New Best 9.84! Pulled the wheels!
10-21-2018, 03:04 PM
#61
Do you have a wideband o2 to monitor things?
10-21-2018, 03:08 PM
#62
Team Owner
like the gears are stronger.
10-21-2018, 03:18 PM
#64
Racer
Thread Starter
HessViper yes I have a wideband in the car and I log the runs. I was a bit fat on my run- I was seeing an EQ ratio of .81-.82.
The following users liked this post:
HessViper (10-21-2018)
10-21-2018, 03:23 PM
#65
we are going to run testing this coming week on stock tune cars with the baro broken out, and see how the stock tune reacts at high speeds. If all goes well, this will be another product that gets launched soon for the stock tune vehicles, and also the aftermarket tune cars obviously.
10-21-2018, 03:28 PM
#66
I believe Halltech company may suggest or insist that a person tune their vehicle for the Tric intake...
however, we think we might be able to get it to work on the stock tune cars between the broken out baro and the other product we are working on to fool the computer from throwing codes. As long as the stock tune afr are inline, then we see no harm.
Our goal is literally to have a stock tune car carry all the bolt on upgrades that Avtarv's car currently has, and if the ported blower can be carried as well, then that would be a great milestone for us to get to. One thing at a time though.
As mentioned before, we are appreciative of this thread, it caused us to realize a key to this puzzle that we were still ignoring.
however, we think we might be able to get it to work on the stock tune cars between the broken out baro and the other product we are working on to fool the computer from throwing codes. As long as the stock tune afr are inline, then we see no harm.
Our goal is literally to have a stock tune car carry all the bolt on upgrades that Avtarv's car currently has, and if the ported blower can be carried as well, then that would be a great milestone for us to get to. One thing at a time though.
As mentioned before, we are appreciative of this thread, it caused us to realize a key to this puzzle that we were still ignoring.
10-21-2018, 03:53 PM
#67
Racer
Thread Starter
I believe Halltech company may suggest or insist that a person tune their vehicle for the Tric intake...
however, we think we might be able to get it to work on the stock tune cars between the broken out baro and the other product we are working on to fool the computer from throwing codes. As long as the stock tune afr are inline, then we see no harm.
Our goal is literally to have a stock tune car carry all the bolt on upgrades that Avtarv's car currently has, and if the ported blower can be carried as well, then that would be a great milestone for us to get to. One thing at a time though.
As mentioned before, we are appreciative of this thread, it caused us to realize a key to this puzzle that we were still ignoring.
however, we think we might be able to get it to work on the stock tune cars between the broken out baro and the other product we are working on to fool the computer from throwing codes. As long as the stock tune afr are inline, then we see no harm.
Our goal is literally to have a stock tune car carry all the bolt on upgrades that Avtarv's car currently has, and if the ported blower can be carried as well, then that would be a great milestone for us to get to. One thing at a time though.
As mentioned before, we are appreciative of this thread, it caused us to realize a key to this puzzle that we were still ignoring.
10-21-2018, 04:07 PM
#68
Race Director
Member Since: Jul 2007
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 10,763
Received 2,379 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Last edited by Higgs Boson; 10-21-2018 at 04:12 PM.
10-21-2018, 05:54 PM
#70
His MATs are only 138*, and his timing IAT/Timing retard is set for 150*...so it "should not" be pulling timing. 138* is not that hot at all..... My bone stock car has seen higher MATs.(intake air temps, post blower).
For some reason, his still pulled -7* timing in the IAT timing table. Icing down the tank before a pass would certainly help that MAT.
For some reason, his still pulled -7* timing in the IAT timing table. Icing down the tank before a pass would certainly help that MAT.
But if it is the same as a 2017 he should see about -4 or -5 degrees of timing pulled at 138*.
Again not -7.7 but there is timing pulled at 138* on 2017s. Different from the 15's and 16's.
I got into a long discussion about this with a friend.
I am aware the 2017s have cooling enhancements as compared to the earlier cars but those enhancements alone are not likely to be worth 40+ degrees of MAT.
This leads me to believe GM either re-calibrated the TMAP sensor reading inside the PCM, or is possibly using IAT2 or even IAT1 instead of the MAT/TMAP reading on the 2017+ cars.
This is evidenced by the fact that the
1. The IAT multiplier table#1 in the 2017+ cars maxes out at 152*.
2. The 2017 pulls more timing at 138 degrees IAT/MAT (4 or 5*) than the 2015s and 2016s which pull about 2.6 degrees at 138 degrees IAT/MAT.
