Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Adding Headers and expected Fuel trims

  1. #1
    Lifetime Member Beer99C5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    298

    Default Adding Headers and expected Fuel trims

    I thought I had a pretty good VE and tune going being all stock, My last log was the first with headers on it, and it looks like my trims are -8 Avg.

    Naturally I gotta redo the VE Tune having added the headers, but that is what I should expect to see with adding headers? I believe I read headers lean out the tune because it makes the engine breath easier, so it would make sense that the PCM would want to add fuel to it. This being said my VE numbers should increase my next round of tuning more air = more fuel?

    The other thing is the Racetronics pump has added about 2-3 PSI more pressure, that being said I would expect the car to be richer with the higher Fuel Pressure. So in fact my trims would likely be further out than -8?

    Just doing a sanity check.

    I plan on updating the IFR table to the new pressures and and then VE again.

    Am I on track or just all FUpped?
    1999 C5 A-4 Convertible
    1 of 245 Nassua Blue 99 Vert's, Blackwing, LS6 Intake, 42 # Injectors, Two Stage Nitrous System- Dry and a Wet Plate, EFI Live Scan/Tune V2, 1999 PCM with 2002 COS 5 OS Custom Nitrous Panel.


    Maine USA



  2. #2
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    702

    Default

    i've usually seen about ~7-10% increase in midrange for headers. topend doesnt' change much at all which is kinda interesting. the most annoying part about tuning for headers is that it makes the knock prone peak torque area even more knock prone. so basically dont forget about your timing, as you WILL knock.

    i've seen lots of people who put in headers, flow 10% more (which even on a untuned car with stock rich PE numbers will make it very lean), and then they wonder why the car didnt get any faster, as they knock and half their runs are ruined because of deminished timing.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redhardsupra
    i've usually seen about ~7-10% increase in midrange for headers. topend doesnt' change much at all which is kinda interesting. the most annoying part about tuning for headers is that it makes the knock prone peak torque area even more knock prone. so basically dont forget about your timing, as you WILL knock.

    i've seen lots of people who put in headers, flow 10% more (which even on a untuned car with stock rich PE numbers will make it very lean), and then they wonder why the car didnt get any faster, as they knock and half their runs are ruined because of deminished timing.
    RHS,

    I have been saying this for a while! We have installed tons of KOOKS headers on these cars and have seen the KR go up after headers which required some timing to get pulled. In addition I have also noticed that trims do go 6-12 % negative at low speed as well.

    Howard

    www.redline-motorsports.net

    1-954-703-5560

    2006 ZO6 895/866 with APS TT
    2010 SSRS Camaro HTR-900TT (798/801)
    2011 HTR-850R Camaro
    2012 ZL1 Auto (10.33@135 MPH) Video Here!

  4. #4
    Lifetime Member Beer99C5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Thanks guys, that makes me fell good Seems I was close on my Stock tune, and what I am seeing with my headers is to be expected. What PID do I log to see where I need to change my timing table? Naturely I have Spark and KR as PID's, what else do I need ?

    Beer
    1999 C5 A-4 Convertible
    1 of 245 Nassua Blue 99 Vert's, Blackwing, LS6 Intake, 42 # Injectors, Two Stage Nitrous System- Dry and a Wet Plate, EFI Live Scan/Tune V2, 1999 PCM with 2002 COS 5 OS Custom Nitrous Panel.


    Maine USA



  5. #5
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    702

    Default

    there is no way to figure out your timing on the street, or at least i haven't figured it out yet, and i've been trying for 2+ yrs now.

    steady state dyno, partial throttle at arbitrary RPM's, and regulate AFR and spark (TOGETHER--they affect each other!) until you get the most hp. i've tried it using more empirical methods like time to traverse speed intervals measuring using both tuning software and gtech competition, but the small changes that timing makes is usually smaller than the regular levels of 'noise' you get by doing it on the street, with potholes, invisible inclines, wind, etc, so you'll never chase down your tail. dyno eliminates all these things, and gives you repeatability and precision, that's why it's the only way to Get it Right(TM).

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beer99C5
    I thought I had a pretty good VE and tune going being all stock, My last log was the first with headers on it, and it looks like my trims are -8 Avg.

    Naturally I gotta redo the VE Tune having added the headers, but that is what I should expect to see with adding headers? I believe I read headers lean out the tune because it makes the engine breath easier, so it would make sense that the PCM would want to add fuel to it. This being said my VE numbers should increase my next round of tuning more air = more fuel?

    The other thing is the Racetronics pump has added about 2-3 PSI more pressure, that being said I would expect the car to be richer with the higher Fuel Pressure. So in fact my trims would likely be further out than -8?

    Just doing a sanity check.


    I plan on updating the IFR table to the new pressures and and then VE again.

