Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Malibu 3.6L Tuning

  1. #1

    Malibu 3.6L Tuning

    Hey everyone,

    Just popping in here to see if anyone else has tuned a 3.6L Malibu?

    I had experience with one recently and he put down 210whp as a base with just removing tq limitations.

    Now he came back since he got a 3" cat-back exhaust...

    I've now had good response from a few tweeks on fueling, quickening shift times by about 50% across the board and adjusting the cams. Seems to have really taken to cam adjustments. Waiting for updated dyno numbers to see what we got.

    :EDIT: Forgot to mention that it appears the timing tables are maxed out stock. I can't seem to squeeze out even a single degree where it matters. (runs 93 octane).

    So, anyone else have any info on them?
    Total Masshole.
    2013 F150 FX4 Supercrew Ecoboost - STOCK
    2013 Mustang GT Premium - Lots of Mods, 424 RWHP SOLD
    2009 Cobalt SS/TC Black Sedan
    227whp/224wtq Stock. Dejon CP, K&N SRI, Forge BPV, Catless, BadMab Catless DP, MPx 3" Catback, HPT Tuned 328whp/425wtq. SOLD
    2004 GTO Pulse Red 1 of 512 - R.I.P. 5/31/09

  2. #2
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    3 inch will result in a loss of torque.
    The most hated, make the most power.
    93 Ranger. 5.3 D1X. 1069hp.

  3. #3
    We're aware. He was all about how it sounds and spent a lot of time fitting pipes and resonators and mufflers until he got the sound he wanted. Sounds pretty exotic, I was surprised.

    I don't recall him saying anything about missing any tq or complaints. He was just very happy with how it pulled getting up on the highway and whatnot. I'm still looking to modify the cams and some more tables for him and smooth everything out. Just basic stuff for now.

    I was just looking to see if anyone else is toying with these as I found it unsual to be messing with a Malibu.

    Area, you've been a great help to the community and myself with the cobalts and I find I look up to your input. Between you, Nick, Tom and James I've learned so much.
    Total Masshole.
    2013 F150 FX4 Supercrew Ecoboost - STOCK
    2013 Mustang GT Premium - Lots of Mods, 424 RWHP SOLD
    2009 Cobalt SS/TC Black Sedan
    227whp/224wtq Stock. Dejon CP, K&N SRI, Forge BPV, Catless, BadMab Catless DP, MPx 3" Catback, HPT Tuned 328whp/425wtq. SOLD
    2004 GTO Pulse Red 1 of 512 - R.I.P. 5/31/09

  4. #4
    One thing was brought to my attention....

    While I was logging, he mentioned how he has different size tires on the car and his speedo was off. No problem, re-did the tire calculations and got it in line with GPS speed. I mention this because later on he called me stating that his DIC MPG was reading abouty 8MPG average and only 16 goign down hill! He was still gettting his normal MPG with manual calculations so it's not actually using that much fuel... could messing with the tire size really effect this?
    Total Masshole.
    2013 F150 FX4 Supercrew Ecoboost - STOCK
    2013 Mustang GT Premium - Lots of Mods, 424 RWHP SOLD
    2009 Cobalt SS/TC Black Sedan
    227whp/224wtq Stock. Dejon CP, K&N SRI, Forge BPV, Catless, BadMab Catless DP, MPx 3" Catback, HPT Tuned 328whp/425wtq. SOLD
    2004 GTO Pulse Red 1 of 512 - R.I.P. 5/31/09

  5. #5
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    it may have forced a reset on that. not a big deal really. be leery of doing a lot of trans work to that 6 spd. they are weak as it is. gm has actually done really well with cam tables from 08 on up on the smaller engine cars, not so much on the 08-09 ls series. though. imho there isn't much else to be had in the cam tables. I have not redone a factory cal on a malibu, nor is there a huge market for it in my area.
    The most hated, make the most power.
    93 Ranger. 5.3 D1X. 1069hp.

  6. #6
    Advanced Tuner Dr. Nopps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    I'm proudly a successfull stalker of an honor roll student!
    Posts
    368
    Every GM tune I have seen over-fuels just slightly, possibly to error on the side of caution, or to keep cats cool. This will cause detonation under full load even with 93 octane fuel on a cool day. Review your tune and do the simple math first. With all the adders on top of what the basic commands for fueling are set to you are most likely calling for richer than 13 to 1 in many areas of the tune. Only after you have addressed that and eliminated knock by bringing commanded fueling, (not necessarily wide band tuning yet) in line, should you attempt to add timing.

