312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)

Subscribe
Mar 28, 2007 | 12:08 AM
  #51  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: I disagree with your statement, once you go to the TBI PCM or EBL you will change your mind. Both offer a huge driveability improvement, especially when used with a functioning Manifold Air Temperature sensor. The more versitile PCM and EBL off improved throttle response, quicker ETs, better top-end HP, more flexibility, and improved fuel mileage.

Here are the main highlights as to why the TBI PCM is better (EBL has its own thread detailing its advantages)

Much expanded Timing and VE tables to 6,400 for more accurate fueling
Open and Closed throttle Timing tables
Cranking Fuel is Pulsewidth based and is reduced via distributer reference pulses, giving a fast, easy startup.
Manifold Air Temp (IAT) compensation for fueling
AE/DE/DFCO is much more controllable
Controls EGR much better
Smart PE mode (Above a certain TPS% the PCM will return to open loop, but not enter PE, saves gas in high loading and lets the engine run smoother under load)
A/C Compressor controls (add a relay and it will cut the A/C compressor off @ WOT and high loading)
Can control both a 4L60E and 4L80E
Quote: I second Fast's point regarding the improved driveability and performance. Since I installed and tuned EBL in my Xfire, the car has added 3mph in trap speed up to 105. I hope to go to the track this weekend and am expecting another 2-3mph trap speed after lowering the AFR for WOT.
And yet I was bashed in the other thread for saying bad things about the 8746 TBI computer in thirdgens. Go figure.
Mar 28, 2007 | 12:13 AM
  #52  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: And yet I was bashed in the other thread for saying bad things about the 8746 TBI computer in thirdgens. Go figure.
I NEVER disagreed with you. The stock programming in the 8746 IS Junk. I even mentioned how easy it is to re-pin to the PCM.
Mar 28, 2007 | 12:15 AM
  #53  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: One thing to remember about fuel injection is that unlike a carb, you cant broad brush the needed changes to the tune. With EFI, you have to tune every little detail due to the fact that there are so many individual operating parameters in the computer. Its much harder to tune with any EFI system. Also, the stock ECMs where junk, and have no place on any car being used in this day and age. it can hardly meter the fuel properly in stock form. I was able to get around it all with a $50 dollar PCM, a $25 dollar LS1 MAF, and some wire from radioshack. Not a terribly hard mod. Theres also EBL, which requires no modding at all. Cars go from running like crap to running like a champ. Easily proves that the engine doesnt really care whats on top of it. it just needs the right ammount of fuel and spark.
I completely disagree with you. I can do major and minor things with the 7165/7730 TPI ECM, the 92-93 LT1 ECM, and the 94-95 LT1 PCM that cannot be duplicated in any way on a carb engine. If you want to "broad brush" the fuel trims, simply add or subtract the injector size constant. The fuel and spark tables allow for fine tuning to give the engine exactly what it needs at every rpm. There are tools out there now (Ostrich for one) that make the stock ECM's every bit as good as the aftermarket ECM's, for similar or less money, and keep them smog legal for those of us that have to be. But lets not turn this into a carb vs EFI debate. Lets just say that carbs are better for drag racing and EFI is better for street cars.
Mar 28, 2007 | 12:41 AM
  #54  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
FWIW, attached is the .BIN and some screenshots of the VE and Timing tables.

312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)-312-timing.jpg   312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)-312-ve.jpg  

Mar 28, 2007 | 12:55 AM
  #55  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: The stock programming in the 8746 IS Junk.
I am further improving on this point with a few more screen shots. Compare the resolution of my tuned fuel and timing tables on the 312, compared to the stock fuel and timing tables used in ARHT for a 7747 (8746 VERY similar).

As one can see, the timing and fuel tables in the 7747 and 8746 for that matter are VERY lacking in resolution compared to the TBI PCM and the EBL.

The timing tables on the 7747/8746 go to 3,600 rpm.
The timing table in the TBI PCM got to 6,400 rpm.

The VE tables in the 7747/8746 go to 3,200 rpm with an adder table to 6,400
The VE tables in the TBI PCM go to 6,400 rpm

There are also data points every 5 KPA, vs. every 10 KPA.

