Hey guys,
So since the 03.5+ Ecotecs have that crappy GM engineering with the Power Enrichment Mode, Closed Loop, 14.7:1 B.S., what other options is a person able to take besides the 2 main approaches? (Re-flash, and HP Tuners)
Well, seeing as how I'm one of the Hahn Customers that is seeing the horrible, 14.7:1 AFR's, I've been searching, and searching........and searching through the forums for answers.
- I'm able to get a hookup at a GM dealer to Re-Flash my ECU, but I don't want it to be locked, so I want to eventually surpass the 15psi limit it has. In the Hahn manual, it states that I require my ECU to be sent to them for re-programming. I am assuming that it is the same thing as what GM does?
- I am all for HP tuners, and Megasquirt, but both are just a little out of my price range at the moment, and I still want to keep my stock ECU.
- Is there a way that I can go to a wreckers, pull a 2002 or Early 2003 ECU out of a Cavalier that is ALSO a standard, and just put it in my car? That way, I can accomplish 2 things:
1. Keep my stock ECU for backup (and inspections, and emissions)
2. Be able to now tune the car, with an ECU that has Open Loop
I'm thinking, that if I get an ecu, put it in the car, do the passlock procedure, and THEN tune it as per Hahn's instruction manual, my car should run fine, in OPEN LOOP, with NO AFR problems?
Or is my car going to have a problem recognizing the new ECU?
Thanks Guys!
Going through the ECU swap and having to possibly deal with swapping for inspections sounds like a pain. If all you want done is to lower the PE threshold, I would find someone locally with HPT, give them a hundred bucks for the credits and do some quick street tuning. I assume you already have a wideband? If I lived close to you I'd be happy to do it for just the credits...
Yep, I already have a wideband.
Inspection isn't really a concern for me.
Yeah, I'll end up getting HP Tuners in a few months. I was just wondering if a 2002 ECU swap would be a quick and easy option until I get the software.
It's not too much trouble to get the earlier program flashed in, and not be locked. Some of our customers have gone in that direction. We don't do it here, no.
For what it's worth, the 14.7:1 AFR at Stage I or II boost levels has not proven to produce troublesome detonation on 93 octane, so the condition is not at all "horrible". Take it from me...I've perfoemed the validation here in dyno and track/steet testing, and also worked with many customers in the field with good feedback on this aspect. So unless you wish to run lower octane, or turn up the boost past 8-9 PSI, you really have nothing to be concerned about with the PE threshold GM set on your car.
Full-load AFR's have been going to higher (leaner) numbers for years now. In their most recent iterations, we even see 23+ PSI on 13.5:1 AFR with the new direct-injected Ecotec.
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:It's not too much trouble to get the earlier program flashed in, and not be locked. Some of our customers have gone in that direction. We don't do it here, no.
For what it's worth, the 14.7:1 AFR at Stage I or II boost levels has not proven to produce troublesome detonation on 93 octane, so the condition is not at all "horrible". Take it from me...I've perfoemed the validation here in dyno and track/steet testing, and also worked with many customers in the field with good feedback on this aspect. So unless you wish to run lower octane, or turn up the boost past 8-9 PSI, you really have nothing to be concerned about with the PE threshold GM set on your car.
Full-load AFR's have been going to higher (leaner) numbers for years now. In their most recent iterations, we even see 23+ PSI on 13.5:1 AFR with the new direct-injected Ecotec.
Bill are you really saying it is safe to run a boosted street car at 14:7:1 AFR's?
FU Tuning
I am really saying it, at the boost level stated. Amazing as it sounds, we've seen no issues with detonation on the Ecotecs at this AFR.
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
No fair comparing the lower compression direct injected LNF to a boosted L61 lol. It would be a better comparison if the boosted L61 had a well tuned water/meth injection kit.
To the OP - it would be safest and cheapest to find someone local to you and spend a hundred bucks on just the credits to tune you car.
