: Somewhat disappointed in my dyno #'s today:



Gary Wells
09-26-09, 05:59 PM
I am somewhat disappointed in my dyno #'s today:
'09 CTS-V, 430 miles, auto, CA purchased car, about 90*F & 60% humidity:
best of 3 pulls, all pretty consistent, 428.49 RWHP, & 429.94 RWTQ, or basically 430 RWHP for both. A/F was 10.14, I believe, & max boost was 8.79, or 8.8 PSI, basically. This was on a "Dyno-Jet" dyno, which the dyno operator advised that the "Dyno-Jet" is pretty much accepted as the industry standard, and that there were some diferent makes and or brands of dyno's that would produce better #'s.
I for-see this whip heading off to mod city very shortly. Maybe Corsa Touring muffs, maybe a tune, & maybe even get brave and do a 160*F thermo, 9" crank pulley, air box mod, & tune or WforMe's handheld.
Open for comments here.

abbas
09-26-09, 06:04 PM
Yeah, those numbers are not very good. Even with a 20% loss, you should be looking at 444 hp. I would try and figure why the numbers are so low first before you start modding. For me, I would hate to spend money modding the car only to have it produce what it should have done in the first place.

Razorecko
09-26-09, 06:34 PM
What you need to figure out is why your a/f was so rich...was your build date 12/8 ? I know there was a spark plug issue with that build - I think there is an underlying issue.

Gary Wells
09-26-09, 06:59 PM
Dyno guy advised that fuel was being dumped in by the ECM probably to cool the secondary cats, maybe? He told me, I know that he knows what he is talking about, but I just don't remember what the extra fuel was cooling down. He did say that the factory tune was pig rich as shown by the air / fuel. Build date is 3-09. I looked last week.

aceofblitz
09-26-09, 07:03 PM
My stock car ran a 454 rwhp at 100*F and a crapload of humidity on a dynapack dyno.
I did a dyno after I modded my car and got 484, mainly because I was an idiot and thought I should upload the Pulley performance instead of the max performance. Didn't dyno it again after i fixed the tune though.
I think the reason for your low numbers is the AF just as Razor mentioned... I suggest you tune it if you are not happy with the numbers. Our cars are supposed to run at 11.x AF.
Again, like razor said, check on your build date as it might be an issue with the spark plugs.
As for the mods, GO FOR IT, I have the set up you mentioned and I rape a lot of cars on the street.
You're in better weather conditions than the UAE so I'm pretty sure you should be higher than the 450rwhp range stock.
Hope you solve your problems and give us the REAL dyno numbers after the mods.

Gary Wells
09-26-09, 07:07 PM
Yeah, those numbers are not very good. Even with a 20% loss, you should be looking at 444 hp. I would try and figure why the numbers are so low first before you start modding. For me, I would hate to spend money modding the car only to have it produce what it should have done in the first place.
abbas:
I appreciate your thoughts on that subject, and although I also hate to spend more money on mods to make up for RWHP & RWTQ that should have already been there in the first place, there might be nothing wrong with the car, and those are just the #'s. And I don't want to spend a small fortune trying to discover something that can't be discovered. You're correct, though, should be about 444.

Gary Wells
09-26-09, 07:22 PM
My stock car ran a 454 rwhp at 100*F and a crapload of humidity on a dynapack dyno.
I did a dyno after I modded my car and got 484, mainly because I was an idiot and thought I should upload the Pulley performance instead of the max performance. Didn't dyno it again after i fixed the tune though.
I think the reason for your low numbers is the AF just as Razor mentioned... I suggest you tune it if you are not happy with the numbers. Our cars are supposed to run at 11.x AF.
Again, like razor said, check on your build date as it might be an issue with the spark plugs.
As for the mods, GO FOR IT, I have the set up you mentioned and I rape a lot of cars on the street.
You're in better weather conditions than the UAE so I'm pretty sure you should be higher than the 450rwhp range stock.
Hope you solve your problems and give us the REAL dyno numbers after the mods.

Very constructive thoughts, all. Where does the 11. x AF ratio come from? &
is yours an auto or stick?

EXTM
09-26-09, 07:39 PM
I bet there is something in there, you should be getting something above 440rwhp. but there are many variables involved in the dyno though. what was the atmo pressure inside the dyno shop? were you driving long and no cool time? are you sure that your stock O2 are reading good? did you get a good air supply why the car on the dyno?
plus, for dynojet, what were the settings? did you have high or low tire pressures? did they tie down the car tight or lose on the dyno.

all of that get into the calculation, but still i am not sure why you are only getting low #s?

CTS-Vs run from 450rwhp to 490rwhp. as low and high figures up to what you to date.

Gary Wells
09-26-09, 09:15 PM
I bet there is something in there, you should be getting something above 440rwhp. but there are many variables involved in the dyno though. what was the atmo pressure inside the dyno shop? were you driving long and no cool time? are you sure that your stock O2 are reading good? did you get a good air supply why the car on the dyno?
plus, for dynojet, what were the settings? did you have high or low tire pressures? did they tie down the car tight or lose on the dyno.

all of that get into the calculation, but still i am not sure why you are only getting low #s?

