units now

[Evil-Bee-NH]

Originally Posted by JJ2218

Here is a FB post I just saw with Racechip saying they have corrected some software issues for the Camaro. Just FYI.

6w
Ty Crittenden
Ty Crittenden: Chris McCollum I know previous turbo camaro had some issues racechip was working on correcting
Chris McCollum
Chris McCollum: You are correct and we have worked thru those . We have new software in the units now

Handheld is a Handheld. Better to get a real tune.

[wookwook]

RC will be fun for the first 6 months. droid app is a gimmick, you will never need/want to dial down, its just not that progressive of a tune. its totally dependent on 93+ octane. I did the studies and tested anti knock additives. but then.. why? you can do a conservative tune for your desired octane, for about the same money and have a better outcome.



That all said, I STILL have my RC RS here and its collecting dust, so if someone wants to make a reasonable offer...... you WILL only ever use 5 in the summer and 6 in the cooler months using US gas. I did a lot of posting here on the outcome, you CAN have better fun w/o marking your ecu. I just advise people to not read too much into the ANY piece of news re the RC getting fixed, they did NOT specifically ackoweledge the GTS. Its typical marketing hype. GTS has been hit or miss. Use my RS and see if you want to graduate to GTS After Someone Else Endorses



W.

[JJ2218]

I agree some of the marketing is gimmicky, but 30whp for $400 is good money in my opinion. Especcially 30whp over a wide spread.

I would probably only turn it up for track/autox and turn it down other times. I usually put a half tank of 100 octane in for races. I'm tempted to ask how much you want for that Wook. Is locked to a particular car?

[wookwook]

yes- it is a good bang for the buck. exactly in the same category as the ecu write. I used it while learning a lot about the tuning. I am super cautious too, but after I figured out how the car works, I was confident to do the tune at 6.5k mi. after 20 +/- or so cars i never really had any issues that would have had warranty issues on the engine/drive train per-se, esp being bred of competition car dna, I think the warranty fear is over blown.

RC does great at starting line, low end torque for gratification at the red light, but if your gonna compete with it you will see how a tune will out perform it.

i recall it was around 650 for the RS and the XLR at that time. i think i paid 350 for the RS. I would like to see 275 for the RS, I think I even saved the original tie wraps. I would recommend (as everyone here does) the xlr (or similar) if you don't have one, it will really improve the throttle response. I use sport+, all mods together, it responds like a carburated engine or hold out for the soler TB for 2T.

maybe its more than you asked for and a little off topic, but i respect full disclosure.

PS I don't think it requires a re-registration, that's only if you try to reach support, youl have to pay a transfer fee. I can help if any questions. its (per GTS, not RS) prone to not - finding the center with the ECU- if you do things too fast, I just did short ramp runs in each setting and got to 5-6 after 3 or 4 short settling runs in each setting. no issues with the RS.

hope that helps.

W.

[wookwook]

compete level -

I was just thinking about your comment on fueling for track day. aside from the RC discussion you want to take a look. this graph has the AFR for RC -blue- and my tune -red-. You can see during this dyno RC is running leaner. If your logging it will show up as really red blocks under your STFT graph, running lean. you'll look at commanded vs actual lamba to see if the 02 sensor is showing the ecu calling a corrected air fuel mix at the sensor in the DP. An external WB sensor here, is reading lean in reality. I usually see a good trailing of actual to commanded when I am tuning out a change for a mod. It tends to default lean owing to the other alorithms on the ecu for fuel economy. once you made some change.

100 octane is going to actually aggravate this because if you don't set for a leaner stoich in the fuel map you will really be running lean, esp combined with RC, which interferes with sensible readings. so.. there. the moral is just be aware, plugging stuff in will have consequences .. potentially even worse outcome than avoiding a correction tune because of fear of voiding warranty, people ( not picking on you! ) think tuning is just bad at any expense and plugging stuff on is completely safe. Any one thing may be 'safe' but compounding changes can add up.

Then - towards the high rev range I'm oversaturated with fuel on RC. This can be a huge problem if your combining high heat and unvaporized fuel. Even more so if you have pinging, your getting set up for a failed piston. Personally I am not a fan of fuel for cooling, my race strategy is to say on target AFR.

