Hi. Has any one had a play with these yet ? And good results ?
Hi. Has any one had a play with these yet ? And good results ?
The results with these engines are very good. You can get plenty of air and fuel into them. Turbo is the first limiting factor, but you will be over 150kw/200hp at the wheels before this gives you any concern.
That's good to know, I'm working with the local performance shop that deal in 4wds. we normally use alientech(ecu west) but want to get away from their restrictions and cost. trying to find a good starting point is seeming a bit of mission. ive looked at some tune files and they are totally different. obviously not e98 ecmOriginally Posted by crakrz
Stock File - VCMPRT 2015 Colorado tune v2.hpt
compare files
Thanks Steve, there are some differences which make sense.. Thanks. still nothing that's obvious for EGR tunning.
I have been able to increase throttle response by modifying the driver demand map in torque management. Much nicer to drive
Is this your vehicle or a customers? What year is it? Man or Auto? Good to hear you are seeing positive results. They are a great engine and can be pushed a fair way if driven sensibly. I have had to convert to a single mass flywheel and heavy duty clutch after getting above approx 630nm torque. It's rare that I ever need 100% throttle, but it's nice to have heaps of torque in reserve if it's required.
This is a personal vehicle, we wont be changing exhaust or doing bolt ons. (at this stage) the plan is to see how well we can get it go in its stock form with minor tweeks and maintain fuel economy. at the moment its returning 800klms to a tank with mixed highway and round town driving.
My ute is weighing in at 2650 kg, and just doing the daily slog around the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, it is returning average figures of 9.2 lt/100km. (measured at bowser, not trip computer) When it was stock, the figures were about 9.5/100km. I see all types of claims of 10-20 % improvement in fuel economy on the net. But mine just pretty much stayed the same, or thereabouts. With nearly a 50% increase in torque, and keeping stock fuel figures, I'm pretty happy with that.
Looking forward to hearing of your progress.
you cant complain about that at all. Did you do the tuning yourself? or did you have it done ?
Did it myself. Previous experience tuning my own Holden and Ford V8's, so just had to get my head around diesel tuning. Not hard, once I understood the engine dynamics.
What boost are running. Or I should say. What boost have you found it to like. I'm used to my td42 patrol. Running 37psi
Currently running 30 psi. Plenty of air to keep everything cool at that level. I had to upgrade my clamps at 26psi. Hoses were creeping.
yeah nice. I have just been looking at some logs and some results I'm having a hard time understanding.
I charted TPSvsRPM and the result being the main fuel rate. now the numbers I'm seeing a far higher then I see in any tune table, am I missing a correction or no subtracting a base value like baro from boost ?
RPMvTPS.png
note the main fuel rate results are in mm3
I've just ordered a 2017 Colorado, sadly it now has a dpf & a mate just got his new 2016, i'll be playing with them soon as i have my own dyno. I'm also looking to putting lpg on mine for improved fuel economy too as it'll be replacing my cruze 1.6t as my DD.
That's a bummer about the 2017 model.
Does any one know if Holden can tell if the ecu has been flashed. And if they can do they care ?
Just looking at the Graph you plotted, do you actually know that it's plotting fuel rate? I am only asking as we can't see much on the screen shot. Is it possible that the figures you are seeing is target output of NM?. In the tune this has a direct correlation to fuel rate requested, as long as the Torque vs Injection Qty calibration table has not been tampered with of course. Just posing the question as a possibility, but I cannot confirm it myself.
so far all I have adjusted is the Driver demand map, in the chart the field for the result was Main Fuel Rate, which seemed to be the only output I could get in relation to fuel.
Is it just my car, but does the desired boost always runner higher than actual? I can't seem to get boost to go higher than 245kpa when desired is 290. it's almost like the underboost allowed error difference is tracking spot on between actual & desired.
Even the stock tune tracks the same way.
Reply With Quote