Grumpy Bears 2015 Silverado 2WD

Grumpy Bear · August 31, 2016

“… to improve safety, reliability, longevity, economy, utility, and if anything is left over…then maybe some old school tastefully done curb appeal”.

I’m quoting a line in the first post of the thread as a reminder and a mirror.

“Buying things you don’t need…with money you don’t have…to impress people you don’t like”. It was my mother’s take on materialism. Smart girl.

There are also just unwise buys. Like $10 plastic factory body plugs. I should have found the “Dorman Products” part. A set of eight for under $4.

There are items that pay for themselves such as the Scan Gauge and the Line-X products. Provided you keep the truck long enough to make it pay.

Scan gauge, for example, pays for itself in one year if I drive only 9,000 miles a year and gas is $2 a gallon base on a conservative 4 MPG improvement which I can do falling off a long and driving 60 mph.

The Line-X products are harder to quantify. I’ve about $1,500 total for liner, rustproof and undercoating including the wheel wells. Say it adds five years to its life and on average untreated I get about 15 years from a vehicle. Current cost $30,000 and a life ratio of 4 to 3 that’s $10,000 I didn’t spend for the $1,500 I did. Saves then $8,500 per truck. You know prices won’t stay put for 60 years. Fact is, that’s the point. I’m 63 and wont’ be buying another so it’s done when it’s done. Maybe we will finish together.

I’m going to add comfort to the list.

Longevity – Reliability – Safety – Economy – Utility – Comfort - Looks

Grumpy Bear · September 1, 2016

Knock sensor induced spark retard output was programed as an X-gauge replacing the non-functioning AFR. Why on earth, I asked myself, would that be part of the GM coding? It won’t trip a code and it isn’t logged (stored) data as far as I can ascertain. What it is, is a generated delta signal without a home that Linier Logic harnessed. The ECU map says X degrees is the target. The Knock sensor says Y is preventing knock. The difference is the voltage delta expressed in degrees of offset. At least that’s the logic that makes sense.

Regardless, what it says is the map is too aggressive for the octane or the “conditions” are outside the tested mapping signal outputs.

Know what that is, right? Opportunity knocking (pun intended).

http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/180309-43-litre-v6-ecotec3-and-gasoline-octane/

Googling same netting this post #7 on this forum. How cool is that?

Too bad that 91 around here now carries a $1 a gallon penalty.

Grumpy Bear · September 1, 2016

Tail Gate assist came today. Install likely tomorrow. Maybe a photo when done and this filthy truck gets a bath.

The boost is a scheduled experiment. Back in the day the cost didn’t make sense so I’ve never tried it but with a dollar spread in gas top to bottom it ‘may’ make sense now at about half a buck a gallon to use the boost.

They use to put blend instructions on the containers. X ounces per gallon per point of octane. Not anymore. It’s a crap shoot. That said I have the instrumentation to ferret it out. Coming soon. Effectiveness and cost analysis.

Grumpy Bear · September 4, 2016

Fuel average for the last thousand miles and change has been running 29.22 mpg with a 1 mpg over and under. All miles highway with a 50 mph self-imposed limit and staying off the Interstates and local freeways as much as possible.

These are baselines to reference for other speeds.

MPH is within 1/2 MPH against the GPS now. The corrections are in whole percent. I ran 100 KPH. Made the correction in metric then reselected MPH. Finer correction adjustments possible that way.

Fuel economy is the hardest match to make as fill varies some from fill to fill. That said the fill gallons reset and correction also displays in percentage so I’m making corrects based on that value and making much faster progress. Current calculation mileage and Scan Gauge computed mileage are now within a few tenths and still reading a bit high.

I’ve also lied to the computer telling it we have a 25 gallon tank. The only thing that effects is the estimated time and miles to empty. The trucks gauge is off a bit too reading less fuel that it has by a gallon or so at half a tank.

Miles driven (odometer trip) within 1 mile at a 200 test distance against the GPS. So a ½ percent and shy. So it would read 4 miles shy in a thousand. That will change with tire wear.

Both the Scan Gauge and the trucks odometer are but a few tenths of a mile apart as far as I can tell at the same 200 mile range. Scan Gauge does not read finer than whole miles.

Tire rotation done a bit over my 5,000 mile target. Tread wear even over the set and across each face. Baseline 35 psi seems on the money so far. Time will tell.

Finished the paint seal finally. Got the box clayed and sealed.

1.) Finish shaving the body. (Done)

2.) Finish the paint sealing (Done)

3.) Seam seal the fender seams and cab corners.

4.) Finish and touch up the undercoating.

5.) Tire rotation and balance checks, oil change. (Done)

While this was being done we weighed a tire/rim unit with balance weights and TPM. Less wheel cover 68 lbs. Making rim weight about 32 pounds.

6.) Window tinting

7.) Paint clear chip masking

8.) Gate Assist (added)

9.) Scan Gauge Install (Added and done)

10) Instrument calibrations (Added and in process).

