Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com

Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/index.php)
-   Tuning / Diagnostics -- engine and transmission (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=73)
-   -   GM High Tech Performance Magazine's L99 Tune - +81 ft lbs at 3500 rpms! (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39720)

SGOS252382 08-28-2009 04:26 PM

GM High Tech Performance Magazine's L99 Tune - +81 ft lbs at 3500 rpms!
 
Did you guy see the write up on the L99 in the November 2009 issue of
GM High Tech Performance Magazine?

Link to video: http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...deo/index.html

It's a real good read and talks all about the stock L99 tune.
Jerermy Formato tunes an L99 in the article and talks all about Torque Managment, A/F ratios, etc.

The stock L99 made 318 rwhp, 310 lb ft (bone stock), and the car ran 13.3 @ 105 mph in Florida heat (bone stock).
With the tune it made 330 rwhp, 337 lb ft of torque.

But that doesn't show the entire picture. The car made 81 ft lbs at 3500 rpms! It still picked up 43 ft lbs at 3750 rpms. It also made 54 rwhp at 3000 rpms, 30 rwhp at 3750 rpms, and 20 - 25 rwhp for most of the pull.
The numbers under the curve were amazing.

So you can't just go by the peak HP and TQ increase. The L99 is leaving tons of HP and torque on the table at lower rpms.

To bad they didn't get any track times after the tune (rained out). But its a great read for anyone with an L99.

So if you have an L99 you should get the issue and check it out.

toehead93 08-28-2009 05:01 PM

Is this the latest issue? I'll have to pick it up!!

SGOS252382 08-28-2009 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toehead93 (Post 857199)
Is this the latest issue? I'll have to pick it up!!

Yes, I just got it in the mail.

The_Blur 08-28-2009 05:04 PM

That's some great work! I may have to get this read.

patriotpa 08-28-2009 05:14 PM

That's about 100 ft/lbs @ the crank!
Hey GM!
Release an OPTIMIZED updated tune for us PLEASE!!!!!!!
http://i26.tinypic.com/2a8lvup.jpg

1camaro70 08-28-2009 07:37 PM

PCM FOR LESS, Brian Herter, tuned a L99 from 305/ 300 to 327/ 342 (before anyone knew about the 5/ 20 fuse) how I wonder what that Camaro is at.

BB_Yellow2010 08-28-2009 09:44 PM

Thats awesome, I will have to read more about this... Good Find!

SGOS252382 08-29-2009 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1camaro70 (Post 857755)
PCM FOR LESS, Brian Herter, tuned a L99 from 305/ 300 to 327/ 342 (before anyone knew about the 5/ 20 fuse) how I wonder what that Camaro is at.

The fuse pull obviously helps the Camaro's stuck in the low octane tune. But even the high octane tune is weak under the curve (below 5000 rpms) as reported in the magazine article.

And wow, that's a serious jump in Torque. Even the "normal" L99's seem to be making a solid 30 ft lbs of torque under the curve (from 3500-5000 rpms) with a good tune.

Capstone 08-29-2009 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGOS252382 (Post 857024)
Did you guy see the write up on the L99 in the November 2009 issue of
GM High Tech Performance Magazine?


Umm... November?! :confused0068: wtf? did you mean 2008?!? It's not even Sept and they're putting out a rag dated November?
... holy crap are you sure that's not a typo

fdjizm 08-29-2009 07:34 AM

those are some serious gains for a tune, they detuned that thing to hell. im sure l99 owners will be happy to know the potential gains when they are ready for their first tune :)

Indpowr 08-29-2009 07:55 AM

He is a very good tuner here in Florida

I am meeting with GM High Tech editors Sunday and our car will be in an up coming issue as well. :)

SGOS252382 08-29-2009 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capstone (Post 858837)
Umm... November?! :confused0068: wtf? did you mean 2008?!? It's not even Sept and they're putting out a rag dated November?
... holy crap are you sure that's not a typo

No, its the November 2009 issue. I guess they give themselves a few months head start so the people in far away places don't think there getting the magazines late.

radz28 08-29-2009 09:45 AM

They did screwed up months because the don't run 12 issues a year; they run 10.

I got that issue yesterday too, and I'm a little ticked they couldn't run any times. Considering they got similar gains on a G8 GT on a dyno', and picked up something like almost a half second improvement in the 1320', I think it'd be safe to say Camaro would get at least as good a gain. It seems, to me, like all the videos show the cars short-shifting before 6K RPMs. I think a lot of these tunes make the shifts closer to 6000-6200 RPMs. I think there are good gains to be had just from a simple engine tune and reprogramming shift points, firmness, and speed.