CTS-Vs run from 450rwhp to 490rwhp. as low and high figures up to what you to date.

Another bone stock '09 CTSV automatic not too far here from me dynoed 440 RWHP about 2-3 months ago. Sticks might get between 450-490, but I don't think that autos will do that. Autos are generally about 10-15 RWHP less from what info I have gathered.
I'm about 14 RWHP & corresponding RWTQ low, and although I am not exactly happy about it, I am not going to spend a fortune addressing it.
I will just have to work harder on the mods, that's all. But I thank you for your input.

Razorecko
09-26-09, 09:19 PM
check your filter and make sure everything is flowing properly

Prof
09-26-09, 10:13 PM
Got stumped once in dyno tuning a Viper...pretty simple...had left the air conditioning on...but you do need a tune with that A/F ratio.

Did he give you the full printout so you could see the A/F across the rpm range? That would be very helpful.

cbloveday
09-26-09, 11:19 PM
I don't see how you would be spending a small fortune adjusting the AF ratio. It would make sense to me to get the car right then mod so you get the most out of the $ you are spending on the mods and your car is running right. I would do what was just suggested and get printout of the AF during a pull and then see where it needs to be adjusted. If things are not good, then you can decide if you wanna chase that gremlin down.

A dyno tune could not be more than $1,000 and you'll have piece of mind and the proper foundation as you begin your modding.
Hell at some point your gonna have to tune for the mods anyway. So, you'll be there, doing that sometime.

I have yet to dyno as I have only 1,000 miles on my car and want to follow the manual for breakin period. I believ eyou are not supposed to exceed 70 mph during the first 2,000 miles. (I know, I know, myths of proper breakin procedure) I want everything to seat properly.

qictrk
09-26-09, 11:29 PM
What kind of octane are you running? I know here in my area of Ca. I can only get 91. I go in next month to see what kind of numbers I generate. It will be interesting. Cecil...........

Gary Wells
09-26-09, 11:36 PM
Got stumped once in dyno tuning a Viper...pretty simple...had left the air conditioning on...but you do need a tune with that A/F ratio.

Did he give you the full printout so you could see the A/F across the rpm range? That would be very helpful.

Yes, I have a full print-out, but it doesn't show the values on eitherr the right or the left of the chart, but it looks like it ran at or about 11, started dropping at about 4500 RPM, dropped a little more down to 10.14 % at 5000 RPM, & remained there the balance of the run (5800 RPM). It appeared to hit max or there abouts boost at about 3200 RPM, stayed there until about 4000 RPM, & then dropped pretty low, (graph is not marked with numerical values at points) & then started back up at about 5700, and hit 7.53 PSI at 5800 RPM. I will have to find out a little more about the fluctuation of the boost values. It does look like fuel enrichment killed both the A/F ration and the boost. Unfortunately, I can't print the graph & post it.

Gary Wells
09-26-09, 11:57 PM
I don't see how you would be spending a small fortune adjusting the AF ratio. It would make sense to me to get the car right then mod so you get the most out of the $ you are spending on the mods and your car is running right. I would do what was just suggested and get printout of the AF during a pull and then see where it needs to be adjusted. If things are not good, then you can decide if you wanna chase that gremlin down.

A dyno tune could not be more than $1,000 and you'll have piece of mind and the proper foundation as you begin your modding.
Hell at some point your gonna have to tune for the mods anyway. So, you'll be there, doing that sometime.

I have yet to dyno as I have only 1,000 miles on my car and want to follow the manual for breakin period. I believ eyou are not supposed to exceed 70 mph during the first 2,000 miles. (I know, I know, myths of proper breakin procedure) I want everything to seat properly.

I don't know that tuning the A/F ratio will increase the RWHP & RWTQ but I suspect that is at least part of the problem. I suspect that tuning the A/F ratio is a modification of the ECM and therefore a violation of the warranty, which I was hoping to avoid doing, at least for a while.
Per the Owner's Manual the break-in requirement is "Do not exceed 70 MPH and do not maintain the same speed for long periods of time. period is 500 miles for the break-in and 200 miles "Do not make any sudden stops". And I suspect that most of those 500 miles for the break-in period are to verify that the rear-end is operating normally.
As far as the RWHP & RWTQ #'s everything is theoretical at best. The 444 nominal RWHP figure comes from an estimate of 20% parasitic loss of the drivetrain from a 556 HP at the crankshaft #. Everything is theoretical at best. Thanks for your input & suggestions.

Gary Wells
09-27-09, 12:11 AM
What kind of octane are you running? I know here in my area of Ca. I can only get 91. I go in next month to see what kind of numbers I generate. It will be interesting. Cecil...........