The result is the engine runs stronger and smoother with much better response.

312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)-7747-timing.jpg   312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)-7747-ve-table.jpg  

Mar 28, 2007 | 08:47 AM
  #56  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: z06's run 11.6ish.. no need to drop a whole second.. if they add some sticky tires on the camaro, they will be in the low 11's.. and if you read, there is no nitrous.. the car is just about 600+lbs lighter then most others..
Yeah and what about "Ranger" who run 10.9's with a stock Z06.............???? And yes I can read. I just have problems with a 305 running 11's. It's gonna be hard to convince most people.
Mar 28, 2007 | 08:55 AM
  #57  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: I completely disagree with you. I can do major and minor things with the 7165/7730 TPI ECM, the 92-93 LT1 ECM, and the 94-95 LT1 PCM that cannot be duplicated in any way on a carb engine. If you want to "broad brush" the fuel trims, simply add or subtract the injector size constant. The fuel and spark tables allow for fine tuning to give the engine exactly what it needs at every rpm. There are tools out there now (Ostrich for one) that make the stock ECM's every bit as good as the aftermarket ECM's, for similar or less money, and keep them smog legal for those of us that have to be. But lets not turn this into a carb vs EFI debate. Lets just say that carbs are better for drag racing and EFI is better for street cars.
My point was that a jet cant be changed or a screw cant be turned to tune with EFI due to the fact that there is no physical coupling like there would be with a carb. Each operating point is seperate and distinct, and must be tuned, or at least have a vaule placed, not to mention that the later ECMs/PCMs have lots and lots of parameters in them. Didnt say theres anything wrong with that. I wouldnt be able to have year round drivability without it, but it is more time consuming to tune.
Mar 28, 2007 | 09:04 AM
  #58  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: Yeah and what about "Ranger" who run 10.9's with a stock Z06.............???? And yes I can read. I just have problems with a 305 running 11's. It's gonna be hard to convince most people.

Until they get the ***** whipped! The beauty of TBI is that it can be made to look like such a sleeper.
Mar 28, 2007 | 11:37 AM
  #59  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Somebody mentioned LS7 territory.............yeah right when he puts out 500rwhp n/a with that 305...
Mar 28, 2007 | 12:10 PM
  #60  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: Somebody mentioned LS7 territory.............yeah right when he puts out 500rwhp n/a with that 305...
The LS7's that come through the shop usually put down ~450 whp stock on the dyno. Wheel horsepower is great for tuning and bragging rights, but track times (like the 11.8 in this thread) is probably what the original poster was talking about seeing as most new stock ZO6's you see running at the track are in the mid-high 11 second category depending on the driver. Kinda hard to race another car on the dyno
Mar 28, 2007 | 01:21 PM
  #61  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: If that is accurate data analysis I believe you have an air restriction somewhere. You are showing 92KPA at 100% throttle. Looks to me there is a restriction somewhere and you are leaving power on the table.
I think you're right... it's called TBI. What track do you run the car at? I'll be down in Alrington soon and I'd like to see it run. sounds like a blast!
Mar 28, 2007 | 01:45 PM
  #62  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Awesome track times Fast. I knew you'd get that motor in a thirdgen soon enough. I can't wait to get mine to the track this year. Good job on getting into the 11s though!

Quote: I think you're right... it's called TBI. What track do you run the car at? I'll be down in Alrington soon and I'd like to see it run. sounds like a blast!
This is just a stupid comment. Go back and read the posts you're quoting. It is not even about the motor that this thread is about, it's about a 3.1 v6. Read everything before you comment and call the restriction "TBI" that's foolish.
Mar 28, 2007 | 01:54 PM
  #63  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: Awesome track times Fast. I knew you'd get that motor in a thirdgen soon enough. I can't wait to get mine to the track this year. Good job on getting into the 11s though!



This is just a stupid comment. Go back and read the posts you're quoting. It is not even about the motor that this thread is about, it's about a 3.1 v6. Read everything before you comment and call the restriction "TBI" that's foolish.
No it's true,TBI is the restriction, and so is my holley 750, and so is a twin 58mm tb...I'll let you figure out what I mean, since you are so knowledgeable. And it was a 3.1 TBI V6 in a Blazer, from what I understand.

