irpq11, L99 Dyno results.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by uke

I'm 99% sure the dealer isn't going to do anything to fix a overly-rich tune.

You know what must be done now...

Get a tuner to fix that A/F ratio, and get that thing running right. Don't put your faith in the dealership to get this fixed, as one slower Camaro (that has no obvious issues) is not a concern to them. If you think the dealership is going to fix your tuning issues, you're going to be disappointed.

Lets keep speculation to a minimum

You aren't sure that the dealer won't fix it, that is your guess. And the quickest way to void a warranty is to have a non GM tune applied to the car. The goal is to get GM to address it. Not aftermarket.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Rick@Livernois

We've been seeing similar results....

Below are graphs showing a manual vs. an auto

Manual



Auto (Stock vs. Tuned)

The baseline numbers were 323 RWHP / 312 RWTQ, the tuned numbers were 339 RWHP / 360 RWTQ. Similar to our proven G8 tunes, it did pick up power, but our transmission calibration with reduced torque management and improved shift points make it feel like a whole different car!

Peak gains were +16 RWHP, + 48 RWTQ (typical RWTQ gains are +15-20) If you notice around 4,400 rpms, however there were huge gains in power and torque.



Regards,

Rick LeBlanc
Livernois Motorsports

Break it down to simple terms that a dummy can understand. This way I will be able to .......... understand it.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by irpq11

Damn sure does. Everytime I see a Mustang, I get depressed. Soooooooo unexited about my car. :(

You do have a positive though...You don't have to worry about having your shaft broken in two on every turn..

[Matt TuneTime]

Originally Posted by Rick@Livernois

We've been seeing similar results....

Below are graphs showing a manual vs. an auto

Manual



Auto (Stock vs. Tuned)

The baseline numbers were 323 RWHP / 312 RWTQ, the tuned numbers were 339 RWHP / 360 RWTQ. Similar to our proven G8 tunes, it did pick up power, but our transmission calibration with reduced torque management and improved shift points make it feel like a whole different car!

Peak gains were +16 RWHP, + 48 RWTQ (typical RWTQ gains are +15-20) If you notice around 4,400 rpms, however there were huge gains in power and torque.



Regards,

Rick LeBlanc
Livernois Motorsports

What happened to the base line run ? Do you have a clean base graph ..

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by Matt TuneTime

What happened to the base line run ? Do you have a clean base graph ..

^X2....something doesn't seem right about that baseline TQ graph. That TQ gain is as much or more than what people are seeing with CAI and headers + tune...

[patriotpa]

The voodoo of dyno setup/temp/humidity

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Supermans

You do have a positive though...You don't have to worry about having your shaft broken in two on every turn..

Ya, I've been watching that. The good thing about that is there is something to fix and they DAMN sure can't deny it.

[Chris@Livernois]

Originally Posted by irpq11

Break it down to simple terms that a dummy can understand. This way I will be able to .......... understand it.

The manual trans car stock made 378 RWHP, the auto trans car made 323 RWHP.

Originally Posted by Matt TuneTime

What happened to the base line run ? Do you have a clean base graph ..

We ran it 3 times before tuning it and it was almost line for line the same with the weird (low) torque curve.

-Rick

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Rick@Livernois

The manual trans car stock made 378 RWHP, the auto trans car made 323 RWHP.

Ok, so my HP reading of 315 is in the ballpark?

[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by irpq11

Ok, so my HP reading of 315 is in the ballpark?

One of the problems with looking at dyno results from your car, is that the run is done in 4th gear. Torque management is not a factor in 4th gear like it is off the line, where it appears that you are experiencing low performance. Maybe you could narrow down your problem by getting people to do some second gear timed runs, lets say 40-60 mph, then do the same on your car and compare. You may find your issue is primarily on a fast start from a dead stop.

Don't do the run from a standing start though, take off easy then roll into the throttle, and (using a camera again) try and time 40-60, or maybe 60-80, whatever keeps you in one gear at a time. That and if you could get a full 1/4 mile run somehow, it would allow comparison of your 60ft time, your trap speed, etc which is IMO a better judge of performance than 0-60 time. Just some thoughts.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by rayhawk

One of the problems with looking at dyno results from your car, is that the run is done in 4th gear. Torque management is not a factor in 4th gear like it is off the line, where it appears that you are experiencing low performance. Maybe you could narrow down your problem by getting people to do some second gear timed runs, lets say 40-60 mph, then do the same on your car and compare. You may find your issue is primarily on a fast start from a dead stop.

Don't do the run from a standing start though, take off easy then roll into the throttle, and (using a camera again) try and time 40-60, or maybe 60-80, whatever keeps you in one gear at a time. That and if you could get a full 1/4 mile run somehow, it would allow comparison of your 60ft time, your trap speed, etc which is IMO a better judge of performance than 0-60 time. Just some thoughts.

I'll get me a quarter mile somehow.

[BLACK10]

heres mine(LS3). i think the 75% humidity affected mine also. i'm in the DEEP south also. i have to say my car feels very strong though

[rpepka]

Originally Posted by BLACK10

heres mine(LS3). i think the 75% humidity affected mine also. i'm in the DEEP south also. i have to say my car feels very strong though

Go ahead and RUB IT IN!

[PQ]

Originally Posted by BLACK10

heres mine(LS3). i think the 75% humidity affected mine also. i'm in the DEEP south also. i have to say my car feels very strong though