How much should I be paying for dyno time?

donk_316 · Post by **donk_316** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:17 pm

Here in Alberta its $100 bucks an hour which I think can get you 3 good pulls with a little tuning in between. Plus he burns the chip for you for a little more...but thats all I know.

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:47 pm

Well aaron, it's nice to live in a place where dyno shops are like 7-11's on every corner, and they nickle and dime their work. One hour is the minimum wherever. And it seems that this type of dyno is the state of the art in this area anyways, so it would be like shopping for a black and white TV set.

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:27 pm

OK, the results are in. I'm waiting for the guy to email me a copy of the printout, but the results...

223.4 whp at 5600 rpm

243.1 lbs torque at 4100 rpm.

Will that shut you up now, aaron?

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:08 pm

See what 93 octane and an intake will do? You prob picked up a good amount there from the 93 octane if in fact you did put that in as you would have had more timing.

Can't wait to see the graph.

Nice work baby.

Post it up in the motorsports section if you could Give that placer some loving.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:11 pm

Now those are a bit more in line :thumbleft:

And hey, you beat my Lumina by 6whp! But now let's make it fair, your A:Fs are all over the graph, and you don't have an IAT or O2 sensor.

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:41 am

Anyhow.

Got the files and the viewer installed on my computer, so here goes some graphs.

Air/fuel by mph

Still think I can pop on a 3.0 pulley with no further mods aaron?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:44 am

Stimpy you're fucking stupid.

Yes, that is getting a little dangerous on the lean side. But a new pulley will not make it go more lean, unless your maxxing out your MAF, and you aren't.

Do you know what a MAF sensor is? Do you know what it does? Do you know why you have one? I wouldn't use a 3.0 without an intercooler, but a 3.4, yah. With a 3.4 pulley, your supercharger will pull in more air. It pulls this through the MAF, which reads the extra airflow, and adds fuel. It isn't perfect bvut damn near so.

You still could use some tuning, as your A:Fs shouldn't change much with the new pulley, and I think with that much extra airflow you might run into detonation and need to pull some timing.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:53 am

aaron wrote: Yes, that is getting a little dangerous on the lean side. But a new pulley will not make it go more lean, unless your maxxing out your MAF, and you aren't.

You still could use some tuning, as your A:Fs shouldn't change much with the new pulley, and I think with that much extra airflow you might run into detonation and need to pull some timing.

stop being an ignorant tool..

do you think that the ECM wants the AF to go up at the higher RPM?

its already not seeing parameters that it knows how to acuratly adjust for and adding more boost will only exacerbate it

and then after being a tool you double back and say the same thing he has been telling you

Oversteer · Post by **Oversteer** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:09 am

aaron wrote:Stimpy you're fucking stupid.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why everyone gets on Aaron's case.

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:41 am

aaron wrote:Stimpy you're fucking stupid.

Damn, that's a little harsh of an answer to a yes or no question. I thought that having more information would help you give a better evaluation of it. I do hope that your future endeavors never involve dealing with a customer that you may feel is less informed then yourself. I do believe that you'd quickly starve to death. Either that, or you'd quickly swallow your teeth. I guess that doesn't matter as much as being right.

It must feel really really good to be right.

PS, thanks for fucking up my thread. Cunt.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:55 pm

Sorry, after seeing the additional information, all of what I've told you all along still stands.

What I'm trying to get at is this, a smaller or larger pulley will have no affect on your air/fuel ratios. This is assuming your MAF is still in range, of which it probably is. A 3.0 pulley and an intercooler would not negatively affect your a/f, just your horsepower and torque.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:03 pm

aaron wrote:Sorry, after seeing the additional information, all of what I've told you all along still stands.

What I'm trying to get at is this, a smaller or larger pulley will have no affect on your air/fuel ratios. This is assuming your MAF is still in range, of which it probably is. A 3.0 pulley and an intercooler would not negatively affect your a/f, just your horsepower and torque.

a simple "i don't know what i'm talking about when it comes to ECM tuning" would have been much easier for you to type

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:14 pm

And the actual real life environment that the car lives in would find the car running up to much higher temperatures, as opposed to the 3 second throttle bursts the dyno tech was giving. I'm not a scientist, but my conventional wisdom would indicate that heat might not be terribly good for air fuel mixture. Again, I'm just a layman, so if you can explain it without insulting my ancestry and hygeine habits, I'd be interested in hearing about that. I would start to wonder about the purpose, then, of all the technology going in to heat control with boosted engines. :scratch:

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:22 pm

stimpy wrote:And the actual real life environment that the car lives in would find the car running up to much higher temperatures, as opposed to the 3 second throttle bursts the dyno tech was giving. I'm not a scientist, but my conventional wisdom would indicate that heat might not be terribly good for air fuel mixture. Again, I'm just a layman, so if you can explain it without insulting my ancestry and hygeine habits, I'd be interested in hearing about that. I would start to wonder about the purpose, then, of all the technology going in to heat control with boosted engines. :scratch:

Where is the extra heat coming from?

