Bad #'s w/ Outlaw intake and Westers

toneman · July 29, 2005

I recently installed a remap from Westers (I complained that the 3D Mapping on my last PCM didn't improve fuel economy--if anything, it made it worse...hence a remap w/o 3D), along with the Outlaw air intake system, in my '04 DXL...and let's just say that--based on my GTech numbers--I'm very disappointed. Rather than verbalize too much as to how bad the performance was, here are some GTech numbers:

Worse numbers w/ all-stock vehicle:

0-60: 7.685 sec

1/4 mile: 15.885 sec @ 91.20 mph

HP: 246.3 @ 5492 rpm

TQ: 273.2 @ 4007 rpm

Best numbers w/ all-stock vehicle:

0-60: 7.476 sec

1/4 mile: 15.774 sec @ 88.66 mph

HP: 254.5 @ 5262 rpm

TQ: 286.7 @ 3819 rpm

Worse numbers w/ Westers 87-91 dual tune (no other mods):

0-60: 7.475 sec

1/4 mile: 15.715 sec @ 90.65 mph

HP: 259.8 @ 5095 rpm

TQ: 286.8 @ 4035

Best numbers w/ Westers 87-91 dual hot tune (no other mods):

0-60: 7.290 sec

1/4 mile: 15.488 sec @ 94.63 mph

HP: 269.4 @ 5454 rpm

TQ: 291.3 @ 3970 rpm

And now, the disappointing results I got from last night:

Worse numbers w/ Westers 89-91 dual hot tune and Outlaw intake (no other mods):

0-60: 8.005 sec

1/4 mile: 16.073 sec @ 90.36 mph

HP: 252.4 @ 5149 rpm

TQ: 274.3 @ 4027 rpm

Best numbers w/ Westers 89-91 dual tune and Outlaw intake (no other mods):

0-60: 7.749 sec

1/4 mile: 15.887 sec @ 90.43 mph

HP: 260.6 @ 4911 rpm

TQ: 294.0 @ 4575 rpm

Now if you can ignore the HP and TQ results, you can see that my WORSE all-stock 0-60 and 1/4-mile numbers are better than my BEST Westers 89-91 dual hot tune/Outlaw numbers. And before you start asking me all kinds of questions about what could have caused the drop in performance numbers...

1) I used the same stretch of road;

2) Same gross weight inputted into the GTech (although GTech input weight is not used to measure 0-60 and 1/4-mile times);

3) Environmental conditions were more or less the same as in previous runs;

4) Tires and brakes are in great shape (i.e., no abnormal wear, properly aligned, etc.);

5) I cannot vouch as to exactly how to diagnose a dirty/bad MAF, although FWIW the MAF is original w/ less than 24K miles on it, and didn't appear to be too dirty when I examined it during the Outlaw install. Is there a way to determine if the PCM is throwing a MAF-related diagnostic code, short of plugging in a code scanner?

6) I put 900+ miles on the Westers/Outlaw combo before performing my GTech test runs; now from what I read, there shouldn't be a need for a retune based on the addition of an aftermarket intake--that instead, the Westers should be able to "relearn" the air intake flow. Now I don't know about you folks, but I think 900 miles of driving should be more than enough time for the Westers to "learn" the Outlaw intake, no?

Now, if someone tells me that it must be the Outlaw...then that makes those folks who have installed it and are claiming better performance from doing so either a bunch of liars or just don't know any better. I would find it hard to believe that the Outlaw would be solely responsible for the drop in performance--considering that the majority of reputable aftermarket air intakes are supposed to improve performance, even if it's just a teeny weeny bit.

I've already emailed Lyndon, so I shall see what he has to say about this. Just so that you folks don't get the wrong idea--I'm not bashing the Westers product in general; I know it works, based on the improvement I got going from an all-stock tune to a 87-91 dual tune (my first Westers tune). And even though I don't have GTech numbers for the first 89-91 dual hot tune (my second Westers tune), my butt-dyno told me that there was even more improvement in the performance category...plus the fuel economy improved from the 87-91 dual tune. The third tune (89-91 dual hot tune w/ 3D) "felt" sluggish (no GTech numbers to quantify this), plus fuel economy actually dropped from the second tune. And now, the most recent tune (89-91 dual hot tune w/ no 3D mapping) is the worse of all, based on GTech numbers.