Auto or stick, and please post up when you dyno. 91 octane is the highest universal octane # of what one might call standard service station gasoline. Almost every city has generally at least 1 station selling 100 octane out of the pump. I believe that about 105 octane is the max that you can get out of any pump in kali. (For unleaded anyhow). Leaded high octane above those #'s I believe can only be sold in cans and cannot be sold out of a pump in Kali. Just out of old age orneriness I am considering dynoing next month with basically straight 100 octane in the tank just to see if it makes any measurable difference. It will be the same stock tune, no mods, 100 octane unleaded as straight as I can get it, same dyno, same dyno operator, and probably pretty close to the same weather conditions. 100 octane V.P. out here is probably about $8.50 a gal now. & another $55 for the dyno runs. Should be interesting to say the least. I intend on proving or disproving the possible myth that simply running better octane in these cars will increase HP due to the ECM being somewhat adjustable or self-correcting for a small change in octane levels.

neuronbob
09-27-09, 07:35 AM
I though that new engines dyno'ed a little lower? Or is that myth? I mean, your car is barely out of breakin (and yes I understand it's more for drivetrain). I got 471 whp a few weeks ago on a Dynojet and my car had just south of 5k miles on it at the time. It's an automatic.

Even so that AF is off. The lowest I got was 11.12 on my runs. In fact, one of the reasons I did my car was out of curiousity about some of the AF issues on the forum. I was happy my car performed so well stock (minus new mufflers).

backup
09-27-09, 11:06 AM
Just dyno'd my car yesterday, there is a short video posted in the V1 forum under Indiana dyno meet thread.

507hp @ 6000rpm
525tq @ 4300rpm
(there was a blip at 4300, the curve looks like 517tq without the blip)

Bone stock 09, manual trans, 3500 miles. AF started at 14.5 @2700 and declined to 11.3 at 5800. I'll post the charts if interested. Running 93 octane and the car had cooled off some prior to the first run. Ambient temp was about 70 and high humidity. The first run was the highest, the second and third were 501hp and 490hp, the intercooler got heat soaked I think.

Prof
09-27-09, 11:44 AM
Just dyno'd my car yesterday, there is a short video posted in the V1 forum under Indiana dyno meet thread.

507hp @ 6000rpm
525tq @ 4300rpm
(there was a blip at 4300, the curve looks like 517tq without the blip)

Bone stock 09, manual trans, 3500 miles. AF started at 14.5 @2700 and declined to 11.3 at 5800. I'll post the charts if interested. Running 93 octane and the car had cooled off some prior to the first run. Ambient temp was about 70 and high humidity. The first run was the highest, the second and third were 501hp and 490hp, the intercooler got heat soaked I think.

That is about what I would expect...the a/f sounds as if it is moving appropriately...moving below 11.0 would cause me to worry about detonation...

Gary Wells
09-27-09, 12:27 PM
I though that new engines dyno'ed a little lower? Or is that myth? I mean, your car is barely out of breakin (and yes I understand it's more for drivetrain). I got 471 whp a few weeks ago on a Dynojet and my car had just south of 5k miles on it at the time. It's an automatic.

Even so that AF is off. The lowest I got was 11.12 on my runs. In fact, one of the reasons I did my car was out of curiousity about some of the AF issues on the forum. I was happy my car performed so well stock (minus new mufflers).

I think that engines do dyno bigger #'s with more mileage, but I would be surprised if there was more than a couple of % difference.

I remember that you got great #'s on your dyno, but you are running a Corsa Touring axle back, which I think that I read in a post of Jesse's or D3's that the Corsa Touring axle back is worth about 16 RWHP, I believe.

Thanks for posting about your dyno, I will go back and look at the charts.
I don't know of a fix for the AF, and a tune would be the only fix for that.
Not that I am strictly against a tune, I just wanted more time to consider the pros & cons of the warranty issue before taking the plunge.
Thanks again for the info.

Gary Wells
09-27-09, 12:33 PM
Just dyno'd my car yesterday, there is a short video posted in the V1 forum under Indiana dyno meet thread.

507hp @ 6000rpm
525tq @ 4300rpm
(there was a blip at 4300, the curve looks like 517tq without the blip)

Bone stock 09, manual trans, 3500 miles. AF started at 14.5 @2700 and declined to 11.3 at 5800. I'll post the charts if interested. Running 93 octane and the car had cooled off some prior to the first run. Ambient temp was about 70 and high humidity. The first run was the highest, the second and third were 501hp and 490hp, the intercooler got heat soaked I think.
I would like to see the chart(s) just to compare with mine. Great #'s BTW. Wish that mine had done that.

Razorecko
09-27-09, 12:44 PM
manuals dyno significantly higher than the auto's also.

Gary Wells
09-27-09, 01:37 PM
manuals dyno significantly higher than the auto's also.
Sorry, Razor, but I am having a hard time believing that there is a 11.5 % difference between the auto and the stick parasitic loss. Just doesn't sound reasonable.
Based upon the readings of 556 crank HP & 507 RWHP that is about a 8.5% loss, compared to the nominal assumption of 20% parasitic loss for an auto.

Most of the comparisons posted on this forum, both real and assumed due to reading the posts infer that there is a RWHP difference between the auto and the stick, but I did not believe that it was significant.

Conversely, most posts on the forum have stated that the auto generally did better than the stick on the street and the track.

It has become apparent to me from this thread that we are lacking in enough data to do any real statistical analysis between the assumptions that I, and maybe some others, have formed about these cars.

