4 second delay for full power?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
I think I read someone saying that tow/haul wouldn't make a difference in the 4 second delay after someone else thought that it might. ???
I would think a PCM edit would be able to get rid of the 4 second delay. If that gives you an extra 40rwhp for the first 4 seconds of full throttle, that would be significant.
Also if you can get rid of the torque management, that would help. Although I'm wondering if Edmunds may be confusing the torque management with emission control????
I would think a PCM edit would be able to get rid of the 4 second delay. If that gives you an extra 40rwhp for the first 4 seconds of full throttle, that would be significant.
Also if you can get rid of the torque management, that would help. Although I'm wondering if Edmunds may be confusing the torque management with emission control????
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Did the L76 in the Commodore have the same 4s delay?
I assume the LS2 in the Vette, TBSS, GTO, etc., does not have the delay....?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
All things are possible, but I'd like to see it first (dyno graphs on the net is fine) before I'll believe it. No offense. 
"Mate", I have no reason to be anything except calm.
Ah. So you linked it, updated it with other data from other people, etc, but don't necessarily agree with it. Gotcha. And of course, it is part of your "Frequently Asked Questions" area.
Ok - so I'll ask you - do you agree or disagree with the "reference" article I linked from your page?
Ah, cute. Ok. I guess you could see 50 hp (rear wheel or otherwise) with just a PCM tune after installing various engine modifications that were outside the normal operating parameters of the stock tune.
Surely that's what you meant, and I just misunderstood.
I think you're full of back-pedaling bologna, and stand by it. But I'm also willing to let it go.
I certainly implied such initially. Your response was interesting (to be nice), which lead into the RWHP statement, which lead into the driveline loss, and which finally led into the current state - which is "I stand by it". No evidence or anything else, but that's fine. I'm sure you have nothing to prove. Certainly not to me.
Oh contrare my friend - I read the post exactly as it was written.
Let me turn that around on you - nowhere did you mention flywheel hp....only 50 hp.
What's the difference?
But lets go to the LS2 for a sec....given that it is a 6.0L....what can you pull out of a 6.0L LS2 with just a PCM tune?
Don't be. For me, an L98 has always been a 350 cid small block chevy, circa mid 80s to early 90s. The L76 was a 60's era 327 (I had to hunt that one - always thought an engine of that designation was available in the 70's, too).
I had never heard of L76's and L98's that seem to pertain to Aussie cars. Now I have.
So I guess these are the motors that you gain 50 HP with using just a tune?
You wish. I "picked a bone" with you because I didn't believe your statement.
And for not being interested, you sure replied a lot.
Contrare - I do believe the article I linked. Do you believe the article I linked? Specifically that which relates to driveline loss?
I don't believe your 50 hp gains though. Sorry.
Likewise. BTW, do you sell used cars on the side?
Bob
"Mate", I have no reason to be anything except calm.
Ah. So you linked it, updated it with other data from other people, etc, but don't necessarily agree with it. Gotcha. And of course, it is part of your "Frequently Asked Questions" area.
Ok - so I'll ask you - do you agree or disagree with the "reference" article I linked from your page?
Ah, cute. Ok. I guess you could see 50 hp (rear wheel or otherwise) with just a PCM tune after installing various engine modifications that were outside the normal operating parameters of the stock tune.
Surely that's what you meant, and I just misunderstood.
I think you're full of back-pedaling bologna, and stand by it. But I'm also willing to let it go.
I certainly implied such initially. Your response was interesting (to be nice), which lead into the RWHP statement, which lead into the driveline loss, and which finally led into the current state - which is "I stand by it". No evidence or anything else, but that's fine. I'm sure you have nothing to prove. Certainly not to me.
Oh contrare my friend - I read the post exactly as it was written.
Let me turn that around on you - nowhere did you mention flywheel hp....only 50 hp.
What's the difference?
But lets go to the LS2 for a sec....given that it is a 6.0L....what can you pull out of a 6.0L LS2 with just a PCM tune?
Don't be. For me, an L98 has always been a 350 cid small block chevy, circa mid 80s to early 90s. The L76 was a 60's era 327 (I had to hunt that one - always thought an engine of that designation was available in the 70's, too).
I had never heard of L76's and L98's that seem to pertain to Aussie cars. Now I have.
So I guess these are the motors that you gain 50 HP with using just a tune?
You wish. I "picked a bone" with you because I didn't believe your statement.
And for not being interested, you sure replied a lot.
Contrare - I do believe the article I linked. Do you believe the article I linked? Specifically that which relates to driveline loss?
I don't believe your 50 hp gains though. Sorry.
Likewise. BTW, do you sell used cars on the side?
Bob
Read my lips. Don't put words into my mouth. Become somebody else's problem, today.
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129933
We Aussies also tend to stick to our MAFless tunes, which offer more power as the MAF isn't so much a restriction.