3. The 2017s IAT multiplier table#1 has a zero effect row at 44 degrees all the way across versus the 2015s and 2016s zero effect row being 42* higher at 86 degrees.
152 degrees is regularly seen on 2015s and 2016s during normal driving in the summer and their table maxes out at 248* I believe.
No way, (all things being the same and even with the enhanced cooling) the average difference in MAT is 42 degrees between the model years.
No way the 2017s with cooling enhancements should pull more timing at 138 degrees than the previous model years which are known to run hotter.
GM saw no need to go above 152* on the later cars and I believe its because they changed something in how or where the temperature is read from.
I said all of that to say this can anyone provide the IAT base and #1 multiplier tables for a 2019 then we could do the math and see exactly what the OP should be seeing for timing pulled at 138*. There may be a difference between the model years.
Last edited by dar02081961; 10-21-2018 at 05:58 PM.
10-21-2018, 06:44 PM
#72
Racer
Thread Starter
I don't have a read from a 2019.
But if it is the same as a 2017 he should see about -4 or -5 degrees of timing pulled at 138*.
Again not -7.7 but there is timing pulled at 138* on 2017s. Different from the 15's and 16's.
I got into a long discussion about this with a friend.
I am aware the 2017s have cooling enhancements as compared to the earlier cars but those enhancements alone are not likely to be worth 40+ degrees of MAT.
This leads me to believe GM either re-calibrated the TMAP sensor reading inside the PCM, or is possibly using IAT2 or even IAT1 instead of the MAT/TMAP reading on the 2017+ cars.
This is evidenced by the fact that the
1. The IAT multiplier table#1 in the 2017+ cars maxes out at 152*.
2. The 2017 pulls more timing at 138 degrees IAT/MAT (4 or 5*) than the 2015s and 2016s which pull about 2.6 degrees at 138 degrees IAT/MAT.
3. The 2017s IAT multiplier table#1 has a zero effect row at 44 degrees all the way across versus the 2015s and 2016s zero effect row being 42* higher at 86 degrees.
152 degrees is regularly seen on 2015s and 2016s during normal driving in the summer and their table maxes out at 248* I believe.
No way, (all things being the same and even with the enhanced cooling) the average difference in MAT is 42 degrees between the model years.
No way the 2017s with cooling enhancements should pull more timing at 138 degrees than the previous model years which are known to run hotter.
GM saw no need to go above 152* on the later cars and I believe its because they changed something in how or where the temperature is read from.
I said all of that to say this can anyone provide the IAT base and #1 multiplier tables for a 2019 then we could do the math and see exactly what the OP should be seeing for timing pulled at 138*. There may be a difference between the model years.
But if it is the same as a 2017 he should see about -4 or -5 degrees of timing pulled at 138*.
Again not -7.7 but there is timing pulled at 138* on 2017s. Different from the 15's and 16's.
I got into a long discussion about this with a friend.
I am aware the 2017s have cooling enhancements as compared to the earlier cars but those enhancements alone are not likely to be worth 40+ degrees of MAT.
This leads me to believe GM either re-calibrated the TMAP sensor reading inside the PCM, or is possibly using IAT2 or even IAT1 instead of the MAT/TMAP reading on the 2017+ cars.
This is evidenced by the fact that the
1. The IAT multiplier table#1 in the 2017+ cars maxes out at 152*.
2. The 2017 pulls more timing at 138 degrees IAT/MAT (4 or 5*) than the 2015s and 2016s which pull about 2.6 degrees at 138 degrees IAT/MAT.
3. The 2017s IAT multiplier table#1 has a zero effect row at 44 degrees all the way across versus the 2015s and 2016s zero effect row being 42* higher at 86 degrees.
152 degrees is regularly seen on 2015s and 2016s during normal driving in the summer and their table maxes out at 248* I believe.
No way, (all things being the same and even with the enhanced cooling) the average difference in MAT is 42 degrees between the model years.
No way the 2017s with cooling enhancements should pull more timing at 138 degrees than the previous model years which are known to run hotter.
GM saw no need to go above 152* on the later cars and I believe its because they changed something in how or where the temperature is read from.
I said all of that to say this can anyone provide the IAT base and #1 multiplier tables for a 2019 then we could do the math and see exactly what the OP should be seeing for timing pulled at 138*. There may be a difference between the model years.
10-22-2018, 08:05 PM
#73
Bottom photo, the 20 and 15kpa numbers, calculated and sensed... can you elaborate on this please?
Thank you again for you help, I would have messaged you sooner, but it has been a busy day.
Last edited by HessViper; 10-22-2018 at 08:06 PM.