Differences in readings between different brands and types of dynometers?
A while back Scott Pratt from Superior posted a thread about the differences in HP & TQ between the Kali cars and the others. After finding out that this statement may not be 100 % accurate, the post died. Now I am wondering?
How much difference in RWHP & RWTQ is there between 91, 93, & 95 octane levels?
Did the CTS-V Gods cheat me on my motor?

wait4me
09-27-09, 03:30 PM
If you are running rich, It is either one of 2 things. Mass air meter bad/ dirty or bad spark plugs.

Gary Wells
09-27-09, 04:10 PM
If you are running rich, It is either one of 2 things. Mass air meter bad/ dirty or bad spark plugs.
Thanks for chiming in, Jesse, I was hoping that you would add your insight to this thread. I am doubtful that any So Kali dealers are going to be user friendly enough to do a scan or pull and check plugs based upon my complaint that the car does not make the power that it should. I suspect that my best shot at happiness here is to schedule an appointment with the shop that did the dyno and pay them to change the plugs as I don't feel confident enough to do that myself. Then re-dyno which I can't do until the end of the next month as they get considerably more money to dyno unless it is a Dyno-Day Saturday. What would be the best plug #'s & brand, please?

Razorecko
09-27-09, 07:25 PM
Sorry, Razor, but I am having a hard time believing that there is a 11.5 % difference between the auto and the stick parasitic loss. Just doesn't sound reasonable.
Based upon the readings of 556 crank HP & 507 RWHP that is about a 8.5% loss, compared to the nominal assumption of 20% parasitic loss for an auto.

Most of the comparisons posted on this forum, both real and assumed due to reading the posts infer that there is a RWHP difference between the auto and the stick, but I did not believe that it was significant.

Conversely, most posts on the forum have stated that the auto generally did better than the stick on the street and the track.

It has become apparent to me from this thread that we are lacking in enough data to do any real statistical analysis between the assumptions that I, and maybe some others, have formed about these cars.

Differences in readings between different brands and types of dynometers?
A while back Scott Pratt from Superior posted a thread about the differences in HP & TQ between the Kali cars and the others. After finding out that this statement may not be 100 % accurate, the post died. Now I am wondering?
How much difference in RWHP & RWTQ is there between 91, 93, & 95 octane levels?
Did the CTS-V Gods cheat me on my motor?

auto's run faster on the track and street because they usually can shift faster/most consistently than a manual driver. Look through the dyno threads - the manuals are generaly dynoin'g 40-50rwhp more than the autos,

Gary Wells
09-27-09, 08:32 PM
Sorry, Razor, not being a smartazz, but I have been looking, and I really haven't found any. I did find a couple, but they are on DynaPac dynos, which I think might dyno significantly higher. I really thought that I had read several posts signifying that sticks dynoed about 10 to 20 RWHP more. What would you do in my shoes? Jumping off of a bridge is not an option as I am afraid of heights.

Razorecko
09-27-09, 08:36 PM
^ Replace the plugs, clean your maf, and maybe check/replace your filter. That's what I would do. Wait another 2-3k miles of break-in and have it dyno'd again. If the a/f doesnt change than i'd be hella suspicious.

Gary Wells
09-27-09, 09:50 PM
^ Replace the plugs, clean your maf, and maybe check/replace your filter. That's what I would do. Wait another 2-3k miles of break-in and have it dyno'd again. If the a/f doesnt change than i'd be hella suspicious.
Razor, thanks, as this is a 450 mile car, and it is covered almost 24 / 7, how could the filter and /or the MAF get plugged up? I could understand the plugs having issues as the build date previously identified for the bad plugs was 12 / 08, and my build date is 03 / 09, so there could be some overlap.

backup
09-27-09, 10:11 PM
Here is the PDF of my dyno. Hope this helps you troubleshoot. For what it is worth, it seems to me this car is very senstitive to quality of fuel (91 vs 93 octane). The few times I have run 91 octane I swear I can tell a difference. Maybe placebo effect but who knows.

Razorecko
09-27-09, 10:15 PM
Razor, thanks, as this is a 450 mile car, and it is covered almost 24 / 7, how could the filter and /or the MAF get plugged up? I could understand the plugs having issues as the build date previously identified for the bad plugs was 12 / 08, and my build date is 03 / 09, so there could be some overlap.

Also car isn't broken in yet. Mine was a total dog for the first couple thousand miles too. Run her in proper for the first 1000 miles than just go to the dealer and get all the fluids flushed, Trans, Diff, & oil. Than around 3-4k miles get it dyno'd again. If it doesnt change than go from there. I'm more than sure your V will pick up substantial power after a good break-in. If it doesnt, go back to the dealer and say " hey my buddy's V is much faster than mine - can you guys check the plugs ? "

Gary Wells
09-27-09, 10:38 PM
OK, thanks, Razor, I know that there is a difference between being broken in and not, but there again, I did not think that it was that much.

nradcad
09-28-09, 12:00 AM
Also car isn't broken in yet. Mine was a total dog for the first couple thousand miles too. Run her in proper for the first 1000 miles than just go to the dealer and get all the fluids flushed, Trans, Diff, & oil. Than around 3-4k miles get it dyno'd again. If it doesnt change than go from there. I'm more than sure your V will pick up substantial power after a good break-in. If it doesnt, go back to the dealer and say " hey my buddy's V is much faster than mine - can you guys check the plugs ? "

Does caddy have a maintenance plan, or do we pay for fluid flushes?