Do some research before slagging off in future.... you might actually learn something instead of professing you know it all.
Last edited by SSbaby; Jan 24, 2007 at 10:15 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
One more piece of info. Here's the Tundra numbers
0 - 30 (sec): 2.2
0 - 45 (sec): 4.1
0 - 60 (sec): 6.3
0 - 75 (sec): 9.4
And Titan
0 - 30 (sec): 2.3
0 - 45 (sec): 4.2
0 - 60 (sec): 6.7
0 - 75 (sec): 10.4
And Silverado
0 - 30 (sec): 2.6
0 - 45 (sec): 4.5
0 - 60 (sec): 7.2
0 - 75 (sec): 10.3
Once the Silverado gets to full power after 4 seconds, it does well.
45-75 time for the Toyota, Nissan, and Chevy are 5.3, 5.8, and 6.2. If not for the 4 second throttle delay, the Chevy would be quicker than the Nissan.
0 - 30 (sec): 2.2
0 - 45 (sec): 4.1
0 - 60 (sec): 6.3
0 - 75 (sec): 9.4
And Titan
0 - 30 (sec): 2.3
0 - 45 (sec): 4.2
0 - 60 (sec): 6.7
0 - 75 (sec): 10.4
And Silverado
0 - 30 (sec): 2.6
0 - 45 (sec): 4.5
0 - 60 (sec): 7.2
0 - 75 (sec): 10.3
Once the Silverado gets to full power after 4 seconds, it does well.
45-75 time for the Toyota, Nissan, and Chevy are 5.3, 5.8, and 6.2. If not for the 4 second throttle delay, the Chevy would be quicker than the Nissan.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
I did and I didn't. However, I did ask for clarification. You provided none.
Tis telling.
What was that about calming down? And why would I be a problem to you? Because I question your claims, perhaps?
Cool. Nice 27 RWHP gain. Better than average, I'd say, and quite good. Not sure of the relevance, but nice gain anyway.
How big are your MAF sensors? I've raced/dyno'd with and without a MAF (in both MAF systems and SD systems), and with bigger and smaller MAFs. The size of the MAF makes virtually no difference until and unless it is WAY unders-sized. Regardless, if you remove the MAF (not sure how you make that work unless you convert to a Speed Density setup), then you're obviously doing more than just a simple tune.
Might want to look in the mirror there shipmate.
Got 50 hp?
I learn stuff all the time. In fact, I have asked you several questions in this post, which you have ignored. If you had answered them, perhaps I'd learn more? I doubt it - but anything is possible.
Perhaps you can start a new thread or PM me to continue our little discussion?
Have a nice day.
Bob
Tis telling.
Become somebody else's problem, today.
Cool. Nice 27 RWHP gain. Better than average, I'd say, and quite good. Not sure of the relevance, but nice gain anyway.
We Aussies also tend to stick to our MAFless tunes, which offer more power as the MAF isn't so much a restriction.
Do some research before slagging off in future....
Got 50 hp?
you might actually learn something instead of professing you know it all.
Perhaps you can start a new thread or PM me to continue our little discussion?
Have a nice day.
Bob
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Bob
You are seriously barking up the wrong tree. Go back to my original post. Re-read it carefully. I would repeat what I said in the original post, but why? I only said it is possible to get an easy 50 hp from a GM truck V8. You go on about LS2... since when have LS2s been installed in GM trucks? See what I mean about barking up the wrong tree?
No? Let me go on... it was you who mentioned the word stock, NOT ME. Since you are so into your drag racing, I guess you only stop at tuning your 'stock' engine... no induction or exhaust mods, I take it?
Don't tell me a speed density tune is anything out of the ordinary as all it requires is a MAF duct extension. The PCM can be programmed by flagging a parameter or two but the PCM also automatically recognises the disconnected MAF and reverts to speed density mode.
As for the link I provided... it was to satisfy your persistent need to find out how much just an edit would achieve on a stock LS1. Some will find bigger gains than the 27 hp (not rwhp), some less. Again, I do my own tuning, I know what real world figures are attainable. Please don't try and belittle me, your credentials mean nothing to me.
You need to slow down 'Mr Drag Racing King' as you have clearly taken me out of context. Not only that, but you resorted to making personal attacks, which were completely unjustified. I will accept your personal apology... when you actually bring yourself around to making it! Somehow, I reckon your ego seems too big for you to admit you were wrong from the outset.
Oh, what was this thread about again? Oh yes... V8 truck vs V8 truck... and I did post in the context of GM 6.0L V8 truck... even though Bob completely missed the context.
You are seriously barking up the wrong tree. Go back to my original post. Re-read it carefully. I would repeat what I said in the original post, but why? I only said it is possible to get an easy 50 hp from a GM truck V8. You go on about LS2... since when have LS2s been installed in GM trucks? See what I mean about barking up the wrong tree?
