Ive got the 2200 engine and Ive got some minor bolt ons and some head work and im really contemplating on whether or not to get HPT for it next to see what an agressive tune could do to add some more power to my car. Ive never messed with ecus before but I would like to know if dropping my AFRS down to 12.8 -12.9, advance the timing, and if messing with the VE tables are going to yield me any gains thanks
If I decide to move forward with my turbo setup, I'll be getting HPtuners to tune my car na while still collecting the parts for my turbo. If i end up going that route I fully intend on getting baseline numbers, tuning then dynoing again when I have a good tune running.
-Chris
OHV CAV wrote:Ive got the 2200 engine and Ive got some minor bolt ons and some head work and im really contemplating on whether or not to get HPT for it next to see what an agressive tune could do to add some more power to my car. Ive never messed with ecus before but I would like to know if dropping my AFRS down to 12.8 -12.9, advance the timing, and if messing with the VE tables are going to yield me any gains thanks
Move your Air/fuel to 12.8-12.9 from where? On a N/A car I would run them around mid 13's.
FU Tuning
VE tables are not going to be your only gain with HP tuners. I can tell you that after tuning my car very minimally I can feel the difference in how the car runs ( and no, I am not saying that it has more power, it just runs smoother). After cutting timing where I am getting full KR and advancing timing a few degrees in higher RPM's I am not getting any dead spots where the car just wont accelerate. I had problems with low rpm accel and now that is all but completely gone. Changing the Power enrichment onset and TPS onset helped give it a better feel and get rid of some KR at full throttle, low rpm's. All in all, my favorite features are the System tools. Fan turns on at a lower temp, and keeps the car cooler. Fan runs for 90 seconds after shutting off the car, And one of my favorites is the AC cut out. Now instead of having to turn off the AC manualy every time I pass a car it just turns off automatically when It revs high enough.
That right there, was what I always wanted. The A/C cut out. Damned AC turns my car into a Geo Storm.
Cherubim wrote:Damned AC turns my car into a Geo Storm.
I dunno 'bout yours but mine might actually be faster that way.
Why would you move your fuel mix from 14.7 on an n/a car? The only reason for doing that on a turbo car is to richen it up so it burns cooler and doesn't detonate. That's like chipping the car so it constantly runs rich. If anything the closer you get to 17:1 the more power but usually leaning out messes stuff up and causes detonation under heavy load. An EGT is the best way to tune any car. But like rollinredcav said the stock ECU runs timing on the conservative side so the tuner would be a good idea but not for making the mixture rich.
--------------------------------------------------
'96 Cavalier Good ol' Pushrod 2.2
-24X,000 miles on factory build
-Some oil loss between changes, me thinks it be rings.
David Jones wrote:Why would you move your fuel mix from 14.7 on an n/a car? The only reason for doing that on a turbo car is to richen it up so it burns cooler and doesn't detonate.
yea.. right..
stoichiometric isn't ideal for maximum power boosted or n/a. And fuel isn't used just to cool, its used to... you know... burn stuff.
Its common knowledge that stoichiometric (understood as a 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio for a gasoline engine) is ideal for best fuel economy, but it is NOT for best power.. regardless of power adders or not
its rule of thumb that the ideal n/a air/fuel ratio is around 13.5:1 if not slightly richer and for turbo or forced induction is around 12.5:1
usually people with modified cars running high boost or heavily heavily modified n/a run richer to stay safe in case something were to fail (such as multiple fuel pumps, or aging injectors) a sudden drop from 11:1 to 12.5:1 for example would give the driver the opportunity to get out of the throttle to save the engine, whereas running on the ragged edge of maximum power would leave a very small window to save the engine should something suddenly fail.
There's also different types of power, you can tune fuel and ignition for better torque or horsepower depending on what you want
Quote:
That's like chipping the car so it constantly runs rich. If anything the closer you get to 17:1 the more power but usually leaning out messes stuff up and causes detonation under heavy load. An EGT is the best way to tune any car. But like rollinredcav said the stock ECU runs timing on the conservative side so the tuner would be a good idea but not for making the mixture rich.
sorry I disagree. the best way to tune a car is with a wideband air/fuel gauge AND egt. I'm no expert, but I don't think leaning out much past 14.7:1 will make anymore power.. this is the absolute leanest you want to go under wide open throttle n/a
if you're boosted, the engine is already being damaged
I'll be street tuning my car with HPT when my innovate motorsports wideband comes in wednesday.. I'll be posting details about which air/fuel ratio performs the best (butt dyno... <rolls eyes>
and encounters the least amount of knock retard while allowing me to advance timing.