Gary Wells
09-28-09, 09:42 PM
BTW, I wish to thank everybody that contributed to this thread. I received some great ideas, got rid of some bad ones that I had, and I am sure that I will find a successful avenue of approach on this thing. Thanks again.

musclesbmf
09-29-09, 10:51 AM
I don't know that tuning the A/F ratio will increase the RWHP & RWTQ but I suspect that is at least part of the problem. I suspect that tuning the A/F ratio is a modification of the ECM and therefore a violation of the warranty, which I was hoping to avoid doing, at least for a while.
Per the Owner's Manual the break-in requirement is "Do not exceed 70 MPH and do not maintain the same speed for long periods of time. period is 500 miles for the break-in and 200 miles "Do not make any sudden stops". And I suspect that most of those 500 miles for the break-in period are to verify that the rear-end is operating normally.
As far as the RWHP & RWTQ #'s everything is theoretical at best. The 444 nominal RWHP figure comes from an estimate of 20% parasitic loss of the drivetrain from a 556 HP at the crankshaft #. Everything is theoretical at best. Thanks for your input & suggestions.

A/F ratio and timing advance dictate your power when tuning (that is simplified of course). You need an A/F ratio of 11.5 - 11.8 in a FI application. That is the sweet spot. So yes, tuning the A/F ratio to that range will make an enormous difference. But all stock GM tunes are rich, so that is prob not the issue. I personally think you need to break it in more. LS motors are known for making more power after you get some mileage on it. I wouldn't worry about your numbers right now. Drive it like you stole it, and then get it dyno'd again after 1000 miles.
Another note, dyno numbers are all calculations. If the dyno wasn't calibrated correctly etc, the numbers would be diff. Dyno's are just tuning tools. Everyone forgets that. Everyone looks for these big numbers to brag about etc, but every dyno will give you different numbers. Take the car to the track and see what the trap speed is. That will tell you how much power the car makes.

Mark

jedhead
09-29-09, 12:40 PM
BTW. Huntington Beach Car Wash on Beach Blvd. sells VP100 at the pump. It was $7.49 per gallon a couple weeks ago. My butt dyno noticed a difference with a 1/2 tank of 100 octane in my STS-V.

Bob

4gear70
09-29-09, 01:16 PM
A/F ratio and timing advance dictate your power when tuning (that is simplified of course). You need an A/F ratio of 11.5 - 11.8 in a FI application. That is the sweet spot. So yes, tuning the A/F ratio to that range will make an enormous difference. But all stock GM tunes are rich, so that is prob not the issue. I personally think you need to break it in more. LS motors are known for making more power after you get some mileage on it. I wouldn't worry about your numbers right now. Drive it like you stole it, and then get it dyno'd again after 1000 miles.
Another note, dyno numbers are all calculations. If the dyno wasn't calibrated correctly etc, the numbers would be diff. Dyno's are just tuning tools. Everyone forgets that. Everyone looks for these big numbers to brag about etc, but every dyno will give you different numbers. Take the car to the track and see what the trap speed is. That will tell you how much power the car makes.

Mark

Agreed! Weigh your car and see your trap speed.. this will give you a pretty good idea of the power you're putting down.

SSideways
09-29-09, 01:29 PM
hey Muscles,

you got any reference to this
You need an A/F ratio of 11.5 - 11.8 in a FI application.. I'm curious how this was determined the sweet spot.

thanks

Prof
09-29-09, 01:39 PM
That ratio in a Forced Injected engine permits the maximum amount of timing advance without detonation.

Gary Wells
09-29-09, 01:44 PM
Musclesbmf:
My statement of:
"I don't know that tuning the A/F ratio will increase the RWHP & RWTQ but I suspect that is at least part of the problem".

Should have been that:
"I don't know that tuning the A/F ratio will increase the RWHP & RWTQ "ENOUGH TO MAKE UP FOR THE MISSING RWHP & RWTQ" but I suspect that is at least part of the problem"".

I would like to get my car where is should be by finding the problem and fixing it as compared to just tuning it to make up for the difference.

Thanks for your input.

Gary Wells
09-29-09, 01:53 PM
BTW. Huntington Beach Car Wash on Beach Blvd. sells VP100 at the pump. It was $7.49 per gallon a couple weeks ago. My butt dyno noticed a difference with a 1/2 tank of 100 octane in my STS-V.

Bob
Bob (jedhead):
Thanks for the info. I used to use that station and that VP 100 when it was a lowly $ 5.29 a gal about a year or a year and a half ago. Ran it straight in my '87 turbo Buick. Loved it, but when they took about an $ .89 jump overnight, I had my methanol kit installed on the car, and that was the end of the 100 octane fun. Was that 1/2 half tank of 100 octane straight, or did it become about 95 octane through mixing with 91 octane? PM me if you want to get together at Donut Derelicts some Sat morning? I hit it about every 2 weeks with either my turbo brick or the Caddy. Thanks for the info.