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:It's not too much trouble to get the earlier program flashed in, and not be locked. Some of our customers have gone in that direction. We don't do it here, no.
For what it's worth, the 14.7:1 AFR at Stage I or II boost levels has not proven to produce troublesome detonation on 93 octane, so the condition is not at all "horrible". Take it from me...I've perfoemed the validation here in dyno and track/steet testing, and also worked with many customers in the field with good feedback on this aspect. So unless you wish to run lower octane, or turn up the boost past 8-9 PSI, you really have nothing to be concerned about with the PE threshold GM set on your car.
I can't believe I am reading this.. I would never advise this, to nobody..... What exactly is "troublesome detonation"? Knock is knock, PERIOD..... I know the "leaner the meaner", but damn....
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote: Full-load AFR's have been going to higher (leaner) numbers for years now. In their most recent iterations, we even see 23+ PSI on 13.5:1 AFR with the new direct-injected Ecotec.
And your point? Direct Injection is a whole different ball game...... Besides the fact of different AFR's/stoich with DI, I would also not advise going too much farther than 23+ psi with a stock LNF turbo, as the turbo itself is not going to last long...
P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq
ImPhat0260/Cavattack2000 wrote:Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:It's not too much trouble to get the earlier program flashed in, and not be locked. Some of our customers have gone in that direction. We don't do it here, no.
For what it's worth, the 14.7:1 AFR at Stage I or II boost levels has not proven to produce troublesome detonation on 93 octane, so the condition is not at all "horrible". Take it from me...I've perfoemed the validation here in dyno and track/steet testing, and also worked with many customers in the field with good feedback on this aspect. So unless you wish to run lower octane, or turn up the boost past 8-9 PSI, you really have nothing to be concerned about with the PE threshold GM set on your car.
I can't believe I am reading this.. I would never advise this, to nobody..... What exactly is "troublesome detonation"? Knock is knock, PERIOD..... I know the "leaner the meaner", but damn...
I know, I felt shocked when I learned this too. All of the 2002 and 2003 cars we did initially did not have the high PE threshold. When we started to see the cars with the new PE in 2004, we weren't thrilled by the new PE threshold, but we did examine the situation in great detail (obviously, we'd have to with such a finding), The cars actually made a little more power with the 14.7 AFR than the earlier cars (non-PE) that AFR'd in the 12.0 range. But we saw no tendency to detonation. Keep in mind, this is relatively low boost: 5 PSI on a Stage I, 8-9 on a Stage II.
Amazingly enough, we saw no detonation issues in extensive examination on street, strip, and dyno. We were as surprised as you are now.
ImPhat0260/Cavattack2000 wrote:Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:Full-load AFR's have been going to higher (leaner) numbers for years now. In their most recent iterations, we even see 23+ PSI on 13.5:1 AFR with the new direct-injected Ecotec.
And your point? Direct Injection is a whole different ball game...... Besides the fact of different AFR's/stoich with DI, I would also not advise going too much farther than 23+ psi with a stock LNF turbo, as the turbo itself is not going to last long...
For sure, Direct Injection is different. But I offer it as an example of the way the technology has been moving...in a leaner direction. Even big-blocks in GM trucks now run at 14.7:1 under full load conditions, yes, even pulling a trailer up a steep grade. This is but one example; all of the late model engine designs and technologies have been moving in this direction steadily for years, to improve fuel economy and emissions. The new engine designs and management systems make this possible.
In the case of our Ecotecs, a most modern design, we enjoy an engine that is extremely detonation-resistant. The combustion chamber design, along with a host of other subtle factors, aid immensely. I'll give you an extreme example from our Sunfire, when it had a stock 2.2 L61 upgraded with pistons, rods, valvesprings, and our Stage V TurboSystem, PortFueler equipped. The car had been running in the mid-11 second range at about 125 MPH. One pass, it slowed down about three tenths and five MPH. Adam said it just felt flat on the big end...it ran hard all the way through, just not AS hard. It was down about 50 HP for that 5 MPH change.
