Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Forced Induction Discussions


BeckyD @ James Martin Chevy


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-25-2021, 10:01 AM   #99
cjperformance

 
cjperformance's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 927
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.
Attached Images
  
cjperformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 10:02 AM   #100
cjperformance

 
cjperformance's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLT1 View Post
If you have the fuel system module licensed go into the sytem/general/ fuel system minimum and up the voltages from 14.7 to 15.5 from about 159 lb/hr on up.

Next set the Diag System Voltage low to 12.5v.

Then go to fuel system/fuel pressure/ Normal and set it to 50.8psi.

See if that helps your low side out.
Great! Will put on the todo list for sure.
cjperformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 12:16 PM   #101
cjperformance

 
cjperformance's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 927
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:
Attached Images
 
cjperformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 01:53 PM   #102
ZachU
 
ZachU's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Fort Worth Texas
Posts: 96
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...
Attached Images
 
__________________
2017 Camaro 1SS
Procharger P1X Stage 2 intercooler
ZachU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 05:19 PM   #103
cjperformance

 
cjperformance's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachU View Post
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...
Is there an airbag behind those gauges? I was hesitant to get that thinking id get a shotgun blast of gauges to the face if it went off
cjperformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 06:06 PM   #104
ZachU
 
ZachU's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Fort Worth Texas
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjperformance View Post
Is there an airbag behind those gauges? I was hesitant to get that thinking id get a shotgun blast of gauges to the face if it went off
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.
ZachU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2021, 06:58 AM   #105
wnta1ss

 
Drives: 2017 Camaro 1SS
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NH
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjperformance View Post
Some eye candy from the very last run I did this AM:
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.
wnta1ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2021, 11:22 AM   #106
cjperformance

 
cjperformance's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnta1ss View Post
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.
Yeah, not sure what's going on there. It's a "thing of interest" at the moment. It's all math based... so ???? Also, the previous run was on the day before, and temps on the second run with the baro breakout were higher by about 10 degrees. So that could have something to do with it.
cjperformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2021, 11:41 AM   #107
cjperformance

 
cjperformance's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 927
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
Attached Images
 
cjperformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2021, 06:56 PM   #108
cjperformance

 
cjperformance's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 927
Now realizing... maybe I just forgot to turn off the traction control on that last run for the torque management issue :( Will retest tomorrow.
cjperformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2021, 08:47 AM   #109
cjperformance

 
cjperformance's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro SS 50th Anniversary
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Missouri
Posts: 927
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.
cjperformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2021, 10:04 AM   #110
wnta1ss

 
Drives: 2017 Camaro 1SS
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NH
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjperformance View Post
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.
Speedometer channel had not shown a bump (indicating wheelspin) so the TC did seem an unlikely source for that event. You could try adding some more channels looking for a possible cause?

Immediate Engine Torque Source
Trans Engine Torque
wnta1ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2021, 10:07 AM   #111
Evansa22

 
Evansa22's Avatar
 
Drives: HBM ZLE
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: In the garage
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjperformance View Post
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.
When estimating horsepower, were you talking about maf flow also? Or just using rpm and engine torque? Rough estimate is taking your maf in lbs/min and move the decimal over one or multiple by 10, same thing. So it was showing 724 on last log you posted. Right at the 725 you stated if everything is reading correct.
Evansa22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2021, 10:48 AM   #112
KingLT1


 
KingLT1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 1SS NFG A8
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: 46804
Posts: 6,764
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
KingLT1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.