[JJ2218]

Originally Posted by wookwook

compete level -

I was just thinking about your comment on fueling for track day. aside from the RC discussion you want to take a look. this graph has the AFR for RC -blue- and my tune -red-. You can see during this dyno RC is running leaner. If your logging it will show up as really red blocks under your STFT graph, running lean. you'll look at commanded vs actual lamba to see if the 02 sensor is showing the ecu calling a corrected air fuel mix at the sensor in the DP. An external WB sensor here, is reading lean in reality. I usually see a good trailing of actual to commanded when I am tuning out a change for a mod. It tends to default lean owing to the other alorithms on the ecu for fuel economy. once you made some change.

100 octane is going to actually aggravate this because if you don't set for a leaner stoich in the fuel map you will really be running lean, esp combined with RC, which interferes with sensible readings. so.. there. the moral is just be aware, plugging stuff in will have consequences .. potentially even worse outcome than avoiding a correction tune because of fear of voiding warranty, people ( not picking on you! ) think tuning is just bad at any expense and plugging stuff on is completely safe. Any one thing may be 'safe' but compounding changes can add up.

Then - towards the high rev range I'm oversaturated with fuel on RC. This can be a huge problem if your combining high heat and unvaporized fuel. Even more so if you have pinging, your getting set up for a failed piston. Personally I am not a fan of fuel for cooling, my race strategy is to say on target AFR.


Attachment 1013738

Thank you for the info. It brings two questions. How will 100 octane have any effect on AFR? Second is everything Ive ever read on turbos says richer is safer. Is there some other thought on this?

My main motivation toward RC is price, warranty, and ease of uninstall. My mind is not made up towards anything really, I just love to research.

[wookwook]

hi! good point I did make a little faus pas, I accidentally clicked on the wrong race fuel when i was looking it up. but even if your dosing with boostane there's a stoich compensation chart in there somewhere too. the point I was making is be careful stacking seemingly minor changes. one way to do that is do logging if you aren't.

yup same totally! its a hugely challenging field to try and understand! AND do safely on your own car, lol... I hear ya on the thought of lamba preferences. also due to much reading and research. I think that some readers will get a sense of why the 'dark side' has seemingly opposite views as what is common out there with 'traditional' old school tuning. I come across really engrossing blogs from open water (boat) engine builders and aircraft engine builders. I come to my own conclusions and preferences from there.


this is an edit: i was running out the door when I posted, but what I 'think' you are getting to is fuel enrichment. yes there is enrichment in the the fuel ratio as rpms and power demands dictate and the modern vernacular is lambda and ours goes to around .82 at WOT. this (Short Term Fuel Trim) is fine tuned via MAF calibration (in steady state and WOT). The accurate fuel recipe needs to be entered (as stoich value) in the fuel table so the ecu knows what to expect (there are sub algorithms that use this data). the default is 13.9-ish for 93 octane E10 in the E80A. If you have a wonky MAF calibration or an external effect on the MAF sensor (CAI is a common one) it can result in a skew in the AFR line like in the RC blue line, the Stoich does Not change.




sorry if this is redundant, mostly for the enrichment of interested viewers..


We can leave it to others to chime in on AFR, this gets a little past the usual level of chat on here, but there are some who would be able to add in.


W.

[cooper1965]

Originally Posted by wookwook

towards the high rev range I'm over saturated with fuel on RC. This can be a huge problem if your combining high heat and vaporized fuel.
Attachment 1013738

This!

Originally Posted by wookwook

I am not a fan of fuel for cooling, my race strategy is to say on target AFR.
Attachment 1013738

Why? There are enormous benefits too the natural cooling abilities of some fuels. If you use ethanol, you will stay at target Lambda easily, and take full advantage of lower cylinder pressures.

[wookwook]

#2 yes. not disputing that nor that fuel (types) does cool. I am just pointing out that knowing what is actually going on vs. just building up, without tracking your metric is important. Also to point out, .82 commanded lambda is pretty rich already so consider the intelligence(?) already baked in to the E80. I mean I saw the rich puff coming out the exhaust on the blue RC run. thats all im sayin. don't need to compensate for something that's already managed. remember were talking ltg here. (maybe my micro focus gets bled over to open boxes)

all im sayin, if ur getting started, learn to log its not intrusive on the ecu, and compare to whats going on out there. then it makes things much easier when trying to understand your goals.

Andre gives a great demo on this here. there's also one out there that he does with EGTs vs afr.

[cooper1965]

Oh I got ya. Read it a different way

[wookwook]

yea, no i meant it as "throwing more GAS on the fire when its already enriched",. ethanol wasn't brought up.