I had wideband datalogging on it, and was horrified to see that, on a 27 PSI boost pass, it ran at 18:1 AFR...
all the way down the track! Dejectedly, I asked Adam to pull the plugs, where I fully expected to see carnage electrodes. They all came out...perfect. No damage to the electrodes, not even signs of detonation on the insulator. They looked lean, sure...but not hurt in the least. Dayamm, I says.
We found the problem: when Adam had serviced the car, he left off the hose that supplies manifold pressure to the AFPR. We were down 27 PSI in fuel pressure at full boost, hence the lean AFR. Fresh set of plugs go in the car, we fire it up: excellent intake manifold vacuum indicates engine is likely not damaged. Hmm. No way. Could we have dodged the bullet? Send it down the track, says I.
Next pass was right back to 11.4 @ 125. Like nothing ever happened. Since then, I've had considerable time analyzing the Ecotec's ability to resist detonation in many of the other Eco applications we do. It truly is forgiving.
Moral of story? In J-bodies, at a mere 8 PSI of boost, with the very gentle stock ignition timing, Ecotec does not need a rich mixture to resist detonation. Sweet
Second moral of story? With the advent of HPTuners, this situation is also now super-easy to correct, although unless one thrashes their car severely or intends to crank up to higher boost, one won't need to.
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
I for see a whole lot of blown motor in the near future because people will read parts opf what has been posted and do stupid things.
FU Tuning
It's a fair observation, but the information presented is pretty targeted. If someone tries to transfer it to a different type of engine or application, they are mis-applying the info, and I strongly advise against same.
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:I am really saying it, at the boost level stated. Amazing as it sounds, we've seen no issues with detonation on the Ecotecs at this AFR.
Bill, that is correct. Through your help (and the help of your tech's) with my Stage II install, I can clearly state that with 93 octane and 9p.s.i., I did NOT experience ANY detonation.
It was installed with the help of an experienced mechanic, and ALTHOUGH I was worried about the AFR's, he too assured me that the reason I have not experienced detonation with the L61, is because of relatively low boost levels, and my current octane level.
You guys INSIST on 93 octane in the manual as a MINIMUM for a reason.
I just want to say thanks for the 03' VIN recommendation as well (which is getting flashed tomorrow), as I will be upping the boost very soon.
Erik.
Blk04Turbo wrote:Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:I am really saying it, at the boost level stated. Amazing as it sounds, we've seen no issues with detonation on the Ecotecs at this AFR.
Bill, that is correct. Through your help (and the help of your tech's) with my Stage II install, I can clearly state that with 93 octane and 9p.s.i., I did NOT experience ANY detonation.
It was installed with the help of an experienced mechanic, and ALTHOUGH I was worried about the AFR's, he too assured me that the reason I have not experienced detonation with the L61, is because of relatively low boost levels, and my current octane level.
You guys INSIST on 93 octane in the manual as a MINIMUM for a reason.
I just want to say thanks for the 03' VIN recommendation as well (which is getting flashed tomorrow), as I will be upping the boost very soon.
Erik.
93 Octane is required with boost. Do you know any car company that makes a boosted car and runs 87 in it?
Sorry but to say that lean of a AFR is safe on "LOW" boost is ignorant! Even more soo from a company like Hahn.
FU Tuning
People jump off of bridges to their death.... Does this mean everybody should?
P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq
John Higgins wrote:
93 Octane is required with boost. Do you know any car company that makes a boosted car and runs 87 in it?
Sorry but to say that lean of a AFR is safe on "LOW" boost is ignorant! Even more soo from a company like Hahn.
Car company? Nope, they all suggest 92+. But, I've seen boosted SRT-4's run 87 with no detonation, if that is what you are asking. And everyone KNOWS that they require 92. I was simply stating that yes, they say to run 92+ for people that install the kit and are newbs to boosting.
In order to get this debate fixed, we need extensive tests, with results to PROVE that it is safe. Right now, I don't think the general opinion on the org is going to change.