Sorry for the long post/vent, but I am frustrated and disappointed that the combination of two highly-rated products have apparently (emphasis on "apparently") now made my DXL slower/less-powerful than an all-stock one!

Chris97K1500 · July 29, 2005

Lyndon asked me directly if I had any aftermarket CAI system on my truck when I ordered my Wester's. Mine could be different, but just a thought. Chris

toneman · July 30, 2005

I thought that it shouldn't matter what aftermarket intake you're running (at least the more popular ones like K&N, Airaid, Volant) as far as Westers is concerned since everything I've read says that even if you add one after getting a Westers, the Westers should be able to adjust to the change in air intake. So if Lyndon is implying that he can factor in a particular intake kit when programming a custom tune, then what's with all the talk about a retune not being necessary if you add an intake after the fact?

tfpary · July 30, 2005

I dont have a clue what the problem could be, but I just thought that I would post that its nothing to be ashamed of having a truck that big do sub 7.5 second 0-60 mph runs. Gotta love torque!

Chris97K1500 · July 30, 2005

Maybe there's a limit as too what the computer can "adjust" to? If Lyndon knows he has a CAI before programming the range of adjustment may be set higher to begin with? Don't know, could be cuz mine's an OBS truck that can't have dual tunes like the NBS trucks. Mine may not be as smart as the newer PCM's . Chris

toneman · July 30, 2005

I dont have a clue what the problem could be, but I just thought that I would post that its nothing to be ashamed of having a truck that big do sub 7.5 second 0-60 mph runs. Gotta love torque!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but when you know you were once able to run a 7.29 0-60, 7.5 sure looks slow! Add to that the fact that there are other GM fullsize SUV owners claiming to do low-7 0-60 and low-15/high-14 1/4-miles with nothing more than a Westers, and one can't help but wonder why his tune is giving him mid-to-high 7's and high 15's with a Westers and Outlaw air intake!

toneman · July 30, 2005

I swapped out the no-3D remap (the one with the lousy results) with the 3D one (this is the one that I was complaining that the 3D fuel economy got worse than the non-3D tune before it) I was running before, and here are the results:

Worse numbers w/ Westers 89-91 dual hot tune/3D and Outlaw intake (no other mods):

0-60: 7.500 sec

1/4 mile: 15.705 sec @ 92.40 mph

HP: 272.1 @ 4833 rpm

TQ: 305.8 @ 4232 rpm

Best numbers w/ Westers 89-91 dual hot tune/3D and Outlaw intake (no other mods):

0-60: 7.398 sec

1/4 mile: 15.610 sec @ 92.63 mph

HP: 272.3 @ 4901 rpm

TQ: 310.8 @ 3741 rpm

So it would appear that the 3D PCM w/ Outlaw performed better than the non-3D remap (not to be confused with the non-3D 89-91 dual hot tune I was running before asking for a 3D one) that Lyndon recently sent me. Also note that, assuming the HP and TQ numbers are fairly accurate, the 3D PCM w/ Outlaw returned the best HP and TQ numbers. How much of it is attributed to Westers and how much to Outlaw, I don't know...but clearly, the 3D/Outlaw combo performed better than the non-3D/Outlaw combo I tested the night before last, HP and TQ-wise, and acceleration-wise...but still a bit short in the 0-60 and 1/4-mile when compared to the 87-91 dual tune.

Yeah, one should probably take the absolute HP and TQ figures with a grain of salt, but I'm fairly confident that the CHANGE in HP and TQ numbers (both up and down) is indicative of performance mod changes since I tried to maintain the same gross vehicle test weight during all of the runs as best as I could.