  7. #7
    Tuner cp-the-nerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    85
    Hey Gremlin,

    210 whp is pretty good stock for a FWD auto rated 252 at the crank. I've seen some baseline dynos of Pontiac G6 3.6L that were just shy of 200. I own a Malibu 3.6L like the one you're tuning and I'm really interested in the work you're doing. Have you considered raising the redline above the stock 6800? I read a statement from one of the engineers saying it's designed to handle up to 7500, and the '08-09 Equinox Sport 3.6L was set to 7100 from factory.

    What kind of adjustments did you make to the cams? I look forward to seeing the new dyno results!

  8. #8
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    13.1 is not sustainable with the crap gm heads on this engine. 12.5 is a more logical "number" to shoot for while maintaining torque and horsepower.
    The most hated, make the most power.
    93 Ranger. 5.3 D1X. 1069hp.

  9. #9
    Thank you all for the input.

    At this time, the car runs a 12.1 AFR at WOT. This did not bring in any KR and is safe for how this person drives (if you know what I mean).

    cp, The 210WHP was on 93 Octane and my minor tune which really only removed the tq limitations. As for now, I did raise the rev limiter to 7000 and he shifts right at 6900. Car seems to like it up there lol. As far as cam tables, It's just been wot adjustments. I left the cruising area alone for fear of ruining his gas mileage on the highway (since he drives a lot). I need to smooth out the transition as it is a bit of a change from 3000rpm to 4000rpm and beyond. However, in stock form there are large changes and jumps - I just fear for the cams slamming around with adjustments. I advanced the intake cams a good bit and only slightly changed the exhaust cams from about 3500RPM up.

    I'm still looking into this motor and experimenting with the car under the go-ahead from the owner. He is a buddy of mine so it's his call lol.

    Any info anyone has on these motors would be much appreciated - I believe these were in the G8 as well??? I'm not doing anything more to the trans because they're a little scary as Area has mentioned.

    i'm hoping he makes it to the dyno soon so I can see what changes we really made if any. I just know seat of the pants has improved lol.
    Total Masshole.
    2013 F150 FX4 Supercrew Ecoboost - STOCK
    2013 Mustang GT Premium - Lots of Mods, 424 RWHP SOLD
    2009 Cobalt SS/TC Black Sedan
    227whp/224wtq Stock. Dejon CP, K&N SRI, Forge BPV, Catless, BadMab Catless DP, MPx 3" Catback, HPT Tuned 328whp/425wtq. SOLD
    2004 GTO Pulse Red 1 of 512 - R.I.P. 5/31/09

  10. #10
    Tuner cp-the-nerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    85
    Was there an existing tune before you ever got the car? I'm surprised the timing is advanced so aggressively since the manual only recommends 89 octane for best performance and makes no mention of higher octane.

    Here's a noob question for you guys. Why would the catback exhaust negatively affect torque? The FWD Epsilon sedans with the 3.6L (Aura, G6, Malibu) have the most restrictive exhaust (it's a single 2.25 inch pipe running to a muffler with 2 outlets) of all the LY7 engine's applications and has the lowest factory power ratings as well. The G8 and 2006-2009 CTS (1st and 2nd gen) have full dual exhaust systems with stronger torque curves.
    2017 Chevy SS 6.2L/6M

  11. #11
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    velocity in the exhaust and losing the scavenging effect between banks. in a nut shell.
    The most hated, make the most power.
    93 Ranger. 5.3 D1X. 1069hp.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by cp-the-nerd View Post
    Was there an existing tune before you ever got the car? I'm surprised the timing is advanced so aggressively since the manual only recommends 89 octane for best performance and makes no mention of higher octane.

    Here's a noob question for you guys. Why would the catback exhaust negatively affect torque? The FWD Epsilon sedans with the 3.6L (Aura, G6, Malibu) have the most restrictive exhaust (it's a single 2.25 inch pipe running to a muffler with 2 outlets) of all the LY7 engine's applications and has the lowest factory power ratings as well. The G8 and 2006-2009 CTS (1st and 2nd gen) have full dual exhaust systems with stronger torque curves.
    From what I can see it was 100% stock. The owner bought it used but it was owned by some old lady before so a tune is highly doubtful.

    There are high and low octane tables. I just copied the high tables to the low and left it alone. Car knocks from 4500rpm up if I try to add any timing. I'm going to see if dialing in fuel trims better helps but at this point I have been unable to do anything. He lives about an hour away so it's tough to meet up.

