Verrry interesting, not what a lot of people expected to see. Was the "90mm 2 fresh tune" with Predator adjustments?
All 4 pulls are the same tune. I reflashed the PCM each time after the first pull to take out the adaptives as a factor.
Hehe, we are talkin to each other in two different spots. May as well keep it here, easier to keep up with. Im no expert but I believe the main reason they say "cmr required" is for safety/lean issues. Looking at my a/f logs Im not having any issues there. Granted, having my car retuned with cmr while on the dyno should help but I doubt Ill get 18 hp. Thoughts?
Okay no problem...I'd rather stay here. 18HP with a CMR tune on only the 90mm throtlle body does sound a little strong. But that is how much HP I got form my Predator Dyno tune on my mods and my AF changed very little. Can't you have more air and fuel and keep the same ratio?
Hmmm. Let's think about that. Maybe you'd need the adaptives or a tune to see an advantage. (Long term adaptives are factored into WOT fuel. I've asked a lot and never got an answer to how fast the long term adaptives take to reflect a change. Is it seconds, or minutes, or what?) Let's assume the TB does what you expect it to do and you get more air. Let's say you don't adjust the throttle position relative to MAP, temps, whatever, so you just get more air all the time. In closed loop you would expect to be running leaner and the adaptives would compensate with more fuel. Then when you go WOT you would already have some additional fuel for the added air. I suppose with tuning, for closed loop, you might choose to have the throttle a little more closed relative to stock to keep the air flow about the same so you wouldn't have to fool with all the other programming. Then at WOT you'd need to add more fuel for the added air. So from the a/f graphs (which I couldn't really see) it did NOT look like it went leaner with the 90mm? If the long term adaptives had not adjusted (how long does that take again?) we should have seen a leaner a/f with additional flow. Then again, with restricted flow we might have expected to see a richer a/f (all that compared to the stock TB). What did the a/f graphs show? (... I'm blind, my monitor isn't big enough, I just sort of figured they looked about the same...)
ya, crappy screen shots, sorry. A/F is pretty much the same in all 4 pulls. Actually Im running a little fat, but its running that way with the stock tb as well. No significant difference from what I could see.
I went back and looked at them again to verify. It does look as if my car is running a little richer on my first pull with the adaptives (in theory) in play. Thats with the tune and throttle body on the car of a week.
That could possibly be consistent. It breathes better at partial throttle (closed loop) while you're driving around. Throttle blade is at the same position as it was stock, opening is larger, and you get a little more air causing the adaptives to compensate with a little more fuel. Maybe turbulence isn't significant at that flow rate. Then at WOT you have a little more fuel but maybe at that (peak?) flow rate the turbulence is signifcant and actually decreases flow relative to stock. You reset the adaptives prior to the subsequent pulls so you should be pretty close to stock a/f...? Dammit. Everybody makes such a huge deal about resetting the adaptives (ever since the cars came out) and says they're important in testing (I agree) and nobody has explained how they work! It's pretty clear how the short term adaptives work. Then there is some algorithm to update the long term adaptives from the short term adaptives. It's not just a periodic dump the value from one to the other. It's something like when the pcm samples and finds stoich then it uses the current correction reflected in the short term to factor into the long term. and it depends if the short term is currently adjusting up or down or something... We can watch an afr gauge and see the short term adaptives toggle back and forth between like 14.1 and 15.3. Seems it make a cycle in a little less than a second. but how long does it usually take to see things level out in the long term adaptives? I'd really like to know this.
Aren't the "adaptives" based on the variables expected to be seen by the PCM, which is base programmed to expect a STOCK size TB? Seems like the internally calculated results by the PCM would be "skewed" because of this. You would need the Preadtor to "bias" these "adaptives" by adding fuel and/or air? Actually to e.. it seems that since you are getting more air you need to add fuel.
Hoping we get some good input here. Ill most likely get some solid answers tomorrow, I'll post up what I get as an answer.
I'm not so sure. During cruising I think the PCM uses actual values from the MAP, various temp sensors, speed, throttle blade pos, yada, yada, to lookup fuel and timing. The adaptives are populated directly (short term) and indirectly (long term) from the narrowband input. I believe that Idle is a separate mode and more fixed values are used. So I'd expect tuning (CMR) to be more necessary for that, WOT, and other open loop modes than normal driving in closed loop.
I drove 1500 miles from 700 feet altitude to 7000 feet altitude and watched my WOT A/F ratio go from 12.4 to 1 to 9.9 to 1 on my Innovate. I pulled 12% fuel across the board with the Predator just to get back to 12.0 to 1. I haven't driven the car much lately as it is in the body shop now but we'll see if my WOT A/F changes from where it's at now. As far as normal driving...my A/F Ratio has stabilized out amazingly. It was all over the place when I first got back to 7000 feet...I mean ALL OVER THE PLACE...and this was with the cruise control on. Now it doesn't vary much from somewhere near 14.6 to 1 or so...and this was only driving around town for 30 miles or so.
Ya, thats gotta be the adaptives working its butt off. Im hoping we get someone to chime in here and explain their thoughts on my results.
You will end up getting on a dyno again. This time with a Predtaor and I bet you get results by adding fuel.
I don't think so. The a/f graphs don't indicate that. Not without some physical changes like port matching the inlet.
Ya, PPP has responded to my posts on another forum and feel that the AFE is an issue as well as the tune. Im open to all advice and I am going to take them up on their offer made here. No mention of the porting. http://www.chargerforumz.com/showthread.php?t=49399 I want this TB to work, lol, so Im going to do anything within reason to see positive results. Ill let you guys know.
As you know I am following that thread also..... The AFE isn't it cause it is one of the rare ones that starts at 4" (C&L and BWoody are the others.... and of course the new Arington AirHammer). The AFE filter seeems adequate, I can't believe that is what is starving you at least not by some 10HP+.
