2017 Camaro SS HP tuner (low hp gains) (2024)

• Forum
• Tuning
• GM V8 Tuning
• GM V8 Tuning - Engine, Gas (Gen 5)
• 2017 Camaro SS HP tuner (low hp gains)

1. 11-02-2017#1

   Flincelli

   • View Profile
   • View Forum Posts
   • Private Message

   

   Potential Tuner

   Join Date

   Nov 2017

   Posts

   2

   First I want to say I?m new here in the forum. I?ve searched high and low across the internet to find anyone who has been having the same issues I have been having. So I?ve got a 17 camaro SS a8 with SW 1 7/8 longtime headers, SW full exhaust cat delete, npp, and roto-fab cai. I took my car into the local performance shop and was assured to see at least 420rwhp on the dyno after the hp tune. After a few days he was only able to get about 406rwhp. He knows something isnt right and cant figure it out. So I?m here trying to figure something out that could cause this. I know you guys are gonna ask for the logs or tune file. I do not have either. Mind you that the gas here is only E92, I?m in Hawaii so the the elevation can change but his shop is at sea level, and the temp was around 80-85 degrees. If any of you have some information on what can be done within the tuner please let me know. Much appreciated

   Reply With Quote

2. 11-03-2017#2

   Rajvosa01

   • View Profile
   • View Forum Posts
   • Private Message

   

   Potential Tuner

   Join Date

   Aug 2017

   Posts

   7

   Did you run a baseline before you did all the mods? That would probably be the best indicator of what the improvement are. Frankly I wouldn't expect LT1 to make huge gains like forced induction LT4 due to nature of physics. There are too many factors that could impact the outcome but overall you are probably in the ballpark when you factor in 15-18% drive train loss. Look at the bright side, at least he is not trying to fudge the numbers to give you your desired HP.

   Reply With Quote

3. 11-05-2017#3

   Flincelli

   • View Profile
   • View Forum Posts
   • Private Message

   

   Potential Tuner

   Join Date

   Nov 2017

   Posts

   2

   Originally Posted by Rajvosa01

   Did you run a baseline before you did all the mods? That would probably be the best indicator of what the improvement are. Frankly I wouldn't expect LT1 to make huge gains like forced induction LT4 due to nature of physics. There are too many factors that could impact the outcome but overall you are probably in the ballpark when you factor in 15-18% drive train loss. Look at the bright side, at least he is not trying to fudge the numbers to give you your desired HP.

   Well we didn?t get a baseline prior to the mods. But the baseline prior to the tune was around 396-398. We punched it out again on the dyno at got it at 410 3 runs. Seems that?s all we are gonna get at this point. May try to clean the fuel system out with running some better gas by the crap here is 92 and hydrometer is showing around 89-90 on that gas. So may look at getting some octane booster to bring it around 95 octane. Then will do another test. He and I find it weird as he has another Camaro with the same setup but it that one has a ported throttle body. That one is running 426. Not sure if the ported throttle body is making the extra 16hp or not.

   Reply With Quote

4. 11-05-2017#4

   TriPinTaZ

   • View Profile
   • View Forum Posts
   • Private Message

   

   See Also

   Camaro SS Tuning Guide (2010-2022) - Top Camaro SS Tuners6 Best Tuners For The Camaro SSBest Tuner for Camaro SS (Updated: June 2024)2016-2018 Camaro Power Programmers Tuning ECU PCM

   Senior Tuner

   Join Date

   May 2003

   Location

   South FL

   Posts

   1,409

   Post your tune and logs?

   [emailprotected]
   Owner/GM Calibrator
   Gen V Specialist - C7 Corvette, Gen6 Camaro & CTS-V3

   Reply With Quote

5. 11-08-2017#5

   cmitchell17a

   • View Profile
   • View Forum Posts
   • Private Message

   

   Tuner

   Join Date

   Mar 2017

   Posts

   127

   I may get bashed for this, but there is always so much talk of people adding bolt-ons, and then the last "bolt-on" is a tune. And people say a tune is always required to make the most power. The stock calibration obviously has room to compensate for more airflow introduced by "bolt-ons". With the roto-fab the maf sensor airflow path is supposedly designed to function similar to the stock one, and therefore, no re-calibration of the maf is needed. Besides this the bolt ons should just allow for more airflow/airmass in certain areas. From a speed density perspective, I could understand bolt ons disrupting the virtual VE, causing the PCM to underfuel during transient conditions.

   So I guess I am kind of asking a question in that where is all the hidden power come from retuning after bolt ons? The MAF I would think could compensate well enough since, I believe, you don't rely on speed density that much at WOT high rpms?

   Reply With Quote

6. 11-08-2017#6

   Bill@HPTuners

   • View Profile
   • View Forum Posts
   • Private Message
   • Visit Homepage

   

   HP Tuners Support
   (foff667)

   Join Date

   Jun 2004

   Location

   Hailing from Parts Unknown

   Posts

   28,319

   so you gained 10-12 hp from a tune with minor bolt ons, sounds about right to me.

   It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be done in two weeks...

   A wise man once said "google it"

   Reply With Quote

7. 11-08-2017#7

   GHuggins

   • View Profile
   • View Forum Posts
   • Private Message

   

   Tuning Addict

   Join Date

   Jan 2015

   Location

   Franklin, NC / Gainesville, Ga

   Posts

   6,902

   Originally Posted by cmitchell17a

   I may get bashed for this, but there is always so much talk of people adding bolt-ons, and then the last "bolt-on" is a tune. And people say a tune is always required to make the most power. The stock calibration obviously has room to compensate for more airflow introduced by "bolt-ons". With the roto-fab the maf sensor airflow path is supposedly designed to function similar to the stock one, and therefore, no re-calibration of the maf is needed. Besides this the bolt ons should just allow for more airflow/airmass in certain areas. From a speed density perspective, I could understand bolt ons disrupting the virtual VE, causing the PCM to underfuel during transient conditions.

