There are ways to do it with RPM vs Time I read somewhere.
There are ways to do it with RPM vs Time I read somewhere.
I bet your car makes more HP than that Tom. Torque seems about where your car should be. VE airflow cannot represent HP very well especially E-85 blend cars. Perfect example is one of the cars I tuned on E-47. His car sees only 26-27lbs/min VE airflow which would seem to equate to about 270 whp but there is no way that his car is less than 300 whp because he puts a couple buses on a ~290 whp SC Cobalt.Originally Posted by Iam Broke
Road dyno teaser... Hope you don't mind, Nick.
4.7 sec pull last week.
Edit. If you take the take the torque readings and calcuate HP from them the formula is way off that is why the lines do not cross at 5252 RPMs. At 5K and 350 wrtq the car makes 333 whp. At 5400 and ~340 wtrq the car makes nearly 350 whp. Finally at 5850 and 325 wrtq tha car makes 360 whp. HP = (Torque X RPM) / 5252 I think it best if we find torque only and use the formula to calculate HP that way it is more accurate and we do not get anymore weird disparities.
Last edited by Terminator2; 11-04-2010 at 10:25 AM.
The problem is Ive made over 400wtq on cars with 240% airload too. Neither thing is really a great determining factor for actual peak numbers. This is why I say it's just for comparing your own stuff to a new update.
Im actually playing with using the tq formula right now tho to see what that changes Tom's HP graph to. Ill post up a pic when I get it finished.
I don't doubt Tom's car pulls well, but I think we can both agree this isn't right lol
I can see cars that have the MAF freq skewed being off on the airload as the MAF shift affects % airload #'s too. On E85 with a 30% shift I was seeing % airloads in the 350% range even with slower times. Back to stock MAF freq table and making my trims in the MAF Correction table only I see the 300-305% you charted. I said before that MAF freq skew affects the % airload which is what relates to the low airload cars walking all over others if the intakes were tuned via MAF freq.
MAF freq tuned for E50 put my loads at 320%, see what I'm saying?
I think the 360 hp is pretty close myself.
The key to keeping this comparable for all is the MAF freq table needs to be stock.
Last edited by Iam Broke; 11-04-2010 at 11:28 AM.
'12 Camaro T3 2SS/RS LS3 M6, SLP TVS 2300, Flex Fuel
Where do you see 360? LOL! That says 385whp and it doesn't ever roll off. Obviously not accurate on a stock turbo car.
It does not matter whether you modify the correction or calibration table it will still skew the Airloads the same on E-85 mixes. The correction is just a multiplier for the calibration.I can see cars that have the MAF freq skewed being off on the airload as the MAF shift affects % airload #'s too. On E85 with a 30% shift I was seeing % airloads in the 350% range even with slower times. Back to stock MAF freq table and making my trims in the MAF Correction table only I see the 300-305% you charted. I said before that MAF freq skew affects the % airload which is what relates to the low airload cars walking all over others if the intakes were tuned via MAF freq.
MAF freq tuned for E50 put my loads at 320%, see what I'm saying?
I think the 360 hp is pretty close myself.
The key to keeping this comparable for all is the MAF freq table needs to be stock.
PS....the two blips in the beginning of the pull at 3k & 4200 is where I pulled out & back in passing a slowbie.
'12 Camaro T3 2SS/RS LS3 M6, SLP TVS 2300, Flex Fuel
I calculated his HP based off torque and RPM on a few points on the graph he put up and got a very different HP result. It made 360 whp at 5850 based off the the torque and rpm divided by the constant 5252.
I agree to disagree. I dropped 20% airload moving the +7% off of stock for E48 (My E10 was -7%) from the MAF freq to the MAF correction table. Same tune, same approx 60-100 times. I guess I'll have to dig up some old logs when time allows.
The MAF freq multiplier skews the MAF lb/min and % airload. The correction table does not. After moving the skew to the correction table the MAF lb/min readings came back into line.
Last edited by Iam Broke; 11-04-2010 at 11:46 AM.
'12 Camaro T3 2SS/RS LS3 M6, SLP TVS 2300, Flex Fuel
Bingo. Toms airloads do need to be corrected back down 15% for the E-47 he is running.
Assuming you have it dialed in just the same with either method it should be the same. Airloads differ a lot due to MAF changes from day to day. Cooler air means higher airloads on the same exact tune. Calculated cylinder airmass (airload) is mainly based off RPM and Mass airflow (which is changed just the same no matter what method you use to correct for the Ethanol) Airloads are the same on my car regardless of the method I use for MAF tuning. You cannot trick your WB O2 sensor.
Going from E-85 to E47 is a 14% change. 302% airload to 350% airload is a 14% change so that seems accurate. 320% airload might have been seen under better conditions heck sometimes I find that stabbing the throttle 500 RPMs sooner can make a 20-30% difference in the peak airloads.
Last edited by Terminator2; 11-04-2010 at 12:09 PM.
They already are. What airloads do you see on E-10? Are they 15% ( that would be ~260% indicated) less than mine?
Last edited by Iam Broke; 11-04-2010 at 12:07 PM.
'12 Camaro T3 2SS/RS LS3 M6, SLP TVS 2300, Flex Fuel
The formula I am using now is calculating Tq based on Airload % like before. I then multiply that calc'd tq * RPM and then divide that total by 5252. The results are what is shown above.
Ill try reducing his whole airload column by 15% and then post that screenie to compare
The peak looks more like the peak from the 1st graph now with lower tq. It never rolls off using this formula tho.
Last edited by BackyardTurbo_FTW; 11-04-2010 at 12:11 PM.
Want to try mine? I have a dyno to compare to.
You need to export it into a .csv file so he can dissect the data from it.
'12 Camaro T3 2SS/RS LS3 M6, SLP TVS 2300, Flex Fuel
Yea, just email me the csv output and I will grab the data I need. Also include a pic of your dyno and ill post both to compare. Ill do a dyno with the tq formula and then one with the calc'd VE formula to compare
280% normally sometimes up to 290%.
Guess I gotta pop for a dyno pull sometime.
I don't understand how if MAF airflow lb/min indicated is reduced by moving the shift from the MAF freq table to the MAF corrrection table, how the %Airload for the shift is not also already reduced by the same change in correction?
'12 Camaro T3 2SS/RS LS3 M6, SLP TVS 2300, Flex Fuel
Yes you do. I would say your car makes 360 whp and 400 wtrq.
MAF indicated should be exactly the same based on any method. The WB O2 is reading the oxygen concentration just the same.
Reply With Quote