Grumpy Bear · September 4, 2016

There are no mixing instrucitons on the bottle or on the Lucas website. Just says treats up to 25 gallons. That said Volvo speed lab tested this product and gave some information and direction. Added to 25 gallons of fuel the mix ratio is 200:1 and the effect about 2 points. Perfect. For $12 a tank I can turn 87 into 89 or 48 cents a gallon making local $2.20 gas $2.68 a gallon which is between local pricing of the 89 and 93 grades. Add two bottles and I get 92 octane for $3.16 a gallon 92 while I can buy 93 pump for $2.78. Basic this is a non-starter.

That said I tried it anyway as the money has been burned. The goal was fuel efficiency by dialing in more timing by limiting the knock sensor retard. Over the 400 mile test loop the result was....zip...nada...ziltch...nothing.

Volvo noted steps of 100:1 and 50:1 with increases at each step becoming less as the mix richens making 50:1 the limit. Just additional information.

That doesn't mean I give up on the octane idea. I will test in increments of octane on pump gas. That will take some time to decipher.

07Softail · September 4, 2016

LOL You must be retired.... You have WAYYYY to much time on your hands!

RT

Grumpy Bear · September 5, 2016

Why yes I am RT. Thanks for noticing. Now if my wife would.

Oil, gas and chemical; Operating Engineer/Stationary Power Plant Engineer. Basically a perfector of processes, equipment, procedures and methods. An impossible task. I thought of it as “the relentless pursuit of improvement”. I can make it better, just never perfect but to the boss it looked like magic. Perfect!

Truth is, almost anyone can do it, just most don’t have an interest nor the inclination. What they have an interest in is the finished product and getting you to do it for them. LOL.

For me, I enjoy it. Perfecting a thing. There is something about solving a puzzle that brings joy to the process. The harder the puzzle the more joy there is in the result.

Clint Eastwood’s movie Grand Torino; everyone wants the car. No one wants to do what it takes to preserve the car. A thirty year old car, or boat or asphalt tile kitchen floor for that matter that looks new isn’t the result of not using it but the result of caring for it in use and knowing which things are built well enough to care for to begin with.

That Ford truck commercial. “98% of all Ford Trucks ever made are still on the road today.” What, only 2% of them made it home? It’s about the percentage of people willing to learn what it takes and taking the time to do it. It’s also about the percentage of “things” made today that with care will last. Sad but….adds difficulty….

Grumpy Bear · September 5, 2016

DeeZee gate assist added today. Pretty straight forward install. Not quite as smooth in operation as they show in the video but good enough to do what it says it will do....assist. I will keep my hand on it thought when in use.

Daryl Z71 · September 8, 2016

Nice work so far.

Grumpy Bear · September 9, 2016

First off, Thanks Daryl.

Determining the cost effectiveness of using an octane booster I over complicated. My bad. It isn’t about MPG it’s about CPM…cost per mile…and it seems that even the cheaper to use higher octane pump fuels used solely for the purpose of fuel efficiency are also a non-starter.

At $2.19 a gallon for 87 Octane and 29 mpg the cost is .076 cents per mile. For 89 Octane trading at $2.49 per gallon (locally), to break even, it would have to increase mileage 13.7% to 33 mpg. I have no indication that is likely. That was obvious in just a few runs that netted no statistically significant data. 4 mpg was a pretty lofty goal for the input variable. Fact is in three test circuits the result was in fact zero plus or minus. Even though there was an observable decline in the amount and duration of knock sensor related retard.

While the Scan Gauge has the ability to do performance testing, like 40-60 mph transit passing times, quarter miles and so on I haven’t an interest.

That said octane improvement for the sake of power is a completely different animal with an entirely different cost analysis and/or considerations. Like keeping the pin in that grenade.

I have made mental note as I am not fully sold on the idea of letting a knock sensor and AI determine the safety of my power train. That needs more thought. I have zero experience with current GM ECM reliability. Maybe it just fine. It’s been working in my Harley for over a decade without complaint. They use even a cruder system to detect knock. Spark quality.

Other news. The tint isn’t done yet. No idea what the holdup is but it isn’t on my end. I’m getting antsy.

I ran a length of belting up the cab corner to see if this was a blind hole or what. It’s or what. Belting went three feet up the side of the cab. I ran out of belting. What, GM, is that about? It isn’t factory coated either. The seam seal will proceed along with a good dose of wax deterrent rust proofing. Looks like a designed failure to me.

I’ve laid out a two way 110 mile rectangular closed course to test ideas on that is SPA friendly and environmentally canceling and as goof proof as I can make it.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · September 10, 2016

Logged a 331 mile trip today. That concludes six fills over 1,500 total miles that have reduced the Scan Gauge to hand calculation delta fuel charged vs calculated fuel used from 6.5% to 0.3%. The meter adjusted each fill on that fill. That is a really small sample set. So these are rough adjustments.

It’s been both sides of the fence with the last two or three calibration adjustments made at ½ of the error value and still moving +/- the actually charge amount. First three or four initial adjustments were full value corrections. Hammer moves. Then tugs of half steps and now….taps will be made. On to step two.

Next step is to verify the amount the fill varies from the calculate usage.