For me, at my current boost level with the 04 PCM, I have not had detonation. Would I run this setup for a year? two years? No. The 03' program is my safety precaution, and keeps the mind at ease.
Blk04Turbo wrote:
For me, at my current boost level with the 04 PCM, I have not had detonation. Would I run this setup for a year? two years? No. The 03' program is my safety precaution, and keeps the mind at ease.
Please explain how you know this? Are you logging with HPT at all times? Are you pulling your plugs after each drive cycle? More info please.....
P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq
I feel somewhat redeemed. Just trying to discuss this was invitation to attack. I'm pretty sure there were a number of people ready to beat me over the head over this very topic.
I have witnessed "lean" boosted eco's running like a charm at relatively low boost levels.
I recal a story where a boosted and untuned early eco was repeatedly run on a dyno in front of several GM engineers. All of them watched with concern and looked to the owner/tuner as the AF got to be what is normally expected to be scary.
No issue....car ran strong...
I have watched dyno operators shut down with fear.....however, with no knock I'm not sure there was too much worry.
I have much love for this engine
I'm not doubting the goodness of the Ecotec. I'm not saying you can't get away with no knock, but to say you can tune to a 14:7:1 and be fine is not correct. Should any professional company suggest to allow a car to run at those AFR's? Truly can you really say yes to this?
Tell me running a motor like that day in and day out is not going to hurt the life of that engine.
FU Tuning
John Higgins wrote:I'm not doubting the goodness of the Ecotec. I'm not saying you can't get away with no knock, but to say you can tune to a 14:7:1 and be fine is not correct. Should any professional company suggest to allow a car to run at those AFR's? Truly can you really say yes to this?
Tell me running a motor like that day in and day out is not going to hurt the life of that engine.
I've already said "yes" to this repeatedly, and have corroborating evidence to back it up, as well as the testimonials of customers. It's very real-world, and well-researched by myself and my staff, as well as our customers.
I'd say logic dictates that you are simply being stubborn when presented with this expert information that runs counter to your convictions. The world moves forward, and technology evolves
Put another way...you might could learn something here, if you'd let yourself. I mean that in the nicest way.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:52 AM
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
Blk04Turbo wrote:
In order to get this debate fixed, we need extensive tests, with results to PROVE that it is safe. Right now, I don't think the general opinion on the org is going to change.
For me, at my current boost level with the 04 PCM, I have not had detonation. Would I run this setup for a year? two years? No. The 03' program is my safety precaution, and keeps the mind at ease.
Fear not. The extensive testing has occurred, and the verdict is in. The results have proven it safe.
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
John Higgins wrote:93 Octane is required with boost. Do you know any car company that makes a boosted car and runs 87 in it?
I do. General Motors does not require anything more than 87 for their LNF Ecotec engine, which runs in stock form at 14-18 PSI boost. The future...is NOW!
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
John Higgins wrote:
Sorry but to say that lean of a AFR is safe on "LOW" boost is ignorant! Even more soo from a company like Hahn.
It might be "ignorant" had we not performed extensive testing. Ignorance means pushing a concept without knowledge or background to support it. Your application of the word is therefore quite incorrect.
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
I have seen knock on a Ecotec whe running 13's for AFR's with less than stock timing. This was a LNF.
FU Tuning
Bill, I trust your testing and interpretation of the results, but for me this begs the question, do N/A guys need to run 13:1 or richer? It may be safe/knock-free to run ~ 15:1 as on a stock ECU, but wouldn't we still make more torque with a richer mixture? Same for boosted apps - while it may be knock-free, it is not ideal correct?
Sorry, not to take this too far off topic, but if you choose to run the LNF on 87, you WILL achieve less timing advance, and if the gas is too crappy, torque management or limp mode will quickly put an end to your fun. Being a torque based ECU with electronic throttle and having the ECU in charge of the boost control means you can pretty much throw anything at it, and it will let you know if it doesn't like it while preserving the motor.
