Tag Archives: Cadillac STS-V

Cadillac STS-V LC3 Boost vs Engine RPM, Gear

Posted on by
1

Taking an export from my HP Tuners datalog, I have been doing a bit more data analysis of various parameters.

Perhaps I am doing something wrong, but there appears to be a ‘hiccup’ in the csv export of the HP Tuners, in that the RPM is exported to the comma delimited file with a comma-formatted value.  For example, 2450 rpm is exported as 2,450 rpm so when imported as a comma delimited value it gets split into 2 and 450.  So, once I manually fixed that in my target file then I could import the data and begin to make some charts.

These charts show RPM across speed 0-60 mph, along with Boost at the same speeds.

RPM vs Speed vs Boost PSI

RPM is shown on the left Y axis, and Boost PSI on the right Y axis.  Speed in MPH is along the X axis.

Boost is certainly spikey measured this way.  There may also be other factors involved.

The Boost PSI is calculated by comparing the Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP) with the V’s Barometric calculation (Baro).  One can see that the V does not shift at exactly the same RPM at 1-2 and at 2-3 although I believe they are both specified to shift at 6500 RPM.

This is the same graph with some smoothing done by averaging of values, 2 prior to and 2 after each point.

RPM vs Speed vs Boost PSI Smoothed

Finally, here is a graph showing boost in the target range of 4500 RPM to 6500 RPM with boost in 1st gear shown in blue and boost in 2nd gear shown in red:

Boost by RPM by Gear

Summary

My conclusion is that boost is in fact higher in 2nd gear than 1st gear.  This is perhaps due to more air flow into the intake at speed?  I am not certain.

On the graph Boost appears to settle around 9 PSI at high RPMs.  Boost in this dataset peaks at 9.86 PSI which in the smoothed set is 9.43 PSI.  The STS-V was designed for 12 PSI of boost.  If we assume the supercharger makes 12 PSI of boost then this reading after the Laminova tube intercooler suggests that the pressure drop of air across the intercooler is 2.57-2.14 PSI.

Updated Baseline Cadillac STS-V 0-60 time

Posted on by
1

This morning it was a fresh 91F out, so I ran some new baselines for the STS-V.  Just tickling the 5 sec line at 91F.

Weather: 91.4F; Baro 29.12 Hg. (14.3 psi); Humidity 10%.  Fuel: half-tank.  Altitude: 600 feet above sea level.

My Cadillac is a 2008 STS-V with a Spectre Intake.  This is a 4,233 lb sports luxury V-Series sedan with a 4.4L supercharged & intercooled V8.

Today in hot weather it ran a 0-60 time of 5.42 sec (0 feet-5,280 feet), or 4.98 sec including 1 foot of rollout as at a dragstrip, (1 foot-5280 feet).

The 60′ time for this run was 2.3 sec.

Previous measured times for my STS-V with me driving were 5.39 sec w/rollout and 5.29 sec w/rollout, so today’s time of 4.98 sec w/rollout is an improvement of 0.3 sec.  Between the runs I have changed the tires, added the Spectre intake, and changed the MAF.  Side by side, today’s run would have been 17 feet ahead of the previous run at 60 mph.

w/rollout
Speed(mph) Time 0.44 Dist(f)
10 1.01 0.57 6
20 1.75 1.31 23
30 2.46 2.02 49
40 3.31 2.87 93
50 4.30 3.86 159
60 5.42 4.98 248

Here is the graph:

Here is a view from HPTuners of the peak near 60 mph for this run showing that I am getting -3.2 degrees of advance due to the ambient and IAT2 / MAT temps at this point; it heads as low as -4 degrees.

IAT Advance at -3.6 degrees

I believe that because the boost is calculated from Manifold pressure and barometric pressure, that it reflects boost after the pressure drop across the Laminova intercooler tubes.  So some pressure going in, 9.4 psi getting to the engine in this snapshot.

Here was a video of the HP Tuner scan of the 0-60 run:

I captured a second run at 5.45 sec w/o rollout or 5.08 sec from 1 foot.

w/rollout
Speed(mph) Time 0.37 Dist(f)
10 1.06 0.69 6.2
20 1.87 1.50 22.58
30 2.61 2.24 48.61
40 3.41 3.04 92.88
50 4.38 4.01 158.55
60 5.45 5.08 248.34

My rollout is still a bit high — taking too long to get from 0-1 foot.  I would like to see rollout around 0.3 sec.

Summary

Today’s run shows a clear improvement from the previous mark.  I would like to see under 5 sec without rollout considered.

The IAT Advance is pulling timing from the engine based on the incoming air temp out of the supercharger.  Either running the car in cooler weather (!) or improving the intercooler cooling perhaps would help.  This is with the stock calibration; it may be possible to simply adjust the tune to be somewhat less aggressive on IAT Advance.  Adjusting shift times and possibly RPM may also reduce 0-60 times.

I’m sure we’ll MAF about it later…

Posted on by
Reply

On my quest for tuning my 2008 Cadillac STS-V as I have noted the Camaro5 community discovered that not all examples of the same Hitachi MAF have the same response characteristics.  MAFs with a single letter are less responsive than MAFs with a letter-number combo.    I believe that this indicator is a ‘lot’ indicator and perhaps relates to the individual components used in the sensor.  The STS-V uses the same card-type MAF sensor.

After MAF run snapshot near redline 2nd gear

Regardless, I got a ‘better’ MAF in the mail today from Apex Motorsports, and installed it in the STS-V.  Unfortunately, the V was heavily heat soaked so it is hard to do much useful testing at the moment.  Hopefully I will be able to run some new tests soon.

I did take the V out for a test drive and was able to confirm that the MAF is working properly and no codes shown, etc. with the new MAF in place.  I disconnected the battery for the new MAF install, so it has been ‘reset’ again.  Ambient temperature will read 32F until it slowly catches up again.  The IAT2 temps of 158F show the heavy heat soak, and the IAT1 would rapidly go up when stopped.  Local baro from weather underground today was 29.09 in (14.3 psi).

I was able to verify that although the physical throttle angle is 87% the Electronic throttle control system is treating this angle as 100%.

I have been playing with the delivered torque and calculated horsepower on my HP Tuners dashboard.  Because these both depend on delivered torque they are not considered useful for absolute value but are debatable to be useful for relative testing.  I would say treat them as info the ECM is using for load indication & for fun.