IT LIVES! My Z/LE ZL1 + 1LE + 2SS = Z/LE ;o) LSA SC [COTW 2/09/15]

[SSE 4 2SS]

Originally Posted by hammdo

Info only — I have a very safe tune for meth — and it takes a while for 4 gallons to be used.
Road racing it’s for cooling only so it runs rich (.65 Lambda)...

Since I run E85 octane is there so I’m safe.

With the nGauge, I can swap tunes easier too.

FYI, I only adjusted the meth tune at WOT. Still need to test a bit but so far Meth tank is still near the top!

I have more math fun coming...

SAE CF for horsepower in HP Tuners ;o)

-Don

If you wish to keep,speaking with me you gotta speak English... I know a word or two and maybe one phrase in about ten languages, but I don’t math, I don’t speak math, I’m allergic to math...

[hammdo]

OK, so, I want to see if I can get the SAE Correction Factor setup in HP Tuners.

The current SAE standard is J1349.

If math hurts your head, just scroll to the HP Tuner formula @ the end.

SAE says 15% needed to overcome rings, pistons, etc.

HP = Horsepower
HPO = Horsepower Overcome
HPC = Horsepower Corrected
CF = Correction Factor (SAE)
RPM = Rotations/Revolutions Per Minute
DET = Delivered Engine Torque

How to Calc HP:
(RPM * DET)/5252 = HP

SAE HP needed to Overcome pistons, rings, valve train, etc.:

((HP / .85) - HP) = HPO required to overcome rings, pistons, valve train etc.

SAE J1349 CF:
1.0634 (CF)

SAE Calc for Horsepower
((HP + HPO) * CF) - HPO = HPC

This is fine for NA but boosted applications probably are better with *NO* correction factor as they can overcome the Barometer issues better than a NA application.

HP Tuners Math function:

(([12.56]*[2701.127])/5252) = HP
((([12.56]*[2701.127])/5252) / .85) = HPO
1.0634 = CF

HP Tuners math parameter (formula):

(((([12.56]*[2701.127])/5252) + (((([12.56]*[2701.127])/5252) / .85) - (([12.56]*[2701.127])/5252))) * 1.0634) - ((([12.56]*[2701.127])/5252) / .85)

In HP Tuners:



Chart:



Once the weather breaks and I get the gauges in, I'll test the math...

This is basically to know what 'changes' do so I have some kinda of gauge of what effects any changes have...

Attached below is the xml math file for hp tuners...

Located in this folder:



-Don

[hammdo]

Originally Posted by SSE 4 2SS

If you wish to keep,speaking with me you gotta speak English... I know a word or two and maybe one phrase in about ten languages, but I don’t math, I don’t speak math, I’m allergic to math...

LOL, DON’T read the above post ;o)

Lambda is basically simplified AFR (Air Fuel Ratio) but I get it

I want the correct amount of fuel to mix with the air coming in and produce a great big bang with a sh** ton of power!

After that I want to record ‘what’ it made...

-Don

[SSE 4 2SS]

1.0634 is their stated CF...

RPM * DET / 5252 = HP

12.56 * 2701.127 / 5252 = HP...

This represents very low rpm and staggering DET, or are these numbers math people pull out of their nether regions to confuse us mere mortals...

The rest of it would be pretty simple to plug into an excel sheet... but there has to be more than that...

[hammdo]

Well, its based on a 77° day, Barometric Pressure in inches of Mercury of ~29.380 with 0 humidity -- so that is part of the CF used in the SAE J1349 standard -- Some will quote 29.234 in-Hg, others 29.318, and others 29.380. So it 'depends' on which company (auto mfg, etc.) will decide on.

So, I'm using the CF you noted -- I followed the formula used and created an HP Tuner SAE version to see how it works out...

It has all the steps I noted in the "DON'T" read post ;o)

-Don

[SSE 4 2SS]

Originally Posted by hammdo

Well, its based on a 77° day, Barometric Pressure in inches of Mercury of ~29.380 with 0 humidity -- so that is part of the CF used in the SAE J1349 standard -- Some will quote 29.234 in-Hg, others 29.318, and others 29.380. So it 'depends' on which company (auto mfg, etc.) will decide on.

So, I'm using the CF you noted -- I followed the formula used and created an HP Tuner SAE version to see how it works out...

-Don

Cool, and good luck...

[hammdo]

BTW, the 5252 is the RPM where TQ and HP meet so that is the 'standard' used to calc HP (you'll see that on a dyno sheet where the 2 cross)...

12.56 and 2701.127 are PID ids in HP Tuners for RPM and Delivered Engine Torque (DET)...

FYI:

SAE J607 is an older standard which did not attempt to include any of the engine's internal friction losses. Consequently, J607 gives higher values, which fail to include the friction losses. SAE J1349 is a newer standard which does specify various ways to include the engine's internal losses, and therefore presents a more accurate indication of engine power.

-Don

[SSE 4 2SS]

Originally Posted by hammdo

BTW, the 5252 is the RPM where TQ and HP meet so that is the 'standard' used to calc HP (you'll see that on a dyno sheet where the 2 cross)...

