Holy cow, I guess I was right on the cause of your smoke, huh? I just noticed your pulse width at 55 mm3 of fuel. That's equivalent to 90 mm3 on the stock pulse width table! :eek:
Printable View
Holy cow, I guess I was right on the cause of your smoke, huh? I just noticed your pulse width at 55 mm3 of fuel. That's equivalent to 90 mm3 on the stock pulse width table! :eek:
The turbine/vane setup is a lot tighter on the newer trucks ('06 and up). It's not uncommon to run 0% vane where the LLY would run ~40%.
Nick
I wish i had an LLY exhaust housing. The danville turbos are all built using the LLY housing to flow more exhaust than the LBZ or even worse the LMM turbo.
I am wondering if anyone has tried using an LBZ turbo on an LLY. I have no real explanation why, but the LBZ is looser and just seems to want to make boost. The MAF numbers seem to support this also.
Has anyone tried actually increasing min vane table, to determine if the lowest values are actually more boost producing than say, 15 degrees?
I would think that it would be an upgrade for the LBZ's to use the LLY turbo because the exhaust housing is bigger and flows more that the LBZ, which can make it more efficient in the higher RPM and higher boost numbers. I've considered swapping mine out.
I've played with mine but it's so difficult to do because you would have to do it in a DSP tune, because the DVT's don't work like they are supposed to. So i gave up on it. but i did do a little experimenting and found that are cruise range changing the vanes from 0% all the way to 30% did nothing as far as boost is concerned. And thats as far as i got when i gave up.
"looser". Not loser.