Sluggonaut's Extended Track #364 - 2007 SS/SC (Turbo) Donor

[Sluggonaut]

The ZZP Entry Level Turbo Swap kit instructions show something plugged in that my donor didn't have anything connected to:

My donor ran fine and the Goblin seems to be running fine, but just wondering if anyone knows what should be connected here:

 

[Rauq]

Not a confident guess, but that looks like either the barb that the brake booster vacuum line attaches to, or perhaps the barb for the evap line.

 

[Sluggonaut]

Not a confident guess, but that looks like either the barb that the brake booster vacuum line attaches to, or perhaps the barb for the evap line.

The brake booster was attached to the 90 elbow right below that in the donor, so I used it for the booster in the Goblin. It's covered up by the IC hose in the second picture.

So if it's for the brake booster or evap, I should just plug it, right? I'm just curious because it wasn't plugged before n the donor and the car's running fine. I just don't like open ports, but I also don't want to plug something that might cause an issue.

 

[Gtstorey]

I don't think you want an open port there, looks like it would be a vac/boost leak.

 

[r3drckt]

Barb for the evap line. I plugged it

 

[Sluggonaut]

OptimizePrime's gas pedal extender has been installed and the pedal no longer rubs on the tunnel. It's nice having the gas and brake pedals on the same plane:

 

[Sparvy]

OptimizePrime's gas pedal extender has been installed and the pedal no longer rubs on the tunnel. It's nice having the gas and brake pedals on the same plane:

View attachment 33517

Good idea...I very much need one of those. I'm only 5"8" and with the seat all the way forward in my extended frame goblin I have to use my toes on the gas pedal.

 

[Sluggonaut]

Good idea...I very much need one of those. I'm only 5"8" and with the seat all the way forward in my extended frame goblin I have to use my toes on the gas pedal.

I have the shorter seat brackets already so reach wasn't an issue, I just didn't like having 3 pedals at 3 different depths. I also had the gas pedal get stuck open on the tunnel during my initial test drive and this fixed both issues.

You can see the rear-most holes on the shorter bracket (bottom) are slightly closer than the front-most holes on the brackets that come with the extended frame (top) using the mounting tab as a reference.

The front mount also gives you some perspective on how much closer the seat will be compared to the front mount notches for the crossbar.

 

[Sparvy]

Yah

I have the shorter seat brackets already so reach wasn't an issue, I just didn't like having 3 pedals at 3 different depths. I also had the gas pedal get stuck open on the tunnel during my initial test drive and this fixed both issues.

You can see the rear-most holes on the shorter bracket (bottom) are slightly closer than the front-most holes on the brackets that come with the extended frame (top) using the mounting tab as a reference.

The front mount also gives you some perspective on how much closer the seat will be compared to the front mount notches for the crossbar.

View attachment 33518

I knew I'd be farther back with the extended frame and its liveable. I havent added a spacer to the gas pedal because when braking the pedals are fairly even which makes for good heel toe at the track. While I'm no expert at heel toe I think of I space it more than an inch or so I'll be hitting the side of the gas pedal and not the top. I may try spacing the while pedal box towards the seat a few inches at some point.

 

[Sluggonaut]

The perfect spot for me is somewhere between the last spot on the short brackets and the first spot on the regular brackets. lol

I used Chris_WNC's steering wheel relocation method, so the wheel now works well with the closer seat.

 

[Sluggonaut]

I have some questions related to tuning. I was originally going to ask about why my supposed-E85 tune was showing AFR's that I am used to seeing on pump gas cars and my research revealed that unless there's a change made in the AFR gauge, E85 will still read close to pump gas AFR's but aren't entirely accurate. Sounds like I need to start using lambda.

My donor was supposedly running an E85 tune from ZZP with larger injectors. I'm assuming they are 80# injectors because ZZP's website says 80# injectors are required for their E85 tunes. I want to set up the channels for AFR and AFR Error in HPT and want to confirm I am using the right calibration number in the formulas.

In the short amount of driving I have been doing in the Goblin, I am running E85 and the car is running well. It's not quite the same as it was in the donor, but I assume the minor change in the intake size/shape and the more significant change in the exhaust side could have an effect.

So my questions are:

How do I confirm what size injectors I have?
Is there anything in my tune file that would indicate if it is currently tuned for E85 vs pump gas?

I assume it is an E85 tune because it shouldn't be running very well on E85 if it is a pump gas tune, correct?

 

[Ross]

Read the numbers off of your injectors, and look them up on Google. Also, pump gas would make an E85 car run very rich.
The stoichiometric air to fuel ratio for E85 is 9.733:1, vs 14.08:1 for 10% ethanol gas. That is 45% richer mixture. Not sure it would even run on gas.
HP Tuners has a stoichiometric number in the tune file.

 

[Sluggonaut]

Read the numbers off of your injectors, and look them up on Google.

Cool, I pull one and get the number to lookup.

Not sure it would even run on gas.

My first start was actually done on 87 because I used the wrong gas can to fill it up. I had one clearly labeled E85 that I used to empty the donor. I grabbed the one I use for the lawn mowers out of excitement to fill it for the first start and muscle memory of always using that can.

