irpq11, L99 Dyno results.

[1camaro70]

why do irpq11's air/ fuel ratios change so much in the three runs?

[Restroom]

Whoever keeps posting those joke pics from a cellular phone application, please stop. Let's be serious. Also, don't reply to me with links to a marketing video. People have real problems and ought to be treated with a modicum of respect. Numbers come from certified devices. I mean no offense to the misinformed, but garbage data isn't going to do anyone any good.

[ElAntonius]

*cough* The only person I see posting pics famously HAS a problem.

Just saying.

And frankly, we're not measuring from our phones as a means of keeping some sort of e-peen score, we're doing it to get an *IDEA* as to what good and bad cars should be running.

My iphone measures accurately within 2 MPH of what my speedometer says. I think that's good enough for checking a difference between 5 seconds 0-60 and 7 seconds 0-60.

PQ...good time on that one...was that a normal launch or a downhill or something?

[1camaro70]

I've noticed everyone ignores actual information, when we have a dyno of a typical L99, which shows nearly flat torque curve and 11:1 air fuel ratio, and when air fuel ratio is optimised at 13:1 the torque is up 42 ft.lbs. why was it 11:1 from the factory when optimum is 13:1, why on irpq11 dyno runs is air fuel so varied?
Why is this curve so smooth and irpq11's so raged?

[rpepka]

Originally Posted by 1camaro70

I've noticed everyone ignores actual information, when we have a dyno of a typical L99, which shows nearly flat torque curve and 11:1 air fuel ratio, and when air fuel ratio is optimised at 13:1 the torque is up 42 ft.lbs. why was it 11:1 from the factory when optimum is 13:1, why on irpq11 dyno runs is air fuel so varied?
Why is this curve so smooth and irpq11's so raged?

[1camaro70]

QUOTE=rpepka;719705]There afraid the tranny's are going to blow up of course! So they shift like a girl.[/QUOTE]



typical response to information on these forums.

[rpepka]

Originally Posted by 1camaro70

QUOTE=rpepka;719705]There afraid the tranny's are going to blow up of course! So they shift like a girl.

typical response to information on these forums.[/QUOTE]

and you explanation smarty pants?

[pcmforless]

GM runs a soft air fuel on Many of their cars (the trucks are really bad) They have done this for years and always leave a margin of error. I think they do it in case there is variations in their MAF sensors (most important piece of equipement on the car in my opinion) but they sell themselves short as GM MAF's are the best (this is why aftermarket units are a waste).
The big gains in torque are mainly from the very weak timing. Torque likes things a little rich but also likes timing. I don't think they backed it off to protect the trans, the 6 speed Auto is a really strong unit from what I have seen so far (one is holding together well in a 600 RWHP supercharged vette I tuned a year ago)
I'll go back and look at his dyno graphs, but they may not have had the smoothing up as high as I did. When I get a chance I will redo them with the smoothing to zero. Smoothing makes the graphs look better.
I think his air fuel on the first run was a power enrichment delay issue where it never went to WOT mode and he said the dyno guy admitted a mistake.

[pcmforless]

I just looked at his graphs and they are all the same air fuel, it just looks on the first one that the dyno operator eased into WOT and it stayed in part throttle fueling a little bit. By 4000 RPM they are all the same up thru the rest of the way within reason.
Looks like they had the smoothing the same. Also, I used SAE correction (popular correction for the internet) he had done his in STD (which personally I feel is a more accurate measure of HP and closer to what the manufacturers use) I will redo the dyno graphs in STD mode and post now.

[pcmforless]

Here it is in STD format. I'd print out this one to laminate to keep in the glovebox

[1camaro70]

typical response to information on these forums.[/QUOTE]

and you explanation smarty pants?

Unfortunately, I will never get the time back in my life from reading your responces. To quote an AdamSandler movie, 'We are all dumber for listening to you. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.' "

this thread is about poor performance of L99 engines, irpq11 posted dyno's, I and pcmforless posted dyno's and included a tune with pcmforless expert response, others have asked if a drop in K&N filter would help, the L99 dyno'd above had one and tested like other L99 with stock filters 305 hp/ 300 torque, correcting the air fuel ratio and a little timing gained 23 hp and 42 ft.lb. torque, so stock L99 seem to have problems with optimum air fuel and timing.

how's that for explanation............

[Tillman Speed]

Have we seen results from a different dyno shop yet? I really think something in the first dyno was botched. I feel really bad for this guy. He could be getting all worked up over data results that may hold no value whatsoever.

Chris

[rpepka]

Originally Posted by 1camaro70

typical response to information on these forums.

and you explanation smarty pants?

Unfortunately, I will never get the time back in my life from reading your responces. To quote an AdamSandler movie, 'We are all dumber for listening to you. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.' "

this thread is about poor performance of L99 engines, irpq11 posted dyno's, I and pcmforless posted dyno's and included a tune with pcmforless expert response, others have asked if a drop in K&N filter would help, the L99 dyno'd above had one and tested like other L99 with stock filters 305 hp/ 300 torque, correcting the air fuel ratio and a little timing gained 23 hp and 42 ft.lb. torque, so stock L99 seem to have problems with optimum air fuel and timing.

how's that for explanation............[/QUOTE]

Very nice thank you!

I am just a little peeved that all these cars are performing poorly and GM has no explanation. I don’t mean to be cynical. My experience has been very upsetting, totally denying that there is a problem.

[rpepka]

Originally Posted by 1camaro70

typical response to information on these forums.

and you explanation smarty pants?

Unfortunately, I will never get the time back in my life from reading your responces. To quote an AdamSandler movie, 'We are all dumber for listening to you. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.' "

this thread is about poor performance of L99 engines, irpq11 posted dyno's, I and pcmforless posted dyno's and included a tune with pcmforless expert response, others have asked if a drop in K&N filter would help, the L99 dyno'd above had one and tested like other L99 with stock filters 305 hp/ 300 torque, correcting the air fuel ratio and a little timing gained 23 hp and 42 ft.lb. torque, so stock L99 seem to have problems with optimum air fuel and timing.

how's that for explanation............[/QUOTE]

So what can we do to get GM to do something about it other then ignore the problem. Of course we can spend the bucks and fix it, and void our warentee's, but that is just not right.