   So I guess I am kind of asking a question in that where is all the hidden power come from retuning after bolt ons? The MAF I would think could compensate well enough since, I believe, you don't rely on speed density that much at WOT high rpms?

   See Also

   Aftermarket Tuners and Programmers for Chevrolet Camaro

   If it was a vehicle line with a wideband to "compensate" during wot conditions then yes I guess it could "compensate" somewhat, but these don't have widebands from the factory which means the car doesn't have anyway shape or form of knowing what the wot fueling changes needed are... Now this can go either way from this point - either you wind up with too lean or more so from what I've been seeing - way too rich from the new airflow readings going into the motor... Then there's other fueling changes, timing changes, throttle changes and more depending on what the end customer is after that can be made...

   2010 Vette Stock Bottom LS3 - LS2 APS Twin Turbo Kit, Trick Flow Heads and Custom Cam - 12psi - 714rwhp and 820rwtq / 100hp Nitrous Shot starting at 3000 rpms - 948rwhp and 1044rwtq still on 93
   2011 Vette Cam Only Internal Mod in stock LS3 -- YSI @ 18psi - 811rwhp on 93 / 926rwhp on E60 & 1008rwhp with a 50 shot of nitrous all through a 6L80

   ~Greg Huggins~
   Remote Tuning Available at gh[emailprotected]
   Mobile Tuning Available for North Georgia and WNC

   Reply With Quote

8. 11-09-2017#8

   cmitchell17a

   • View Profile
   • View Forum Posts
   • Private Message

   

   Tuner

   Join Date

   Mar 2017

   Posts

   127

   I don't mean to hijack the thread from the op's question, but why is it not possible to delay or disable pe mode to check fuel yells at WOT? I know there is debate on just how important enrichment is for protection, but if the truck engines delay PE mode for 60 or so seconds? I know optimal power won't be made without enrichment to ensure all available oxygen is consumed at high rpm/WOT/high turbulence/high airflow conditions.

   Reply With Quote

9. 11-09-2017#9

   veee8

   • View Profile
   • View Forum Posts
   • Private Message

   

   Advanced Tuner

   Join Date

   Apr 2006

   Location

   Raleigh, NC

   Posts

   449

   Originally Posted by cmitchell17a

   I don't mean to hijack the thread from the op's question, but why is it not possible to delay or disable pe mode to check fuel yells at WOT? I know there is debate on just how important enrichment is for protection, but if the truck engines delay PE mode for 60 or so seconds? I know optimal power won't be made without enrichment to ensure all available oxygen is consumed at high rpm/WOT/high turbulence/high airflow conditions.

   The debate lies in GM's reasoning on why they have done that on certain trucks, but I will tell you this, run one with the stock tune on the dyno, and then change the tune to enable PE, and the gains are pretty large with the added fueling at WOT.

   www.crawford-racing.com
   Home of the original and best selling CR-Fueler plug and play port injection controller kits for all GM Gen V direct injection platforms.

   Reply With Quote

10. 11-09-2017#10

    cmitchell17a

    • View Profile
    • View Forum Posts
    • Private Message

    

    Tuner

    Join Date

    Mar 2017

    Posts

    127

    Does the internal fuel truck control logic still give accurate fuel trim info at WOT with PE disabled. I would think you could adjust VE at high airflow/rpm with the narrowband o2? Or maybe the narrowband isn't accurate because of the high airflow and/or rpms?

    Reply With Quote

11. 11-09-2017#11

    veee8

    • View Profile
    • View Forum Posts
    • Private Message

    

    Advanced Tuner

    Join Date

    Apr 2006

    Location

    Raleigh, NC

    Posts

    449

    Well they stay in closed loop at wot on those trucks, where they are trimming to keep it to stoich (normally 14.68 in those applications). For that purpose the narrowbands do just fine keeping things in check for that, which is not ideal for power.
    This does somewhat apply to the newer DI stuff. I did extensive testing on the dyno when the 14 Stingray came out with AFR. Running them super rich and super lean at stoich. Power would drop on both ends of the spectrum.

    www.crawford-racing.com
    Home of the original and best selling CR-Fueler plug and play port injection controller kits for all GM Gen V direct injection platforms.

    Reply With Quote

12. 11-09-2017#12

    cmitchell17a

    • View Profile
    • View Forum Posts
    • Private Message

    

    Tuner

    Join Date

    Mar 2017

    Posts

    127

    I didn't know you could evaluate octane rating using a hydrometer? I guess there is no ethanol in Hawaii?

    Reply With Quote

13. 11-09-2017#13

    cmitchell17a

    • View Profile
    • View Forum Posts
    • Private Message

    

    Tuner

    Join Date

    Mar 2017

    Posts

    127

    And yes I agree, thanks for the info. I know the lq4, which is the low compression 6.0 in the HD trucks is setup with a 60 second PE delay if I remember right. The lq9 I don't think had a delay, with just a point more compression, different cam, and heads I would think the peak temps would be too much different than the lq4. Then again extra timing gets added so the PE mode may have a significant effect on knock.

    On a stock engine, stock compression I don't really believe you could melt a piston without PE, increased knock maybe if a possibility. Checking the genV 5.3 and 6.2 they have the same no delay as a LT1.

    Reply With Quote

«Previous Thread|Next Thread»

• HP Tuners LLC
• Top