It started and ran but I could tell it was rich even at idle. I emptied the gas tank and out in E85 for the subsequent starts and the eventual test drives. I made the maiden voyage to the gas station yesterday and topped her off with E85 and she ran well.

HP Tuners has a stoichiometric number in the tune file.

I'll keep poking around and see if I can find it. If it's an E85 tune it will reference the 9.8 vs 14.7?

 

[Sluggonaut]

Cool, I pull one and get the number to lookup.

I'll keep poking around and see if I can find it. If it's an E85 tune it will reference the 9.8 vs 14.7?

I pulled the fuel rail and an injector and found a couple of numbers, the first of which is 110324 - this comes back as an 80# Siemens Deka IV fuel injector and it looks like the pictures for those. At least I know what's in there now.

The only reference to stoich in the tune file I could find was under Engine>Fuel>General and it just says Stoich AFR: 14.70

I'm not sure that confirms what it is tuned for though.

 

[Sluggonaut]

The only issues from yesterday's shakedown run that went beyond the boundaries of the neighborhood and over 25 mph resulted in 2 minor issues.

First was a small leak from the passenger side rear radiator hose junction right after the hose comes out of the lower frame tube:

Pretty minor and the clamp was not as tight as it could be. It hadn't leaked prior to this so the long drive was enough to force the issue I guess. The litter is from the last shakedown run that found the failure in my t-stat radiator hose. I now park over it until I know everything is done leaving the motor.

The other issue was a strange sound I had coming from the right rear wheel, that sounded like a hung brake pad or something. When I went to pull the wheel, all 5 lugs were loose. My hub centric ring paid the price:

I'm not sure how the lugs worked themselves loose. I checked the other 3 corners and all were still torqued down. I did use the same impact and torque stick on all 4 corners, but I guess I should use a real torque wrench this next time and monitor the situation.

 

[Sluggonaut]

So I tried working with HPTuners and getting my WBO2 gauge to work through the AC PRessure Sensor.

I ran a quick log in the garage idling so I could see if I could capture WB data.

I was able to capture voltage through the sensor but it only read voltage for part of the log. In the attached log, the car is started at 20 seconds and once the sensor warms up the AC Pressure Sensor voltage varies until about a minute in when it just goes back to reading a constant 5v just like it was reading before I started the car and it warmed up.

I didn't have the chart added during the capture and it doesn't look like it saved to the file, but I added 2 WBO2 charts - 1 using the Maths from the UEGO instructions and 1 using Maths from a video demonstrating how to use the AC Pressure Sensor. Both were showing Lambda values higher than what my gauge was showing (i.e. when my gauge was showing .8-ish the formula shows over 1.0). I switched my gauge over from AFR to Lambda and used the Lambda scaling formula listed below first. After that, I tried the formula used in a video that divides the difference between the first and last value in the table over the voltage range. It was similar to AEM's formula but resulted in slightly higher values. I'm not sure I understand how to determine the adjustment - or is it just trial and error until the gauge and HPT matches?

I've also attached the log file if anyone wants to play along at home.

The Maths I used were:

(7101.10]*0.1621)+0.4990 per the scaling formula from AEM shown above. This was 2-3 tenths higher than what my gauge was showing.

([7101.10]/6.154)+0.58 This is per the video that said to divide the voltage range (0.5 - 4.5) by the output range (0.58-1.23) and add the first number from the output range. This was almost another tenth higher than the first formula.

I hope to get some logging done this weekend when I am actually driving, but I'm concerned that the voltage was only reporting for part of the short idling session.

 

[Ross]

The AEM formula seems very accurate.
I wonder how accurate the P12 PCU is at measuring the voltage.

 

[Ross]

Oh, the video formula should be:
([7101.10]/6.154)+0.5
not
([7101.10]/6.154)+0.58

Then it is accurate too.

 

[Sluggonaut]

Oh, the video formula should be:
([7101.10]/6.154)+0.5
not
([7101.10]/6.154)+0.58

Then it is accurate too.

Why .5 and not .58? Unlike the video, the AEM chart doesn't have a value for 0 or 5.0 volts, so the range is 4 volts (.5 to 4.5) with the lowest value being .58 starting at .5 volts.

The formulas look like they are achieving the same values, so would the accuracy of the ECU you are questioning possibly be the difference in the gauge and the log?

It was raining here most of the day but I was able to get out for one ride but didn't log it. I did note that my WOT reading was around .76. I'll try again when I'm logging to see what the actual difference is and hopefully figure out how to record the gauge. I tend to be looking at the road and not the gauges at WOT, which is a practice that has served me well for years..

When I first started the car, it was running pretty rough. The only thing I changed was sI plugged the evap port I asked about a few posts up and the small open port on the turbo I asked about previously. I removed the plugs and it ran great, but I have a clear hissing coming from the evap port. I'll try to dig into the inner workings of that system to understand why the car runs poorly with it capped and fine with it open clearly dumping air to atmosphere. It wasn't capped on the donor and the donor was tuned by ZZP and running fine, I just would like to understand the 'why'.

 

[Ross]

I was guessing that the video wanted you to grab the first number from the voltage column (.5) not the output column (.58).... and it made the formula work. Of course it would help if I watched the video that we are talking about.