Mike 09 V
09-29-09, 09:31 PM
2cents worth. Back when I was working we were having trouble with some new equipment and we tried all kinds of things, in conjunction with tech support at the factory, to make it work better and all of a sudden a light bulb went off in my head and I had a good idea. Something remarkable for me for sure! I said-lets call the factory back and tell them we want all new equipment. Replace this stuff. We shouldn't be having this problem and it is costing too much to mess with it any more. Since the equipment had the value of one of our cars, the factory was reluctant to replace it and lo and behold they came up with a workable solution within a week!
So my point is this-We paid a small fortune for these cars; for most of us anyway. Well maybe just me, but we have a right to get the performance we paid for and since these monsters are under warranty why don't we demand of the dealer that they make them work properly? Seems to me the dealer can get them dynoed and tuned to the specs. At their expense. The real question is: What are the specs? What should we see on a dyno?
Another question: Can we get our cars super tuned at the dealer and still keep the warranty? I know that at Lund Cadillac in Phoenix, they were selling an 09V with an 18K add on package they called Super V and claimed its chip was tuned to 600 HP. It was warranted. Can they do that? Can they do that for us for a price? Any Cadillac mechanics that may know the answer?

musclesbmf
09-29-09, 09:58 PM
hey Muscles,

you got any reference to this . I'm curious how this was determined the sweet spot.

thanks

Just from reading and modifying cars since I was in my late teens. Every tuner I've ever spoken too says the same thing. As Prof stated, it allows the most timing without the dreaded detonation. On a NA car, it needs to be leaner about a point leaner. Takes less fuel because it's not under pressure.

As for tuning the A/F ratio to make up your 14 RWHP, you will gain more than that by leaning the car out I assure you. But again, I don't think there is a problem. Take it to a different dyno... if it is within 5hp of each other after SAE corrected, then it's probably not a dyno calibaration issue. I seriously believe the only issue is the 430 miles on the car.... it's not enough to give it a fair shake.
Also, not every car has the same ECU calibration. GM always making revisions. So some of the other guys with higher hp numbers probably have a better A/F ratio and they also wouldn't gain as much from a tune because the change in A/F ratio would be less. So many variables to consider here.

Also, when the C6 Z06 first came out in 06 guys were up in arms because of low dyno numbers with only a few hundred miles on the car. By the time they had about 2000 miles, the numbers were much better.

Mark

Gary Wells
09-29-09, 10:23 PM
Okay, I just talked Josh @ Vaca Performance in Downey that dynoed the *car* and he told me several things.
He stated that SAE correction factors do not work or apply to a supercharged motor. He told me this last week when I dynoed. He told me today that he doesn't think that I have anything to worry about as he feels that it will pick up some RWHP & RWTQ when it gets some miles on it and when the weather cools a little. He also advised that I will not pick up any more RWHP & RWTQ with 100 *octane* unless it was detonating last week when we dynoed, and he stated that he would have picked that up on the dyno. He also stated that these cars have a *high* *octane* MAP and a low octane MAP, and they operate on the high octane MAP until something triggers the cat to go to the low *octane* MAP. He also advised that he did have it in competion shift mode and in the gear that he wanted it in, so it sounds like that was not a problem.
So I sort of feel better and I don't feel so better. I am thinking about just biting the bullet and hitting the modification "yellow brick road to power". I am sure that a 160* thermo, a set of Corsa Touring muffs, a set of Kooks headers, and a 9" crankshaft pulley should lighten my pocket personality considerably. Oh, a tune, too. Damn, that's going to be a lot of bucks.

Razorecko
09-29-09, 10:35 PM
^ wait a sec. Jesse from W4ME told me that you should only be dyno'g with the trac off ( trac hit once ) NOT competition mode ( trac hit twice )

Gary Wells
09-29-09, 10:58 PM
Razor, could we be talking different things her, the dyno operator had the shift lever all the way over to the right, but i don't know if he did anything with the trac mode, but i believe that he did. He asked me where it was, and naturally it told him that I did not know, and he went somewhere on Cad Forum and found what he needed to know, he said. Dunno.

Razorecko
09-29-09, 11:02 PM
^ the trac button is on the steering wheel. Hit it once and you have trac off , hit it twice and you have competition mode. You are supposed to dyno it with just the trac off and not in competition mode. Why I dont know but i remember emailing w4m about it and thats what he told me.

Gary Wells
09-29-09, 11:13 PM
I remember reading about it now, and I know that Josh reset it, but to what I just don't know. I guess that I will find out next time.

Prof
09-30-09, 04:35 AM
I believe to turn the stability trac completely off, you need to hold the button down about 10 seconds. That's what happens on mine.

So in my mind there are four settings...default, one depression, two depressions and the off mentioned above.