12.56 and 2701.127 are PID ids in HP Tuners for RPM and Delivered Engine Torque (DET)...

FYI:

SAE J607 is an older standard which did not attempt to include any of the engine's internal friction losses. Consequently, J607 gives higher values, which fail to include the friction losses. SAE J1349 is a newer standard which does specify various ways to include the engine's internal losses, and therefore presents a more accurate indication of engine power.

-Don

Yeah, I'm with you to this point.... However.... Like the old argument that back in the 60's, production HP was determined without the external items, like power steering pumps, water pumps, alternators etc, and then starting sometime in the 70's, they began using those items in their determinations.... I may have these items reversed, but the idea is the same...

To your current determinations, it seems to be a false number to discount the friction needed to operate the engine. That seems to be the same as determining blood pressure without the flow losses and gravitational effects of being on this planet.

Am I wrong in that what matters is the power put on the ground, with the friction losses and power losses through the transmission and differential.... That's the power that truly pushes you down the track....

From a scientific/engineering standpoint, this may be useful, but its not "real world" accurate.

Water converts to steam with a 1700:1 expansion rate..... 1 cubic foot of water converts to 1700 cubic foot of steam, which is the basis for limited application of water in a contained fire situation.... This is lab conditions.... The more accurate "real world" conversion is 1200:1 which is considering the free energy and open/vented areas of most structure fires... which is why larger applications of the H2O are needed.... Put the wet stuff on the hot stuff....

Am I reading too much into this or are you trying to use engineering principles to accurately determine the exact amount of power being created with your application of A/F and meth and spark. Does this formula change or consider the compression ratio.... Does it factor in or out for forced induction.... Oh, does it account for the efficiency or lack thereof of the ignition system.

Forgive if I seem to be the devils advocate.... I'm just trying to learn.... I really do not math well....

[hammdo]

True.. It's more of a guide to let you know if the changes had any affect.

BTW, to get an idea of RWHP, still need to take about 20% off too for auto from that number.

The whole point of this is to see how close this number comes so one can gauge improvements with changes. As we know, dyno can read differently and this is by no means 'the' answer but 'a' answer for one to see what a change does...

Lambda is the easy way to get air/fueling consistently without worrying about the 'type' of fuel used.

Thus the different tunes but I still target .78 lambda when adjusting the tune for WOT and 1.0 Lambda for normal driving...

STD is different than SAE but, if you use the same dyno and same measurement (STD or SAE) you can get an idea of what a change did.

The HP Calc:

(RPM*DET) / 5252

is what has been used in HP Tuners, I'm just trying to use the SAE standard to take out some of the 'forgotten' used up hp.

I'll eventually test this on a dyno to see how close it is ;o)

-Don

[SSE 4 2SS]

Originally Posted by hammdo

True.. It's more of a guide to let you know if the changes had any affect.

BTW, to get an idea of RWHP, still need to take about 20% off too for auto from that number.

The whole point of this is to see how close this number comes so one can gauge improvements with changes. As we know, dyno can read differently and this is by no means 'the' answer but 'a' answer for one to see what a change does...

Lambda is the easy way to ger air/fueling consistently without worrying about the 'type' of fuel used.

Thus the different tunes but I still target .78 lambda when adjusting the tune for WOT and 1.0 Lambda for normal driving...

STD is different than SAE but, if you use the same dyno and same measurement (STD or SAE) you can get an idea of what a change did.

The HP Calc:

(RPM*DET) / 5252

is what has been used in HP Tuners, I'm just trying to use the SAE standard to take out some of the 'forgotten' used up hp.

I'll eventually test this on a dyno to see how close it is ;o)

-Don

I'm with you... again, just curious....

[hammdo]

Yep... Same here. I don't believe the default Calc is going to be close so, added a wrinkle (SAE) and will take 20% off that in a new Calc... Then see how close it is with a dyno. From there I should be able to see what a change does 'reasonably' when I log...

-Don

[hammdo]

Ok, completed the bracket and install the flow meter -- still need to run the gauge wire but, this at least puts me in position:












Next, routing the wiring to the dual a-piller pod

-Don

[hammdo]

Robert:

This may help some -- from an 'engineering' guy ;o)

https://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm

Edit:

here also:

https://www.dynomitedynamometer.com/...horsepower.htm

https://www.dynomitedynamometer.com/...-tech-talk.htm

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/ght...el-horsepower/

The above articles are one of the reasons I wanted to use the SAE correction as a test...

You'll note the CF he shows are the formulas -- I'm using the latest one from SAE defined for the 2004 revision where he quotes the 1990 CF (JUN90) and AUG 2004 formulas for calculating CF... I cheated and found the actual value...

-Don

[hammdo]

Ok, wire from the flow meter is now inside the car -- next, I'll be pulling the a-pillar (need to undo the battery) then install the flow gauge and nGauge!

Hopefully, I'll be able to test tomorrow night -- if the rain stops...

-Don