You are getting more heat into the air from the blower spinning faster. So the air is being heated up more after the new pulley. However, with a 3.0 you would also need an intercooler. And I think with a decent air/water IC, your charge temperatures would be less than stock with a 3.0 pulley. Now for just a 3.4" pulley, the added heat is not enough to cause the motor to detonate uncontrollably. In fact most 3.4 installs happen with the motors still seeing very little knock.

Now if you are talking higher engine temperatures from the higher dynamic compression ratios, it wouldn't be an issue because your coolant system is more than enough to keep the motor in standard temperature ranges. Your T-stat will be open more, but that isn't really a problem.

What it comes down to is that there are thousands of people running a 3.4 pulley, and hundreds running a intercooler and/or 3.0 or even smaller pulleys. A simple pulley chage within reason has been extensively proven to be a safe, worthwhile mod to the engines. You will not see any adverse affects form a 3.4, or a IC 3.0, except tire wear will be higher becuase you won't be able to hook up through 2nd gear...hehe

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:35 pm

aaron wrote: You are getting more heat into the air from the blower spinning faster. So the air is being heated up more after the new pulley. However, with a 3.0 you would also need an intercooler.

You little cocksucker. You know what you did. You think you're clever that you changed your post in the Kill Story section to add the intercooler.

You're pathetic.

neverendingproject · Post by **neverendingproject** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:04 pm

Ok I have a question. Aarron's saying that changing VE won't change AF ratio within reason right? All I've read about GMECM tuning says that the computer doesn't adjust for wide open throttle. Sure just cruising around it'll try to keep the AF ratio within spec but you'll want to tune for WOT. Am I off base here? That AF ratio didn't look bad to me except at lower speeds when it was probably cruising anyway.

whipped · Post by **whipped** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:21 pm

neverendingproject wrote:Ok I have a question. Aarron's saying that changing VE won't change AF ratio within reason right? All I've read about GMECM tuning says that the computer doesn't adjust for wide open throttle. Sure just cruising around it'll try to keep the AF ratio within spec but you'll want to tune for WOT. Am I off base here? That AF ratio didn't look bad to me except at lower speeds when it was probably cruising anyway.

It will keep the AFR at WOT at a list of values in a table..

i.e.

RPM - AFR
3000 - 12.1
3500 - 12.5
4000 - 11.0
4500 - 11.5
5000 - 12.0
5500 - 13.0

But the "calculated" AFR doesn't necessarily correlate to the actual AFR as read by a wideband... Generally it's close, but it doesn't matter anyways, as long as it's getting the fuel it needs. Also note that it takes into consideration your long term fuel trim that is "saved" at idle and driving around town normally. If you're lean there too, it will put more fuel in at WOT. If you're rich there, it won't do anything.

IMHO, you may be hitting some fueling limits or something, because you don't want to be seeing 13.2:1 at high rpm, *especially* on a boosted motor. 12.8 is probably fine. You may want to consider an adjustable FPR if you don't have one already, or possibly larger injectors if you're planning more mods.

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:10 pm

whipped wrote:You may want to consider an adjustable FPR if you don't have one already,

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying I need to tear the car apart before I can put a 3.4 pulley.

The Dark Side of Will · Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:34 pm

neverendingproject wrote:Ok I have a question. Aarron's saying that changing VE won't change AF ratio within reason right? All I've read about GMECM tuning says that the computer doesn't adjust for wide open throttle. Sure just cruising around it'll try to keep the AF ratio within spec but you'll want to tune for WOT. Am I off base here? That AF ratio didn't look bad to me except at lower speeds when it was probably cruising anyway.

The MAF system makes the computer much more receptive to VE changes.

The computer applies corrections derived from part throttle operation at WOT. It just doesn't learn new corrections and doesn't look at the O2 sensor.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:33 pm

It wouldnt' hurt to give it a touch more fuel after 4900 rpm. Better safe then sorry. Running lean can even cause more knock retard and pull timing causing less hp.

to be safe I would keep it around 12.5:1 to be safe and for longevity.