Good catch!!! I was going to post this article ;)

rodimus prime 08-29-2009 09:49 AM

Every month I get my new issue.....late. Weeks late. Then with that issue I receive a "this is your last issue/resubscribe now" notice. Been like that since my first issue last year. Im paid through jan 2010. Awsome.

radz28 08-29-2009 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodimus prime (Post 859192)
Every month I get my new issue.....late. Weeks late. Then with that issue I receive a "this is your last issue/resubscribe now" notice. Been like that since my first issue last year. Im paid through jan 2010. Awsome.

YOU TOO?!!! :laugh: I pay for a couple years in advance because I get tired of being harassed by the distributor, or whatever they're called. I get my issues late too, for the most part, except the the months were there is no issue for the following month. It's such a painful wait for the next issue :D:chevy::headbang:

Dano 08-29-2009 10:04 AM

Yes it is a very good article. You can see just how much GM defined this car. GM needs to get us an updated tune that will release the full potential of this car.

rodimus prime 08-29-2009 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radz282003 (Post 859216)
YOU TOO?!!! :laugh: I pay for a couple years in advance because I get tired of being harassed by the distributor, or whatever they're called. I get my issues late too, for the most part, except the the months were there is no issue for the following month. It's such a painful wait for the next issue :D:chevy::headbang:

Ive called them about 4 times now. Each time I get "its all taken care of now bla bla bla". LOL We shall see.

joelster 08-29-2009 06:47 PM

Some of that hp gain is actually from the transmission directing power to the wheels rather than absorbing it inside. Firm up the transmission and the car will gain power on the dyno and lower the ET when the actual motor is unchanged. Still it is an impressive gain though.

m1tankr 08-30-2009 05:06 PM

Most of that improvement is getting rid of TM. GM's not gonna reduce that. It's the limits they've designed in keep the autos alive for the 100k warranty period, not a lousy calibration. The only way that will change is if they can know for certain they aren't going to frag the tranny & drivetrain by raising it up. There is no upside to them doing that. The cars are performing to factory specs (barring the occasional low octane table issue). They risk losing money on warranty claims for something that most people don't care about. The people that care (us) about the issue are the same people that will cause them more warranty claims by using the extra performance and beating the car harder. :) Plus, we are a minor segment of the market that will not go elsewhere and will just get new tunes. There's nothing for them to gain by changing that. They will only make tunes to address driving issues and bugs.

Nice to see that GMHTP is starting to crack into the 2010 SS's. What I think would be interesting to see is before/after runs on the rear wheel dynos in the lower gears (not for numbers per se) to show how much more is gained in 1st & 2nd (and on the shifts) by getting rid of the TM. TM is much more restrictive then. I remember on the GTO's that it yielded much larger gains in the lower gears.

patriotpa 08-30-2009 05:19 PM

GM could make some $$$ offering a high performance tune....

joelster 08-30-2009 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m1tankr (Post 863503)
Most of that improvement is getting rid of TM. GM's not gonna reduce that. It's the limits they've designed in keep the autos alive for the 100k warranty period, not a lousy calibration. The only way that will change is if they can know for certain they aren't going to frag the tranny & drivetrain by raising it up. There is no upside to them doing that. The cars are performing to factory specs (barring the occasional low octane table issue). They risk losing money on warranty claims for something that most people don't care about. The people that care (us) about the issue are the same people that will cause them more warranty claims by using the extra performance and beating the car harder. :) Plus, we are a minor segment of the market that will not go elsewhere and will just get new tunes. There's nothing for them to gain by changing that. They will only make tunes to address driving issues and bugs.

Nice to see that GMHTP is starting to crack into the 2010 SS's. What I think would be interesting to see is before/after runs on the rear wheel dynos in the lower gears (not for numbers per se) to show how much more is gained in 1st & 2nd (and on the shifts) by getting rid of the TM. TM is much more restrictive then. I remember on the GTO's that it yielded much larger gains in the lower gears.