At least with this particular tune (89-91 dual hot tune w/ 3D), my truck is no longer worse than an all-stock one, performance-wise. Guess which core is going back? Then again, if I took the Outlaw out of the equation, it could very well be possible that the 3D tune might perform no better than stock...

Hopefully, Lyndon will be able to find out if my first/original 89-91 dual hot tune is somehow different from the 89-91 dual hot tune w/ 3D (besides 3D, of course). Like I said, I don't have the GTech numbers to prove it but the first dual hot tune definitely felt like it had more punch than the 3D one (which I'll keep for now--I definitely ain't gonna keep that POS remap), and had better fuel economy.

dannyukonxl · July 30, 2005

try checking the maf for oil, leaks, faulty connection, and everything possibly related to the intake system, also try adding some octane booster because maybe you get some bad gas or something, i doubt that thoughn but i would assume with an 87-91 tune the engine becomes a little more picky about what gas to run

vhato · July 30, 2005

try checking the maf for oil, leaks, faulty connection, and everything possibly related to the intake system, also try adding some octane booster because maybe you get some bad gas or something, i doubt that thoughn but i would assume with an 87-91 tune the engine becomes a little more picky about what gas to run

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well,

hmmm,

The only thing I could see may be your Dual Tune. Dual Tuning is unique to the GM PCM and not specific to Westers. The GM PCM can "learn" from the knock sensors how much ignition retard is required for smooth use. It resets to zero after every detected fill up. Westers is adjusting both the High and Low Octane tables for 91 and 89 Octane use which is what makes this exact tune unique. THe stock PCM is for 89-87 or something like that. It is real simple stuff.

Anyway, lets say you filled up 2 days ago using 89 octane fuel and lightly drove for those 2 days. Now you decide you wanna try a G-Tech Run. You smash the gas and 8 seconds later you are disappointed with your run. Why?.... the truck was never run at WOT before and didn't know how much to retard the ignition. So you fill up with 91 a few days later and drive a while. You decide to try again because you have 91 in there. You mash the gas and get the same results. WTF??.....It is possible you favorite gas station was delivered Super Unleaded that was closer to 89 than 91. Happens all the time. Try some other gas and see. Or have him tune for just 91 and listen for pinging from the engine.

Drive WOT for a day or two a few times before running to the G-Tech. Give the Westers 89/91 Dual Hot Tune an opportunity to really examine the fuel you are using before using the G-Tech.

Now I dunno why he cares about a different intake. The MAF will measure the air flow increase accurately and the MAP Tables shouldn't be changed too drastically. It is possible he has changed the Fuel Map too much and during acceleration your Long Term Fuel Trims are WAY off meaning you are running too rich. Is gas mileage worse than usual?

He bases his Tunes on experience and if your truck is performing less than desired on his Tune then something about your Engine is different than ALL the others. You may have a failing o2 sensor or another sensor is just out of whack. You could bring it to the dealer, but unless the SES light is on, they are gonna assume all is well. You may want to invest in some Diagnostic software like AutoTAP if Horse Power improvements are going to become a hobby for you. Having the ability to see what the sensors are seeing can really help you (and Westers) squeeze out the power of your engine or find problems.

toneman · August 1, 2005

vhato--I understand what you're saying; I've done all that--let the Westers relearn after a 5+ gallon fill up, run it hard for a bit before doing some GTech runs, etc. The gas quality, I have no control over--it's a cr@pshoot as far as finding a gas station that has decent gas that's actually rated close to its advertised octane rating. I've run Shell, Chevron, 76, and even cheap Sam's Club gas--even among different gas station locations--in my truck, all to no avail. All I know is something changed from my original Westers 89-91 dual hot tune/no 3D to the two subsequent retunes (one a 3D Mapping addition, the other a supposed remap w/o 3D); yes, I added the Outlaw on these two last tunes, but that in itself shouldn't have caused the second remap to have worse acceleration numbers than even my all-stock setup (the 3D tune was better than stock but not better than the Westers 87-91 dual (non-hot) tune). FWIW though--the HP and TQ numbers on the 3D tune were better than the 87-91 dual tune but for whatever reason, those increases didn't translate into better 0-60 and 1/4-mile times when compared to the 87-91.