No? Let me go on... it was you who mentioned the word stock, NOT ME. Since you are so into your drag racing, I guess you only stop at tuning your 'stock' engine... no induction or exhaust mods, I take it?
Don't tell me a speed density tune is anything out of the ordinary as all it requires is a MAF duct extension. The PCM can be programmed by flagging a parameter or two but the PCM also automatically recognises the disconnected MAF and reverts to speed density mode.As for the link I provided... it was to satisfy your persistent need to find out how much just an edit would achieve on a stock LS1. Some will find bigger gains than the 27 hp (not rwhp), some less. Again, I do my own tuning, I know what real world figures are attainable. Please don't try and belittle me, your credentials mean nothing to me.
You need to slow down 'Mr Drag Racing King' as you have clearly taken me out of context. Not only that, but you resorted to making personal attacks, which were completely unjustified. I will accept your personal apology... when you actually bring yourself around to making it! Somehow, I reckon your ego seems too big for you to admit you were wrong from the outset.
Oh, what was this thread about again? Oh yes... V8 truck vs V8 truck... and I did post in the context of GM 6.0L V8 truck... even though Bob completely missed the context.
Last edited by SSbaby; Jan 25, 2007 at 06:58 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
I agree completely with Bob, here.
SSBaby, you're a prime example of why everybody laughs at the horsepower gains listed in bold on the outside of a performance part's retail packaging or what gains are claimed on a given company's website...
They start off with some "GAIN 50 HORSEPOWER!!!" in giant bold letters.
But nowhere... not even in the fine print does it let you know:
"But only if you have a modified _____ motor (other motors make less) that is running poorly on the OEM tune because you effed it up with some other mods (stock motors make much less), oh and you also have to assume a 30% drivetrain loss, which never actually happens, but that's what we needed to assume to call 35rwhp "50 (flywheel) horsepower"... and yes we know we never mentioned the word flywheel or, really, any of the other stipulations in this paragraph on our website or on the box or in our advertisements, but you should just know better, because we're all a bunch of marketing crooks here and like to make bold claims followed by lots of back pedaling if anybody actually questions us.
PS - if you weren't talking about LS2s, I only saw about THREE times where Bob specifically asked you a question about gains on an LS2 and you didn't bother to correct him to tell him you weren't talking about the LS2 when you said 50hp.
SSBaby, you're a prime example of why everybody laughs at the horsepower gains listed in bold on the outside of a performance part's retail packaging or what gains are claimed on a given company's website...
They start off with some "GAIN 50 HORSEPOWER!!!" in giant bold letters.
But nowhere... not even in the fine print does it let you know:
"But only if you have a modified _____ motor (other motors make less) that is running poorly on the OEM tune because you effed it up with some other mods (stock motors make much less), oh and you also have to assume a 30% drivetrain loss, which never actually happens, but that's what we needed to assume to call 35rwhp "50 (flywheel) horsepower"... and yes we know we never mentioned the word flywheel or, really, any of the other stipulations in this paragraph on our website or on the box or in our advertisements, but you should just know better, because we're all a bunch of marketing crooks here and like to make bold claims followed by lots of back pedaling if anybody actually questions us.
PS - if you weren't talking about LS2s, I only saw about THREE times where Bob specifically asked you a question about gains on an LS2 and you didn't bother to correct him to tell him you weren't talking about the LS2 when you said 50hp.
Last edited by Threxx; Jan 25, 2007 at 08:07 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
My 'ego' is telling me otherwise, but I'm done with this one.
Oops...I lied...one more...real quick...I wasn't talking about "limp mode" (ie...disconnecting the MAF sensor) in reference to MAF and SD. But I bet you knew that, and just decided to ignore it, being that you do all your own tuning.
Say....how do you compensate for changes in VE (such as with long duration cam[s]) with an SD system?
Damn, that was two snippets. Oops again.
Oh, I never mentioned an LS1.
And since when does 27HP = 50HP?
Have a great day!
Bob
PS....If a "personal attack" is calling BS on your claim, then color me guilty - and shameless for doing it.
Oops...I lied...one more...real quick...I wasn't talking about "limp mode" (ie...disconnecting the MAF sensor) in reference to MAF and SD. But I bet you knew that, and just decided to ignore it, being that you do all your own tuning.
Say....how do you compensate for changes in VE (such as with long duration cam[s]) with an SD system?
Damn, that was two snippets. Oops again.
Oh, I never mentioned an LS1.
And since when does 27HP = 50HP?
Have a great day!