^^^^ 14.7 is best for emissions and working with a cat to remove NOX gasses from exhaust, leaner is better for fuel economy, the rest I agree with.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
Now, why don't those chips work and give you better performance? With one installed off ebay an engine runs about 11-12:1...peak combustion range
--------------------------------------------------
'96 Cavalier Good ol' Pushrod 2.2
-24X,000 miles on factory build
-Some oil loss between changes, me thinks it be rings.
David Jones wrote:Now, why don't those chips work and give you better performance? With one installed off ebay an engine runs about 11-12:1...peak combustion range
Because they are generic and have no idea what your engine's current operating conditions are, let alone what needs to be changed to make more power, and remain safe. They are just a bad idea in general, and those AF's are far too rich for NA power, and you'd be a fool to run one on a boosted engine.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
David Jones wrote:Now, why don't those chips work and give you better performance? With one installed off ebay an engine runs about 11-12:1...peak combustion range
an ebay chip? are you serious?
how do you know thats the air fuel ratio with an ebay chip? did you use a wideband?
The idiot that brought his car in for repairs because it was running like crap had a wideband(due to carbon buildup from being too rich on a city street car). He was told by a guy at work about the chips and ratio and had a wideband because he wanted to go turbo but didn't have the money yet for everything. The most powerful burn range is right around 12:1 maybe a little lower but the problem is that when you get below 14 on a car that isn't raced all the time, driven on the highway 20-30 mins one way or boosted to get chamber temps up you get carbon build up in the combustion chamber that starts to cause detonation. You don't really get that much of an increase in power for the loss of economy and extra maintenance a city driven car would need.
But to each his own. Our shop has never recommended it because of extra up-keep and this county requires anything older than 96 to pass emissions, 96+ hooked up to analyzer to check for irregularities and if the engine is modified in any way to pass emissions on a dyno.
And I know those chips are crap that was a sarcastic remark...
--------------------------------------------------
'96 Cavalier Good ol' Pushrod 2.2
-24X,000 miles on factory build
-Some oil loss between changes, me thinks it be rings.
David Jones wrote:
And I know those chips are crap that was a sarcastic remark...
On an OBD2 car, under normal driving conditions, the ecu uses the stock primary O2 sensor to maintain a 14.7 AF ratio regardless of what the "ebay chip", or adj. fpr, bigger injectors, or whatever device is trying to change. I'm not trying to start a fight, but your carbon theory won't fly in this scenario.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
I'm not sure what chips your talking about...I'm talking about the chips that people put on the O2 sensor lead to make the car think it's running lean when it's not to richen up the fuel mix. They only work with widebands tho so you have to replace the stock one with a wideband. I have an altered version of this for my highway lean-out system.
Those are really the only ones I've seen before. I think I've heard of others but never really read up on them or how they are supposed to work and never go on ebay much for performance parts as I prefer to make my own or use my discount.
--------------------------------------------------
'96 Cavalier Good ol' Pushrod 2.2
-24X,000 miles on factory build
-Some oil loss between changes, me thinks it be rings.
Learn your @!#$ before you post next time. a 14.7 afr is not the best mixture for power and leaning it out to 17 is just retarded. If you think running really lean is the best afr then you've obviously got some more reading to do. 14.7 is a factory spec they go by so that the least amount of hydrocarbons are released into the air as possible. Its set there for economy not for power
listening... On this post..
GOLD Z24 wrote:listening... On this post..
Me too.
I'm getting the AEM uego wideband, already have the afpr installed with a fpgauge, and studying this information for tuning the car soon.
Misnblu
Misnblu.com
Newbie member since 1999
Thank you Dave and JBO! 
Both are happy..... The guy with the 97 has become a good customer(he keeps changing things/has to keep coming back to have me fix the tune for new mods)
I will try to get some dyno numbers for one of them soon... Have to schedule some dyno time with my buddys shop.....
