V6S Tune
#41
I don't have any reason to believe there's anything suspicious about this "service action." As Cambo as noted, there have been problems w/ the 02 sensors on these engines in this and other JLR models. I simply noted others (like Dr. Manhattan) have been suspicious, and that it was "curious" no explanation was offered. It would have been very simple for JLR to offer a one sentence explanation that it was to cure the problem noted above. Silence, in light of the recent VW scandal, can lead to suspicion.
#42
The following users liked this post:
Uncle Fishbits (01-25-2016)
#43
#44
The following users liked this post:
Uncle Fishbits (01-25-2016)
The following users liked this post:
RickyJay52 (12-09-2015)
#46
#47
#48
I believe we were able to confirm that there is not much in the way of additional peak power or torque available out of just a tune with the V6S given the relatively mild stock boost ~13psi. The final results of the tune shown below is not much different than what was accomplished last month with the 2.5% reduction (read minimal) pulley that added about 1/3psi. The fresh tune, however, did result in safe stoichiometry across the engine speed spectrum (safely below lambda=1.0), and increasing the speed limiter from 240kph to 320kph. However, my tuner now has the proper mapping to safely upgrade a V6 engine to a V6S.
Real improvement for the V6S can only be accomplished with additional boost. A mild boost of 3-4psi should be easily handled by this engine, which I will be exploring. No flexibilty to reduce the upper pulley size, so the lower pulley has to be changed.
The big problem is that the clutch is now starting to slip when fully engaged, so we now need to actively address that issue before any additional work is done.
Real improvement for the V6S can only be accomplished with additional boost. A mild boost of 3-4psi should be easily handled by this engine, which I will be exploring. No flexibilty to reduce the upper pulley size, so the lower pulley has to be changed.
The big problem is that the clutch is now starting to slip when fully engaged, so we now need to actively address that issue before any additional work is done.
Last edited by Unhingd; 12-11-2015 at 10:52 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Foosh (12-11-2015)
#50
Well results are results, which is more than anyone else could offer prior so good work there.
I'm not so sure agree with the notion of "mild stock boost" though, 13-odd psi is what the tuned+pulley 5.0L's are running, and don't forget that the compression ratio of the 3.0L is 10.5:1 compared to the 5.0L at 9.5:1
17psi on top of 10.5:1 sounds, um... interesting....
I'm not so sure agree with the notion of "mild stock boost" though, 13-odd psi is what the tuned+pulley 5.0L's are running, and don't forget that the compression ratio of the 3.0L is 10.5:1 compared to the 5.0L at 9.5:1
17psi on top of 10.5:1 sounds, um... interesting....
#51
Well results are results, which is more than anyone else could offer prior so good work there.
I'm not so sure agree with the notion of "mild stock boost" though, 13-odd psi is what the tuned+pulley 5.0L's are running, and don't forget that the compression ratio of the 3.0L is 10.5:1 compared to the 5.0L at 9.5:1
17psi on top of 10.5:1 sounds, um... interesting....
I'm not so sure agree with the notion of "mild stock boost" though, 13-odd psi is what the tuned+pulley 5.0L's are running, and don't forget that the compression ratio of the 3.0L is 10.5:1 compared to the 5.0L at 9.5:1
17psi on top of 10.5:1 sounds, um... interesting....
I also think increasing the boost more is a very slippery slope.
#52
#53
Yes, I am almost ready to declare "proven" that the oft-speculated theory of the V6S being essentially safely maxed out at the OEM state of tune. Moreover, since the base V6 is producing essentially the same peak torque in the 4K range, I've about decided not to bother and just love it as is. You just can't do 5.5K rpm on the street very often to see the extra HP in the S, and it's just a "lose your license," top-speed, issue anyway.
I also think increasing the boost more is a very slippery slope.
I also think increasing the boost more is a very slippery slope.
The following users liked this post:
Foosh (12-11-2015)
#55
#57
The good news on the F-Type, is the lower pulley is actually easier to replace than the upper pulley. There is, in fact, sufficient room to increase the diameter of that pulley by up to 20mm, which would be ideal.That along with the 2.5% reduction pulley on top would net an overall 14.8% increase in SC speed that we are looking for to get a 1.7-2.0psi boost over stock.
Short answer: not yet certain. For now, we will be monitoring the effects of the minimal tweaks that have been done, looking at fuel efficiency and looking for any negative side effects to the various engine and handling nannies.
#58
Noted. But the shape suggests the inlet air temperature was a bit high - it ought to be pretty flat from 2500 up to 5000. Obviously, this may only be achievable in a Northern Alaskan winter...
#59
The torque curve is actually a bit flatter than it looks. The horizontal axis on this graph is at 242 lb-ft. rather than zero.