To do that I will record six samples, calculate the median for six fills actual charged volume vs those samples calculated fuel use median volume. Make a correction based on the standard deviation. Then rinse and repeat for six cycles or until the correction is coarser than the error.

Why bother? One mpg sample, even several averaged is a broad axe with a huge amount of standard deviation making it a roughing tool. Statistics are used when you’re looking to pick the fly crap out of the pepper shaker. A scalpel. If I know the system well enough I can see what effects what without being head faked by signal noise.

You might be surprised what you can learn with statistic data mining.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · September 11, 2016

210 miles split in two run segments but only one fill. Raised speed to 55 mph. 26.23 calculated mpg. Scan Gauge showed 26.2. Does not have hundredth resolution for this function. That’s .13% maximum difference but the possible correction is coarser than that. Variation may also be higher than this. As I suspected. I need more data.

Fill was 8.005 gallons. Calculated usage was 8.04 gallons. -0.44% difference. Will continue to track the error without adjustments. Need a standard deviation to make any further progress on this adjustment. This may be as good as it gets without burning down nearly full tanks to create greater correctable error.

That’s two in a row under a half percent on the fill and not more than a tenth of a mile per gallon difference between the scan gauge and the hand calculation. It’s a long way from the nearly 10% factory error.

Having my six cycles in at 50 mph with a standard deviation of just .84 mpg driving a total 1489.9 miles and using 50.8 gallons this point in nailed in at 29.33; +/- .84 mpg. Time to bump up the speed. Today’s test will not be entered into the 55 mph data but will be entered into the fill variation data as I was also playing with some other ideas that may affect the averages.

Two days in the rain and it was a pig. Spent the majority of the day cleaning the outside.

Grumpy Bear · September 11, 2016

Bar Keepers Friend and a white Scotch-Brite is wonderful on Stainless Steel like the step bars. Just say’n.

I mentioned last night that that calibration run was made in two segments but I didn’t finish the story because I didn’t know then what to do with the information it generated. I do now as I see an opportunity.

It was very windy yesterday during the run and raining. NNW wind 25 mph with 40 mph gusts. My test circuit is laid out to put such factors to work against each other. Runs a box run both ways.

Anyway after the first half of the run I got this idea to tape off the top section of the grill opening above the badge. This took long enough, 15 minutes or so, for the Scan Gauge to go to sleep resetting the “this trip” average which had been 25 mpg and small change.

Running the route a second time under the same conditions the “this trip” average was a bit over 27 mpg for a tank average I posted in the last post. That’s an 8% shift between the two trips.

That said I’m going to rerun the 50 mph test with this modification so I don’t have to ABA a second set of data points AND I can still gather my fill data points without interruption. It won’t be as significant if it shows up at all but it will be a few thousand miles less work.

I had been looking at a few grill inserts anyway as a styling exercise. If I can make it pay for itself…why not…right?

Hopefully I’ll be seeing the window tint guy today to find out where I am on his schedule.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · September 13, 2016

Giving the last post more thought, I think splitting the distance on the same run on the grill block test was ill advised. Some of the fuel used is in bringing everything to temperature. That said the gain would then look more impressive than in actuality it was. It also means I’ve uncovered yet another possible fuel saver. Preheat. So….

Today I repeated the grill block test backing speed down to 50 mph again as that is the speed I have a marker for. One result does not a trend make but it did return a value that is in excess of the marker plus one standard deviation. Thus even on one result I know that it has a positive effect I just can’t quantify it…yet. And it can only get better with speed increases.

The grill opening is sized, one must imagine, to accommodate the largest motor fitted to this platform and meant to cool the largest payload permitted on the hottest day on the steepest grades. Meaning that this little V6 on its worst day couldn’t possibly use the available opening. Even so I’ve been monitoring the water temperature and the transmission fluid temperature. Water shows no change to any meaningful marker. It doesn’t warm up any faster. It doesn’t peak any higher and the stable running temperature is a rock steady 206 F. Air temperature test range so far has been 84 F max, 64 F min. That said I haven’t cut into the usable portion of the opening yet. No need to get greedy though. FYI it takes 7 miles to warm the water to thermostat open and about 5 more to reach a stable temp. Transmission takes 35 to 40 miles to heat all that fluid. Which, by the way, seems to be about 5 F cooler with the grill blocking in place. (top half of the grill only).

Should be able to collect a second data point tomorrow.

Ryan, the guy who will be tinting the windows, and I evidently miscommunicated. I’m half deaf and he speaks quietly. I’ll get that fixed tomorrow as well and get a firm date for the work. Kind of glad it happened. I’ll be looking at adding the infrared/UV block to the front glass at some minimal increase in tint instead of the visor.

Grumpy Bear · September 14, 2016

Window tint appointment confirmed. Next Tuesday.

Below graph is the grill block work in progress.

Tank fill now has three points and tracking 0.29% high but individual points both sides of the set point. Low signal noise. This is good. Todays fill at the pump showed 12.788 gallons. The Scan Gauge 12.80. Still I'll finish the six point set just to be sure.