Also (see my other post below)--if there was some non-Westers-related issue with my truck, how would you explain why the 3D tune PCM I put on my truck returned better performance and HP/TQ numbers than the non-3D remap PCM I ran just before it (I have PCMs for both, so it was easy to just swap them out to do a A-B comparo)?

If only I had run Gtech numbers on the original 89-91 dual hot tune I got from Lyndon back in March...

toneman · August 1, 2005

Just to add some more boring info in comparing the two Westers tunes I've been testing on my truck:

I'm looking at the GTech graphs for four of my runs--one each of all-stock (which I'll reference as tune #1), 87-91 dual tune (#2--aka, the "best" tune, from a quantitative standpoint), 89-91 dual hot tune/3D/Outlaw (#3), 89-91 dual hot tune/no-3D/Outlaw (#4--aka, the "lousy" tune); given that I'm no GTech data analysis expert, I'll try to explain my interpretation regarding some of the numbers. As bad the 0-60 and 1/4-mile times I got in run #4, it still returned better TQ numbers than #1 and #2. #3 had the best HP and TQ numbers out of all. Again, I don't know how much of it was due to the Westers, and how much to Outlaw. Note that I did not compare any of these to the first 89-91 dual hot tune I got in March--although that tune felt like it had the best performance plus measurable improvement in fuel economy compared to the others, I could not include this tune in my performance comparisons since I don't have GTech numbers for it.

Looking at the acceleration numbers for #1 and #4, #4 would have passed #1 after accelerating past 80 mph. IOW, #1 had better 0-to-speed numbers all the way to 80; after that, #4 had the better numbers. For comparison, #3 had the better numbers after going past 40. Even as bad as #4 appeared to be, it appeared to be better than #1 at the higher-end passing range (50-70, 60-80)...and even as good as #2 was, acceleration-wise--#3 had better lower-end passing range (30-50 and 40-60) figures.

To summarize--#3 was best at low-end passing, and both #3 and #4 were better than stock at high-end passing. #3 had the best HP and TQ numbers, yet it couldn't beat #2 in 0-to-speed and 1/4-mile. Based on these observations, I can't help but think that the Outlaw may have caused these results. Looks like the Outlaw performs like most typical intakes--that is, produce more real-life usable power in the passing range...and probably up high, rather than down low...when compared to stock.

vhato · August 1, 2005

That is interesting. I regret to say that I can't help you. I need telemetry data from AutoTAP, Tech 2, EFILive or some kind of other data aquisition device to figure this one out.

Those devices will give me things like Intake Air Temp, IAC Position, Mass Air-Flow, Manifold Absolute Pressure, Air/Fuel Mixture, Detected Knock, Ignition Advance, and Long Term Fuel use.

All of this data combined with G-Tech runs can answer your questions.

Sorry this isn't easier.

cyclejerk · August 2, 2005

Whats "GTECH"?

toneman · August 6, 2005

It's a tool (gadget?) used to measure various performance numbers (0-60, 1/4-mile, HP, TQ). Speaking of which, I took out the Outlaw and put back the stock intake and ran some GTech numbers on it w/ the 89-91 dual hot tune w/ 3D. Rather than post raw numbers, here is a spreadsheet summarizing all of my GTech runs:

http://chevytruckworld.tenmagazines.com/ga...eman/192050.jpg

Based on the latest numbers...is the Outlaw really worth it?

Also note that I was able to get better overall time-to-speed and time-to-distance numbers (except 1/4-mile) from the 89-91/3D/stock intake/2500 rpm launch than with the plain 87-91 dual tune (no powerbraking) run. I must have did something different last year when I did a few powerbraking runs w/ the 87-91 tune since the times I was getting back then w/ powerbraking weren't as good as those w/o powerbraking; this sorta blows my belief that the best times can be had on an AWD vehicle by NOT powerbraking.