Hi,
I have a turbo 5.3 running an 0411 pcm with the 3 bar SD OS. With the timing tables maxing out at 1.2 g I'm exceeding the limit at 10 psi boost, seeing a max of about 1.35 g.
I scaled the...
Type: Posts; User: KDS
Hi,
I have a turbo 5.3 running an 0411 pcm with the 3 bar SD OS. With the timing tables maxing out at 1.2 g I'm exceeding the limit at 10 psi boost, seeing a max of about 1.35 g.
I scaled the...
Got to the track with it 2 weeks ago, the rev limit issue was resolved and 1 - 2 shift time was about .5 seconds. Second run of the night the 3rd gear clutch pack fried and that was it. Took it back...
Yeah I see what you're getting at. I hope to get to the track on Friday and get the limiter issue resolved. Once that is out of the picture I can get a clearer indication of the shift timing.
Village_idiot provided some insight regarding the rev limiter after reviewing my tune and scan. I didn't notice that the engine went over the 6500 rpm limit setting when the shift was occurring...
Thanks for that review. I got caught up thinking it was torque management and didn't look at the peak rpm in the shift. Makes more sense to me now. I'll drop the rpm shift point as suggested and...
Part throttle 1-2 shifts are good, just seems WOT that has the problem. I'm just running this vehicle at the track so WOT performance is my focus.
I've attached a log and tune. This is my first...
I'm running a mostly stock 5.3 LH6 with a 4l60e from a 2005 Trailblazer. E40 ECM T42 trans controller. I had the transmission performance rebuilt by a reputable builder so its good for some abuse....
Thanks for the info. I must have missed the MAF stuff while I was copying from the previous tune. I wasn't aware of the dynamic settings so thanks for that. I was making minor changes to the VE table...
I'm having a fueling problem as soon as the manifold pressure goes into boost and I haven't had any luck getting it to change when I make adjustments in the PE enrichment and / or boost enrichment...
Turns out I had the wrong values for the map in the tune, I missed the negative value on the offset. Looks like that put me off by about 21 kPa. After correction in the tune the idle values are where...
I'm trying to understand how the values are derived or where they are sourced from for these channels in the scanner. I'm running a 2 bar SD OS and I'm using a 3 bar MAP. I don't have a 3 bar MAP...
Searched the forum and can't seem to find a clear answer on this so hopefully someone can help out.
Gen 3 411 pcm was running enhanced sd with a moderately modified 6 litre. Idled at around 45 kpa...
To compare the static MAP condition to the Dynamic MAP condition is difficult. The air column in the manifold with no movement at key on engine off is different than when the engine is running at...
I think Bernoulli's principle is at play here.
Make sure you're looking at the relevant sections of the table, NA 5.7 wont see more than 70 - 76 grams at WOT. The timing differences are not that significant there. Also, I think the LS6 intake was...
I went back through the VE values using the LTFT's and made some minor adjustments and it ran as well to slightly better than the MAF tune. I then used the wideband in open loop to check the VE...
OK, SD enhanced OS is in, I'll give it a go and see how it compares. I'll update when I've had a few days to sort through it.
I've been working the tune on my moderately modified 1999 camaro for 1/4 mile performance and have it pretty close to the performance expectations for the engine configuration but i'm at a point now...
I changed from 0280155931 (29 lb at 58 psi (4 bar) i believe) to 0280155830 (34 lb at 43.5psi (3bar). I used the calculated value at 58 psi which was 39.5 ib, used this value for the 0 bar vacuum...
I'm running a similar combo 6.0 in a 3500 lb camaro with a manual trans. Tire is 26 inch with 4:10. Cam is almost exact. I can tell you with experience that this engine needs only 22 to 24 degrees...
Recalculated the fuel curve using your suggestions and that made a big improvement. Top end AFR's are better and overall performance is better as well. The injector flow values changed from about +4%...
Ok that's good information, helps a lot. I'll recalculate the injector flow values through the manifold vacuum range and see what affect that has, then review the MAF.
Ok, I guess the gear shifting transitions are throwing me off a bit, the fueling seems to change as I go through each gear, with AFR getting richer as it runs up in third and fourth, but I assume...
I'm running the stock LS1 intake components and the IAT looks to be well shielded from heat. I started this thread with the assumption that higher intake air temps were causing my AFR values to...
1999 camaro z28, 6.0 lq4, 243 heads, LS1 intake, TB, MAF, 40 lb bosch injectors, 255 lph pump, medium cam 224, 232 @ .50, headers, good exhaust. The car runs great on the street, great driveabilty...