Bob
PS....If a "personal attack" is calling BS on your claim, then color me guilty - and shameless for doing it.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,024
Do the 5.3's have this as well? I've noticed that if I gun the Tahoe from a stop, 2nd gear pulls fairly well, whereas if I'm already moving along and gun it, 2nd gear just drags. This would definatly explain it. I told myself that I wouldn't do anything to the truck, but if I can gain 40hp through a flash I may just have to.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 538
Don’t wanna ruffle any feathers, just want to participate in the discussion. Wanted to inject something slightly technical that might highlight how much affect the electronic nanny has on the Silverado's performance. Changing the Silverado's engagement to Power Enrichment as soon as WOT is applied is the scenario for the following.
Using the Tundra and Titan curve as a base for rate of increase, applied to the Silverado's peak at 5700, plot this point in parallel the Tundra/Titian curves down to the 3900 starting point, it's easy to see how there are an easy 20 to 40 RWHP to be gained throughout the curve. This is a substantial amount, and a large contributing factor to the Silverado poor performance. I'd be interested in the details on the Silverado's anomaly in programming..
Fluke? Eliminated with tow haul mode? Error’d PCM code?
I’m going to send out some communications to see if I can locate something solid. If it’s legit I would like to understand the methodology behind this programming.
Using the Tundra and Titan curve as a base for rate of increase, applied to the Silverado's peak at 5700, plot this point in parallel the Tundra/Titian curves down to the 3900 starting point, it's easy to see how there are an easy 20 to 40 RWHP to be gained throughout the curve. This is a substantial amount, and a large contributing factor to the Silverado poor performance. I'd be interested in the details on the Silverado's anomaly in programming..
Fluke? Eliminated with tow haul mode? Error’d PCM code?
I’m going to send out some communications to see if I can locate something solid. If it’s legit I would like to understand the methodology behind this programming.
Last edited by Derek M; Jan 25, 2007 at 11:50 AM.
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,043
From: Shelbyville, IN
I'd take a MAF system anyday over Speed Density. I've beat my head up against a wall many nights trying to get a 730 ECM to live with a "respectable" camshaft. PITA
(Although, many of you probably don't remember what a 730 even came out of... hehe)
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
LOL. Yup. I co-authored an article in this very subject for MM&FF back in the late 90's. It is not easy, and takes someone that REALLY knows what they are doing (in my case, a gentleman named Mike Wesley).
For virtually any street car, I completely and totally agree with you.
I'm supposed to know it all, so please whisper it to me so that I can know that, too.
Bob
I'd take a MAF system anyday over Speed Density. I've beat my head up against a wall many nights trying to get a 730 ECM to live with a "respectable" camshaft. PITA
(Although, many of you probably don't remember what a 730 even came out of... hehe)
Bob
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I agree completely with Bob, here.
SSBaby, you're a prime example of why everybody laughs at the horsepower gains listed in bold on the outside of a performance part's retail packaging or what gains are claimed on a given company's website...
They start off with some "GAIN 50 HORSEPOWER!!!" in giant bold letters.
But nowhere... not even in the fine print does it let you know:
"But only if you have a modified _____ motor (other motors make less) that is running poorly on the OEM tune because you effed it up with some other mods (stock motors make much less), oh and you also have to assume a 30% drivetrain loss, which never actually happens, but that's what we needed to assume to call 35rwhp "50 (flywheel) horsepower"... and yes we know we never mentioned the word flywheel or, really, any of the other stipulations in this paragraph on our website or on the box or in our advertisements, but you should just know better, because we're all a bunch of marketing crooks here and like to make bold claims followed by lots of back pedaling if anybody actually questions us.
PS - if you weren't talking about LS2s, I only saw about THREE times where Bob specifically asked you a question about gains on an LS2 and you didn't bother to correct him to tell him you weren't talking about the LS2 when you said 50hp.
SSBaby, you're a prime example of why everybody laughs at the horsepower gains listed in bold on the outside of a performance part's retail packaging or what gains are claimed on a given company's website...
They start off with some "GAIN 50 HORSEPOWER!!!" in giant bold letters.
But nowhere... not even in the fine print does it let you know:
"But only if you have a modified _____ motor (other motors make less) that is running poorly on the OEM tune because you effed it up with some other mods (stock motors make much less), oh and you also have to assume a 30% drivetrain loss, which never actually happens, but that's what we needed to assume to call 35rwhp "50 (flywheel) horsepower"... and yes we know we never mentioned the word flywheel or, really, any of the other stipulations in this paragraph on our website or on the box or in our advertisements, but you should just know better, because we're all a bunch of marketing crooks here and like to make bold claims followed by lots of back pedaling if anybody actually questions us.
PS - if you weren't talking about LS2s, I only saw about THREE times where Bob specifically asked you a question about gains on an LS2 and you didn't bother to correct him to tell him you weren't talking about the LS2 when you said 50hp.
Stick to your Toyotas Threxx, you might be happier knowing you're ability to tune the car is zilch.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
It still reads from the MAP sensor... but I'd rather the PCM stopped throwing error codes... that's why I said two parameters are changed to enter into speed density.