    Am I on track or just all FUpped?
    It doesn't make sence to me either---But typically LT headers always richen up the fuel rather than lean it down.Don't know why--Mine were almost exactly as yours-- -8 to -10 % accross the board

  7. #7
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    702

    Default

    in closed loop PCM detects a lean condition so just dumps extra fuel. because it's making these decisions based off a narrowband, it does not know just how much fuel to add, so it opts for the safer option and dumps a lot. this is what you might be seeing--overreaction.

    this is why we tune. if PCM was able to detect and properly adjust for airflow changes, no tuning would be needed. tuning is just making it run very close to perfect, so the computer doesn't overreact.

  8. #8
    Lifetime Member SSpdDmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redhardsupra
    in closed loop PCM detects a lean condition so just dumps extra fuel. because it's making these decisions based off a narrowband, it does not know just how much fuel to add, so it opts for the safer option and dumps a lot. this is what you might be seeing--overreaction.

    this is why we tune. if PCM was able to detect and properly adjust for airflow changes, no tuning would be needed. tuning is just making it run very close to perfect, so the computer doesn't overreact.
    This kind of contradicts the whole message in this thread. Everyone seems to be talking about negative fuel trims down low....so, wouldn't that mean the PCM is detecting a rich condition and pulling fuel?

    Personally, I think there are two issues at hand:
    1) The NBO2's suck with certain headers because the heating element is not strong enough to maintain the right operating temperature for the sensor to get an accurate reading. Being further down stream in the exhaust, it's naturally relying on that heating element more than it had to in stock form.

    2) There's the natrual improvement in exhaust flow, which should create a lean condition. That lean condition would be seen by the O2's with substantial exhaust flow (which helps eliminate the lack of heat issue). Ideally, the car should run leaner and require positive fuel trims. On a stock car, a cold air intake, long tubes and catback generally require 6%~8% more fuel for commanded to match actual. So, that's 6~8% more fuel to bring you back down to the high 11's that come commanded from the factory.

    That's why, IMO, they run rich up top and pull fuel down low. I wonder what a WBO2 would say when hooked up to one of these cars while they're in closed loop???
    Last edited by SSpdDmon; April 24th, 2007 at 05:58 AM.

  9. #9
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSpdDmon
    This kind of contradicts the whole message in this thread. Everyone seems to be talking about negative fuel trims down low....so, wouldn't that mean the PCM is detecting a rich condition and pulling fuel?

    That's why, IMO, they run rich up top and pull fuel down low. I wonder what a WBO2 would say when hooked up to one of these cars while they're in closed loop???
    heh, the point here is that relying on sensors introduces a new layer of problems. it used to be that if something stopped working, that meant the part broke. nowadays, everything might be just peachy, but a sensor fails and suddenly car goes crazy. (ever tried to drive with a broken MAP sensor? )

    what i've seen a lot, and it's a direct result of forums, is the belief that wideband is the solution to all life's problems. it's not. it's just a replacement sensor with more resolution. it is still subject to all the problems other sensors have. it might break, it might be miscalibrated, it might be trying to work outside of it's operational range, etc...
    people look at the wb readout and follow it like the word of god. and more often than not it leads them down the wrong path. if you're trying to tune idle on a big cam, wb will say lean, so you put more fuel in, and it gets worse. do not follow sensors blindly. if the wideband goes on, it does not give you the right to turn your brain off.

    computer has no common sense. humans do. when a computer reads that fake lean, it will dump more fuel. if that method was always perfect, we'd never need a human to adjust anything. that's not the case. if you keep adjusting stuff and there's no change, you're probably not changing the right thing, or the change gets ignored 'downstream' of the decision process. if you make changes one way, and you get a result opposite to expected, you probably want to rethink the process and check your assumptions.

    so i guess the point of this entirely too long post is that if we're still falling for stupid sensor readings, what do you expect the stupid computer to do when fed funky data? dont be a stupid computer, dont follow data without understanding the process and questioning the correctness of the data.

  10. #10
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    28,403

    Default

    Hmmm.... this brings us back to: "how do I know if this wideband is producing correct output...?"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. E38 fuel trims
    By minytrker in forum Gen IV V8 Specific
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2010, 01:44 PM
  2. Fuel Trims for 12.5 AFR with LC1
    By bobbycollier in forum General (Petrol, Gas, Ethanol)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 19th, 2010, 03:25 PM
  3. Adding headers + O2
    By BRD-PREY in forum Gen III V8 Specific
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 28th, 2009, 09:12 AM
  4. Fuel Trims are 0
    By Rhino79 in forum General (Petrol, Gas, Ethanol)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 17th, 2007, 03:15 PM
  5. Adding fuel
    By Lennart in forum General (Diesel)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 18th, 2006, 02:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •