Header/NBO2 tuning?

[HawkZ28]

What's the general consensus as the best method to tune for the new NBO2 location headers bring to the table? Is there a specific metric to monitor, and parameters for said metric?

Ive read several threads, studied and tried a plethora of ideas, but unlike tuning MAF or VVE, there doesn't seem to be a standardized "community engineered and accepted" method or graph and yield quality results. If there is one out there, it wouldn't be the first time I've failed in my search attempts or words. I just find it hard to believe no such scanner tool exists yet with all the data we have access to, and more importantly the individuals on this forum that are IMHO flat out geniuses with figuring out math equations to make the data in the scanner into something usable, as well as explaining it in a way we can all understand.

I've looked at different several scans of my own calibrations using stock and some general formula guidelines for O2's and headers in the scanner to see what switches better, smoother, squarer, and has tighter spreads between the avg highs and lows using both a filtered STFT approach and a filtered WB error approach. I've tried my finely tuned seat of the pants meter, and am on the verge of learning voodoo since I already own a rusty ax, some faygo, and knew a girl named Bridgette.

[Tunercharged]

What's the general consensus as the best method to tune for the new NBO2 location headers bring to the table? Is there a specific metric to monitor, and parameters for said metric?

Ive read several threads, studied and tried a plethora of ideas, but unlike tuning MAF or VVE, there doesn't seem to be a standardized "community engineered and accepted" method or graph and yield quality results. If there is one out there, it wouldn't be the first time I've failed in my search attempts or words. I just find it hard to believe no such scanner tool exists yet with all the data we have access to, and more importantly the individuals on this forum that are IMHO flat out geniuses with figuring out math equations to make the data in the scanner into something usable, as well as explaining it in a way we can all understand.

There are so many ways to tune. I personally just use a wide band and discern my technique of tuning with a bunch of parameters vs grams of air per cylinder. I correlate the tables and after a couple of runs worth of data my tune gets set for whatever physical modification to the engine I have made. I know there are other ways to tune but this is the one I’ve chosen and seems to work well for me. I like to view torque delivered for kicks and to find my optimal power for all loads. I think once you spend enough time with it, you find what works for yourself.

[HawkZ28]

There are so many ways to tune. I personally just use a wide band and discern my technique of tuning with a bunch of parameters vs grams of air per cylinder. I correlate the tables and after a couple of runs worth of data my tune gets set for whatever physical modification to the engine I have made. I know there are other ways to tune but this is the one I?ve chosen and seems to work well for me. I like to view torque delivered for kicks and to find my optimal power for all loads. I think once you spend enough time with it, you find what works for yourself.

I agree that there's many ways to do it, but it seems that NBO2 calibrations require some creativity, luck, and boatloads of testing, which I'm fine with if I knew it was a concrete histo like we all use tuning something simple like MAF. I'll admit I don't trust the calculated torque numbers much as I probably should, though have used them in the past for part throttle timing adjustments. They do seem fairly accurate.

I utilize my wideband as well for PE, but believe the NBO2's are more accurate for cruising/part throttle since they do 1 thing well- measure stoich. I am fortunate the I have scans from before my cam, headers, and procharger to see how the o2 swings looked, as well as when and where the wideband reacted vs trims and mv swings. I've measured the physical distance from the exhaust flange to the old nbo2 location with my wife's seamstress tape and averaged the distance to quantify a number to shoot for, and keep trying new things based on threads here. Seems that airflow gets all the focus, rightfully so, but exhaust flow and data is equally important given the impact it has on fueling upstream.

Maybe I'm just venting frustration since my wife glazes over when I talk about these things, but I feel like with all the information we have available to us between the scanner and community we'd have a histo or formula to utilize and nail it "+/- 4% or less".

I appreciate you giving me another idea for a histo.

[Tunercharged]

Except on decel, I have my AFR within 2 percent across the rpm spectrum matching commanded but within 1.5 percent under WOT conditions. All tuned with wideband. I’m still adjusting my timing tables so when I make more power I usually have to make some small AFR adjustments to keep everything in line. I’m more concerned with not burning up my rings at WOT than anything else, at least for another 20k miles till scheduled rebuild where I’ll do cam and maybe crank, pistons.

[HawkZ28]

I'm finding that with my experiementing my truck I've been walking in on values that were much closer to stock at higher airflow/Modes. I've found that the engine feels smoother and sounds better closer to stock proportional base (12480) when 'lugging' up a hill on the interstate- hitting that 95-100kpa area on VVE table. I have a feeling my cam is too small and close to stock (210/224 vs stock 198/209) compared to other folks tackling this challenge. I believe the D1SC is maintaining stock exhaust velocity if not increasing over stock, especially when the bypass valve is closing on the transition from vacuum to boost.