Which really complicates the settings issue...four traction settings...squared (because of the two suspension settings), quantity squared due to the two transmission settings (on the automatic)...a total of 256 options for setup...

now if you really want to complicate things add the paddle shift and manual shifting options...and hell if you really want to get technical there are 17 settings on the Recaro seats...sheesh!!!

musclesbmf
09-30-09, 10:16 AM
Okay, I just talked Josh @ Vaca Performance in Downey that dynoed the *car* and he told me several things.
He stated that SAE correction factors do not work or apply to a supercharged motor. He told me this last week when I dynoed. He told me today that he doesn't think that I have anything to worry about as he feels that it will pick up some RWHP & RWTQ when it gets some miles on it and when the weather cools a little. He also advised that I will not pick up any more RWHP & RWTQ with 100 *octane* unless it was detonating last week when we dynoed, and he stated that he would have picked that up on the dyno. He also stated that these cars have a *high* *octane* MAP and a low octane MAP, and they operate on the high octane MAP until something triggers the cat to go to the low *octane* MAP. He also advised that he did have it in competion shift mode and in the gear that he wanted it in, so it sounds like that was not a problem.
So I sort of feel better and I don't feel so better. I am thinking about just biting the bullet and hitting the modification "yellow brick road to power". I am sure that a 160* thermo, a set of Corsa Touring muffs, a set of Kooks headers, and a 9" crankshaft pulley should lighten my pocket personality considerably. Oh, a tune, too. Damn, that's going to be a lot of bucks.

Ummmm... go somewhere else the next time you dyno. That's the dumbest thing I've heard. SAE correction after the dyno pull takes into account weather conditions, sea level pressure differences and things like that and applies the right coirrection so that the dyno results are more comparable to other dyno results.

Mark

Prof
09-30-09, 10:58 AM
Ummmm... go somewhere else the next time you dyno. That's the dumbest thing I've heard. SAE correction after the dyno pull takes into account weather conditions, sea level pressure differences and things like that and applies the right coirrection so that the dyno results are more comparable to other dyno results.

Mark

Ditto.

Luna.
09-30-09, 03:07 PM
Very constructive thoughts, all. Where does the 11. x AF ratio come from? &
is yours an auto or stick?

As many others have stated, it's kind of the industry norm for FI cars. I've seen Charlie, Andy, Church, this forum and all of them adhere to the same guideline for FI cars. Any more and it's almost universally agreed that such is too much for a FI car. On an NA car, however, they'll often go higher, say 13 to 1 or so.



A dyno tune could not be more than $1,000 and you'll have piece of mind and the proper foundation as you begin your modding.


A $1k for a tune??? Yikes...


I don't know that tuning the A/F ratio will increase the RWHP & RWTQ but I suspect that is at least part of the problem. I suspect that tuning the A/F ratio is a modification of the ECM and therefore a violation of the warranty, which I was hoping to avoid doing, at least for a while.

Depends on your dealer, although, I'd be extremely confident that a good tune wouldn't cause any significant issues, to say nothing about the dealer trying to make the argument that such tune caused such problem...


Just out of old age orneriness I am considering dynoing next month with basically straight 100 octane in the tank just to see if it makes any measurable difference. It will be the same stock tune, no mods, 100 octane unleaded as straight as I can get it, same dyno, same dyno operator, and probably pretty close to the same weather conditions. 100 octane V.P. out here is probably about $8.50 a gal now. & another $55 for the dyno runs. Should be interesting to say the least. I intend on proving or disproving the possible myth that simply running better octane in these cars will increase HP due to the ECM being somewhat adjustable or self-correcting for a small change in octane levels.

I don't think you are going to see much improvement at all. Octane is like shoe-sizes. If you normally wear a size 8 shoe, wearing a size 10 isn't going to make you run any faster...

The only time I think you will see any improvement is if the car was detonating. Otherwise, prepare yourself to see little, if any, improvements.


Just dyno'd my car yesterday, there is a short video posted in the V1 forum under Indiana dyno meet thread.

507hp @ 6000rpm
525tq @ 4300rpm
(there was a blip at 4300, the curve looks like 517tq without the blip)

Bone stock 09, manual trans, 3500 miles. AF started at 14.5 @2700 and declined to 11.3 at 5800. I'll post the charts if interested. Running 93 octane and the car had cooled off some prior to the first run. Ambient temp was about 70 and high humidity. The first run was the highest, the second and third were 501hp and 490hp, the intercooler got heat soaked I think.

Bone stock and you turned 507 rwhp?!?!??

Wow...another stocker on steriods I suppose...


I am doubtful that any So Kali dealers are going to be user friendly enough to do a scan or pull and check plugs based upon my complaint that the car does not make the power that it should.

To be honest, Gary, I'd have a significant issue if I were you (assuming all other things are correct). The car should put out ~556 at the flywheel. It IS the job of the dealer/GM to put you at that point, lest, you didn't get what you paid for.


OK, thanks, Razor, I know that there is a difference between being broken in and not, but there again, I did not think that it was that much.

I tend to agree.


BTW. Huntington Beach Car Wash on Beach Blvd. sells VP100 at the pump. It was $7.49 per gallon a couple weeks ago. My butt dyno noticed a difference with a 1/2 tank of 100 octane in my STS-V.

Bob

I'd love to see a dyno of both 91 octane, then followed up a 100 octane run. I just don't think you'll see much improvement



So my point is this-We paid a small fortune for these cars; for most of us anyway. Well maybe just me, but we have a right to get the performance we paid for and since these monsters are under warranty why don't we demand of the dealer that they make them work properly?