Anyones best bet to make max power with TBI would be to go to a 4bbl unit, but most people are too "frugal" for that. I'd really like to see this car in action and see how stripped down it is, 2700-2800lbs is tough for me to imagine on a thirdgen. You still have all the crashbars and the hood on that thing?
Mar 28, 2007 | 02:07 PM
  #64  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Also, how did you get booted off the track for 11.80's? Is Tex Motorplex, Kennedale and Denton all behind the times?
Mar 28, 2007 | 03:20 PM
  #65  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: I'd really like to see this car in action and see how stripped down it is, 2700-2800lbs is tough for me to imagine on a thirdgen. You still have all the crashbars and the hood on that thing?
Probably just the interior. Mine was just moldy rags so I stripped it out down to the metal to get rid of the nastyness, just leaving the seats and center consol. IIRC, it did shave a couple hundred pounds off after I weighed everything from the interior.
Mar 28, 2007 | 03:37 PM
  #66  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: Also, how did you get booted off the track for 11.80's? Is Tex Motorplex, Kennedale and Denton all behind the times?
Ya'rly.............
Mar 28, 2007 | 05:41 PM
  #67  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Listen here newbies, I don't mean to sound condescending....well actually I do. Fast is not the type to come throwing around trivial numbers without backing up his claims with cold hard data. He's done a LOT for TBI and I have no reason to believe that he's lying.

I'll stake my 2000+ post count that he's telling the truth and I'm sure he'll post a time slip if he felt it necessary. The truth is he's not out to impress the usual internet retard, he's posting his results for his fellow TBI tuners to see. He's provided proof of what TBI is capable of so those of us who are actually modding and tuning TBI setup can learn from what he's done. I know from the data that he has provided that my 3700 lb car will break into the high 12's on street tires and low 12's with slicks with this particular setup. I'm smart enough to go to crunch the data and learn from it instead of screaming bloody murder because I don't understand how he did it.
Mar 28, 2007 | 07:11 PM
  #68  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: Also, how did you get booted off the track for 11.80's? Is Tex Motorplex, Kennedale and Denton all behind the times?
Yes, I believe some of the tracks still adhere to the old NHRA rules. Here in Englishtown though it's 11.49 or faster (IHRA)...

Quote: seeing as most new stock ZO6's you see running at the track are in the mid-high 11 second category depending on the driver.
This is exactly what I was referring to. Most C6-ZO6's at the track average mid to high 11's, depending on the driver of course....

Quote: Somebody mentioned LS7 territory. yeah right when he puts out 500rwhp n/a with that 305.
You sound as if you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and now have the nerve to throw in "Ranger", as if this alone settles the dispute. I'm making much less than 500 "RWHP" with my LS1, and have run faster times than his. It's a little something known as symmetry. Peak numbers mean absolutely nothing. Maximized power under the curve, that is, average power throughout, is where it counts....
Mar 28, 2007 | 09:17 PM
  #69  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
Quote: Yes, I believe some of the tracks still adhere to the old NHRA rules. Here in Englishtown though it's 11.49 or faster (IHRA)...



This is exactly what I was referring to. Most C6-ZO6's at the track average mid to high 11's, depending on the driver of course....



You sound as if you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and now have the nerve to throw in "Ranger", as if this alone settles the dispute. I'm making much less than 500 "RWHP" with my LS1, and have run faster times than his. It's a little something known as symmetry. Peak numbers mean absolutely nothing. Maximized power under the curve, that is, average power throughout, is where it counts....
Good for you!! I'm glad I don't know what I'm talking about. Hell I've been making a damned good living from the car biz for almost 25 years. I've owned plenty of neat rides. Convertible GTO's Big Block Corvettes, and a SD455 T/A. I was the co-builder of 70 RS than ran 8.12's @171 mph...........so I guess I'm really stupid glad you pointed that out to me. Oh and post the weight of your T/A and a time slip. I would think with all those mods it would make as much power as a LS7.
Mar 28, 2007 | 09:29 PM
  #70  
Re: 312 TBI Track times (11.8 @ 119.1)
This is turning into a pissing match... Going to lock it for a bit.
Subscribe