I like your post but the part I highlighted I sort-of disagree with. As long as the Camaro is winning the shootouts with the journalists, and getting rave reviews about the power in relation to the competition, they (GM) won't change a thing. As soon as a $30,000 'Stang steps up to the plate with 375hp, and the Challenger gets some more power, you can bet your ass GM will tweak and tune the car for some more power, and/or less torque management. I am sure they err on the safe side with their tunes and their calibrations. Every stock GM car I have ever seen being tuned doesn't even hit 12.0-1 AFR. They are all between 11.5-11.8/1, which is a damn joke. I can only imagine how lame the tranny tune is and how much more capable it could be and also safe and not cause a warranty claim.

m1tankr 08-30-2009 08:06 PM

[QUOTE=joelster;863568]I like your post but the part I highlighted I sort-of disagree with. As long as the Camaro is winning the shootouts with the journalists, and getting rave reviews about the power in relation to the competition, they (GM) won't change a thing. As soon as a $30,000 'Stang steps up to the plate with 375hp, and the Challenger gets some more power, you can bet your ass GM will tweak and tune the car for some more power, and/or less torque management. I am sure they err on the safe side with their tunes and their calibrations. Every stock GM car I have ever seen being tuned doesn't even hit 12.0-1 AFR. They are all between 11.5-11.8/1, which is a damn joke. I can only imagine how lame the tranny tune is and how much more capable it could be and also safe and not cause a warranty claim.[/QUOTE

You might be right, but as long as they can stick by the LS3, they'll have very little incentive to change the tune on the L99. The comparo's always use manuals. Ford sort of left the game to GM for the numbers comparison. I was surprised they didn't put the 400hp V8 they have developed into the 2010 Mustang. On the GTO's, GM just put the LS2 in and kept the TM conservative. The problem with GM taking some TM out, is the entire drivetrain is tested to certain levels. They need those teams to agree to raise the levels on their parts, and those engineers have no incentive to take on the added risk when it's not their job to make more power. My 05 GTO and TBSS both got much faster when I took out TM or reduced it. Course, I didn't have GM's concerns,just my own. :)
I'm guessing the Gen V LSX based DI would be their next step. Right now, they're on the top of the numbers game for hp.

yellow69z28 09-01-2009 08:27 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by joelster (Post 863568)
I like your post but the part I highlighted I sort-of disagree with. As long as the Camaro is winning the shootouts with the journalists, and getting rave reviews about the power in relation to the competition, they (GM) won't change a thing. As soon as a $30,000 'Stang steps up to the plate with 375hp, and the Challenger gets some more power, you can bet your ass GM will tweak and tune the car for some more power, and/or less torque management. I am sure they err on the safe side with their tunes and their calibrations. Every stock GM car I have ever seen being tuned doesn't even hit 12.0-1 AFR. They are all between 11.5-11.8/1, which is a damn joke. I can only imagine how lame the tranny tune is and how much more capable it could be and also safe and not cause a warranty claim.

You hit the nail right on the head. I have been in the throttle for about three weeks now with a new tune performed by Matt @ Tune Time Performance in Toms River - NJ. He took my stock L99 which made 315 RWHP and 309 RWTQ and pumped it up to a Peak of 331 RWHP and 336 RWTQ on a Mustang DYNO.

:evil:

Its amazing how much of a beast and much more fun this thing is to drive. The magic is all in the AF Ratios (with averages over 13.3-1) and with balancing TQ Management with line pressure and shift points in the A6. Most of the changes are true of what was posted earlier - its the gains over the base along the band, in my case some times 90 HP between 3150 and 3850 RPM. The magic in the tune is not quite so mysterious but in reality its Matt's experience in tuning the G8.

For the lay person - its punching it and banging 2nd and 3rd on the way out to ??.??sec - stay tuned...

CFPC_2010 09-01-2009 10:36 PM

Its my wife's car...
 
All,

The article is about my wife's IOM/IO car, VIN 3026. We got the car April 26th and there were no other cars in Florida that took GMHTP up on an offer to show up to Bradenton to do a photo shoot and track runs other than us. We put down over 25 runs with just under 500 miles on the car and got the best of 13.38 fully stock (that was in the Sept issue). A month later we tuned the car as shown in the current issue - I posted about the 100 lb-ft torque gains at the bottom end but everyone called BS, unfortunately I couldn't play spoiler and post the dyno sheet then. Watch future issues for more upgrades we are doing to the car (including many more track runs).

Terry

PatrickfromMD 09-01-2009 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFPC_2010 (Post 873862)
All,

The article is about my wife's IOM/IO car, VIN 3026. We got the car April 26th and there were no other cars in Florida that took GMHTP up on an offer to show up to Bradenton to do a photo shoot and track runs other than us. We put down over 25 runs with just under 500 miles on the car and got the best of 13.38 fully stock (that was in the Sept issue). A month later we tuned the car as shown in the current issue - I posted about the 100 lb-ft torque gains at the bottom end but everyone called BS, unfortunately I couldn't play spoiler and post the dyno sheet then. Watch future issues for more upgrades we are doing to the car (including many more track runs).

Terry

Awsome, I cant wait to see it progress.
Do you know what tuning software was used?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.