Agree that you should get what you pay for


He also advised that I will not pick up any more RWHP & RWTQ with 100 *octane* unless it was detonating last week when we dynoed, and he stated that he would have picked that up on the dyno. He also stated that these cars have a *high* *octane* MAP and a low octane MAP, and they operate on the high octane MAP until something triggers the cat to go to the low *octane* MAP.

Agree


Okay, I just talked Josh @ Vaca Performance in Downey that dynoed the *car* and he told me several things.
He stated that SAE correction factors do not work or apply to a supercharged motor.

I've actually heard that before as it relates to turbo-charged engines, but it seemed to work fine with my other supercharged cars & the idea itself seems very strange...



Ummmm... go somewhere else the next time you dyno. That's the dumbest thing I've heard. SAE correction after the dyno pull takes into account weather conditions, sea level pressure differences and things like that and applies the right coirrection so that the dyno results are more comparable to other dyno results.

Mark

Agree

qictrk
09-30-09, 11:23 PM
I disagree with you guys that higher octane won't give you more hp. If higher octane doesn't give better performance, then why would you even use it? Cecil............

Prof
10-01-09, 08:27 AM
I disagree with you guys that higher octane won't give you more hp. If higher octane doesn't give better performance, then why would you even use it? Cecil............

The octane rating of gasoline tells you how much the fuel can be compressed before it spontaneously ignites. When gas ignites by compression rather than because of the spark from the spark plug, it causes detonation (knocking) in the engine. Detonation in a FI engine is the beginning of the end. If your cpu advances the timing for performance it is vital that you have higher octane to eliminate the spontaneous ignition. As in the use of water/meth high octane does not add horsepower it allows more advanced timing without detonation (as does an intercooler which lowers the intake air temperature). The lower the octane the earlier the fuel will spontaneously ignite.

musclesbmf
10-01-09, 09:12 AM
^^^^
Spot on.

Higher octane allows for more advanced timing which in turn increases power.

Luna.
10-01-09, 04:25 PM
That's exactly correct.

A TUNE, in conjunction with higher octane gasoline, will generally result in higher HP, but just dumping higher octane fuel into your car will probably result in no gains (unless it was knocking beforehand and the computer was retarding the timing...).

PSRmark
10-01-09, 08:58 PM
I would really look in to tuning from D3, they probably have the best tuner in So. Kali :)

If we weren't so far from you I would suggest having my tuner work it out as well as he is probably the best in AZ.

Hey....why not a road trip? I can set you up with a free oil change if you do ;)

Gary Wells
10-01-09, 09:28 PM
I would really look in to tuning from D3, they probably have the best tuner in So. Kali :)

If we weren't so far from you I would suggest having my tuner work it out as well as he is probably the best in AZ.

Hey....why not a road trip? I can set you up with a free oil change if you do ;)

Mark:
I cannot tell you that all of those thoughts / ideas have not crossed my mind at one time or another.
But my reasons for not throwing in the towel now and just moving on to a tune which I know would give more RWHP & RWTQ is that I don't want to let *GM* off of the hook for RWHP & RWTQ that I feel should have come with the car to begin with. And # 2: I am not too sure that I want to cross the warranty line of "virtual point of no return" yet. But 1st of all, I need to determine if there is something in error on my car. I'm thinking that I should pull more than 430 RWHP & RWTQ.
However, thanks for the response and ideas, I have not discredited any of them yet.
Not that I need it yet, but this free oil change, does it include tranny fluid change and rear end fluid change? *Amsoil*?
Phoenix is not exactly a hop, skip, and a jump away.
On the other hand, I drove all of the way from Long Beach, Kali, to Las Vegas, NV in my pride & joy 25K mile turbo Buick just to have the tranny re-done by who was then the best in the biz, and maybe still is, but no longer in biz, Len Freeman of Las Vegas Performance Transmissions. FWIW, I hated the trip, but it was worth it. No good turbo Buick tranny peeps out here in So kali.
I might be up for a trip maybe?

Gary Wells
10-01-09, 09:45 PM
What type of dyno do you guys use for tuning, Mark?
And do you adjust or not adjust to SAE standard settings to / for atmospheric conditions?

PSRmark
10-02-09, 02:22 PM
What type of dyno do you guys use for tuning, Mark?
And do you adjust or not adjust to SAE standard settings to / for atmospheric conditions?


Hello Gary,

We use a dynojet and we do typically use the SAE correction factor.

If you supply the Amsoil I would be willing to change the fluids out for you...if you plan on doing an upgrade package then maybe we can cut you a break on that stuff...we do also have an in house transportation service w/ an enclosed trailer.

I would suggest letting us do another baseline and if the car is still down on power we can look in to what is causing that, I work closely with my old dealership out here of 8 years and can have any factory issues resolved with them if you like.

Mr.MartyStone
10-02-09, 08:21 PM
450 miles and you're not even broken in. After you have a few solid heat cycles on the drivetrain you're fine. You really need to beat the back door off that motor to get everything nice and seated, seriously drive it like you stole it. I've had my fair share of LS motors, the last being a 403" LS2 with a 98mm thumper. It made a bit more than 430rwhp ;)