    I think Area nailed it on the tq loss. I'm sure there are variances in tunes to effect the tq curve between platforms as well. But I'm just guessing.
    Total Masshole.
    2013 F150 FX4 Supercrew Ecoboost - STOCK
    2013 Mustang GT Premium - Lots of Mods, 424 RWHP SOLD
    2009 Cobalt SS/TC Black Sedan
    227whp/224wtq Stock. Dejon CP, K&N SRI, Forge BPV, Catless, BadMab Catless DP, MPx 3" Catback, HPT Tuned 328whp/425wtq. SOLD
    2004 GTO Pulse Red 1 of 512 - R.I.P. 5/31/09

  13. #13
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    a single rule in physics that applies. one action has an opposite and equal reaction. pick up hp on exhaust, it is possible to lose torque. just have to find the happy medium
    The most hated, make the most power.
    93 Ranger. 5.3 D1X. 1069hp.

  14. #14
    Tuner cp-the-nerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    85
    Thanks for the info! This is the first time I've gotten to talk with a tuner working on a Malibu V6 first hand.

    I've been wanting to tune my car for a while, you can just tell there's a lot left on the table the way the transmission is programmed to be so lazy. I was also surprised when I originally found out how much torque limiting there was in the first few gears since the car breaks the tires loose as it is. I know it's not a performance car, but it's pretty fun to drive and it's got a hell of a motor. If I can get it down to 14.3 in the 1/4 mile, I'll be really happy.
    2017 Chevy SS 6.2L/6M

  15. #15
    Tuner cp-the-nerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    85
    Bump... Any update on this? I have several other Malibu V6 owners interested in the tuning results as well.
    2017 Chevy SS 6.2L/6M

  16. #16
    Haven't had my hands back on it yet.

    Still trying to figure out what I did wrong with the tire calculations that make the DIC read so low and his trip mileage is WAY off yet the speedometer is correct and actual MPG is fine.

    I should be setting something up with him shortly so i will update then.
    Total Masshole.
    2013 F150 FX4 Supercrew Ecoboost - STOCK
    2013 Mustang GT Premium - Lots of Mods, 424 RWHP SOLD
    2009 Cobalt SS/TC Black Sedan
    227whp/224wtq Stock. Dejon CP, K&N SRI, Forge BPV, Catless, BadMab Catless DP, MPx 3" Catback, HPT Tuned 328whp/425wtq. SOLD
    2004 GTO Pulse Red 1 of 512 - R.I.P. 5/31/09

  17. #17
    Tuner cp-the-nerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    85
    Did your friend have any transmission wear and tear issues with the torque management turned off? Was that mainly just trans torque management on upshifts and power downshifts? It practically powershifts at full throttle now, but I want to make sure it's not going to grenade itself.

    I'm getting literally no help tuning this car and I really only have a few questions because I've already accomplished most of my goals. I'd love to see your tune if it's no bother.
    2017 Chevy SS 6.2L/6M

  18. #18
    Tuner
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    90
    I'd recommend keeping torque management on for the upshifting. You can use minimum spark fields to help reduce the spark reduction to create the shift feel you want.

  19. #19
    Tuner cp-the-nerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    85
    Thanks for the suggestion, I actually have the spark min TqMgt table zeroed out per Russ K's recommendation. It's funny, but the best tune I've written thus far for both drivability and performance uses torque management for downshifts, but has it turned off for upshifts. The 6T70 isn't all that harsh on upshifts as long as you use the stock shift pressure, and it keeps the engine on boil much better.

    Unless someone can tell me that it's bad for the trans (and explain why), I don't see any reason to turn it back on. Downshifts were another story, power downshifts kicked down much too hard for my liking, and frankly it's not really necessary for my performance goals. So I dialed them in with an increase in pressure and decreased cold torque multiplier table (also thanks to info from Russ).

    Can you explain to me what neutral skip upshift and downshift do? It was recommended to disable neutral skip downshifts, and I don't really grasp the concept of what it would improve.
    2017 Chevy SS 6.2L/6M

  20. #20
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by cp-the-nerd View Post
    Can you explain to me what neutral skip upshift and downshift do? It was recommended to disable neutral skip downshifts, and I don't really grasp the concept of what it would improve.
    I've spent a lot of time researching the "neutral skip shift" settings - basically, if the transmission needs to shift more than one gear (sudden WOT, for example), the transmission will normally shift into neutral and then to the gear it really wants - for example, 6th->Neutral->2nd. With "neutral skip shifts" disabled, it will go 6th->5th->4th->3rd->2nd - without ever going into neutral. My understanding is that since these are "clutch to clutch" transmission, they allow the "neutral skip shifts". Older, non-clutch-to-clutch transmissions would always go through the gears sequentially.

    Personally, I disabled the neutral skip shifts as it seemed to make the shifting more "comfortable" in certain situations. But I would imagine that from a performance perspective, leaving them enabled would be better.

    Here is a thread on the forum that also talks about how these settings and their related torque management settings interact:

    http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showth...ral+skip+shift