Even if the number is optimistic, the PCM seems to be handling the fueling accurately so who knows. The heads flow in the 240 cfm range on the intake and 190 range on the exhaust at the .550" lift the cam runs. Headers and intake also work very well for the rpm range the engine is running in. The exhaust is very free flowing. The most restrictive part of the whole setup is the intake side, mostly the stupid MAF elbow connected to the throttle body that cannot be easily replaced by anything, hence the 94 kpa pull down from 101 KPA barometric pressure reading at key-on in this datalog.

 

If you did that your fueling would never come close to being accurate, nor would your timing. My wideband stays within .2 to .3 afr of the commanded air/fuel ratio in PE and the injector parameters are lifted from the stock tune for said injectors. Have a hard time drastically questioning the model if the end fueling result is overall pretty accurate. The engine ran absolutely HORRIBLE on the stock VE table with the MAF disabled and ran very well with the MAF enabled even with the stock VE table. Never noticed much difference after correcting the VE table with the MAF enabled.

I definately do not question this setups ability to make power. From a 30 mph roll it stayed fender to fender with a new aluminum body Ecoboost crew cab F150 despite being wrapped in a 6,200 lbs Express van. He was PISSED.

 

Technically your PCM can't handle fueling accurately because the injectors are maxed out, as your screen shots show:

It is plausible and likely that your VE numbers got skewed because you noticed a fueling error (read: it went lean) and tried dumping in the correction to the airflow calibration without realizing that the fuel system (your reference model, as I've been saying) couldn't keep up. Try this as an experiment... In those ranges where your injectors are maxed out, DOUBLE the VE values. Make them 240%. And then watch your g/cyl spike to 2< and feel it not make any more torque or power. See what I mean when I say that you are responsible for the accuracy of those numbers? You can make them say just about anything you want.

 

Yes it would. It's called scaling a tune. Experienced tuners do it all the time.

 

While I do not disagree with you the thing is still posting up very high VE and airflow numbers long before the injectors max out! Look at the values even down in the 2,000-3,600 rpm range. Plenty of duty cycle left down in that area to keep it from running lean and yet still pulling high g/cyl readings. At 2,000 its pulling 0.87, 2,400 rpm is 0.89, 2,800 rpm hits 1.00 and it holds 1.00 through 3,600 rpm. Injectors are not static at that rpm range. At a 100% duty cycle the 25.1 lb/hr injectors are good for 446 HP @ .45 lb/hr/hp bsfc. Even at a lazy .50 lb/hr/hp it is enough fuel for 401 HP. I am running the same fuel rail pressures as the LS engine these injectors were put into and running the same settings in the tune for them. Have no reason to doubt their fuel delivery capability. The pump I am running is the same pump that comes with the 502 HP Ramjet 502. No reason to doubt its performance as the fuel pressure is rock solid even at 6,200 rpm.

 

Consider this simple, arbitrary equation:

y = f(x)

It doesn't mean anything...I just pulled it out of my ***. Now watch what happens when I disturb the reference model, your independent 'variable':

y = f(x) + 2

Now how do you know which one is right? Is y equal to f(x) or f(x) + 2? If you know important information, like injector flow data, you know that that flow data is proportional to either f(x) or f(x) + 2, but NOT both. So one of them is wrong. However, if you KNOW one of them is wrong, as in you made it wrong for a reason (scaled the tune), you can accommodate for the disturbance of the reference model. Thus, your equation becomes:

y + 2 = f(x) + 2

This is a scaled tune, in elementary terms. The problem is when people DON'T realize their reference model gets disturbed, either due to mistakes, negligence, etc... so it becomes something like:

y +2 = 1.053177952*f(x) + 2

The error is small, but it can wreak havoc on things when your independent variable increases, OR when its small and you're targeting a stability limited process, like a smooth idle...

 

Makes sense, but with the way everything fell into place as far as fuel trims, PE fueling, idle and airflow I have a really hard time believing the engine is not pulling a substantial amount of airflow. The engine wants even more airflow than the stock airbox/K&N filter/3.5" MAF sensor/TB inlet elbow/BBK 80mm throttle body and 80mm ported marine intake can allow in with its nearly 3 in/hg pressure drop at 5,500 rpm. I bet those components are more than 700 cfm in airflow and I am seeing a good intake vacuum in the system.

 

Honestly man, its your tune, do whatever you want with it. If you felt better scaling the tune so it told you that you had 2 grams per cylinder, I really wouldn't care. I (and several other people in this thread) are simply pointing out that those values are unrealistic. The numbers don't add up. As I said earlier, you'd have to have like 3 pounds of boost at 120% VE to come up with that cylinder airmass. If the tuning process intrigues you, that should pique your curiosity.

 

That's my point. Things CAN appear to fall into place. Everything looks fine and dandy. But in the end you should always double check with a known value, or as close to one as you can get. If I were tuning a 350 cubic inch engine and saw 1.02g/cyl pop up on my screen, I'd be looking for the mistake that I made.

 

at some point he will **** on the game and strut around like he won?