LS1GTO Forums banner
1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
764 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm probably not going about this the right way but I'm basically just following what youtube videos say to do. My only mods are headers and a FAST intake so it's not like I'm running tons of boost or even have a cam, so I feel pretty safe with what I've been doing. I'm pretty much hoping that by doing some of these things with my very mild mods I'll gain a better understanding of all this before it actually matters, sort of getting my feet wet.

Currently I'm trying to dial in the MAF, and it seemed to be going fine at first. Initially I was about 10% lean, so I added 10% to both high and low tables to start out rich and started logging, multiplying by % half, etc etc. DFCO, COT, all that stuff is turned off. About the 5th time instead of getting smaller and smaller rich values in the scanner, I got a few cells with 3 and 4% lean. I think it maybe has something to do with the cell hits in the graphs? One video said to start out with 5 then move up to 10 when you get further along, then another video from the same guy said the opposite- start out with 10 and move to 5 as you dial it in, so that made it a little hard to understand what the cell hits do. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to raise the cell hits the closer I get to being done. Or maybe I should just have them higher than 10 the whole time. It's a hard thing to search for because it's probably so obvious to everyone, and also most of the results are guys talking about "hit as many cells as you can" when VE tuning. So that's noob question number one.

Then I ran across this thread which I found quite interesting:

Specifically the discussion on lambda vs EQ ratio. In that thread Sacrifice and No Thubert JF Arnsworth say that EQ is the inverse of lambda. I was under the impression that lambda -was- EQ ratio. Everything in my scanner is set up for EQ ratio and it matches my gauge, when I go into PE the commanded EQ goes to like .8 something (I would have thought that if it were the inverse then it would go to 1.2?). What am I not getting here? When I read that I started freaking a little thinking I'm doing everything the opposite. But then why does my gauge confirm the way the scanner is set up? That was the first thing I did, make sure I'm logging the WB properly with the obd2 passthrough connector. "WB EQ Ratio 1 (SAE)" matches up with the gauge so I thought I had that part right. And when I added the 10% initially it seemed to jive with what I'd been seeing.

I don't just want to have my fueling dialed in, I want to understand the subject thoroughly. When I first got HP tuners last year and started reading about this I felt like a r t rd. Like my brain is so old I can't learn new things anymore. Then a few weeks ago when I got back into it everything was clicking a lot more. Now I'm getting that feeling again. lol So anyway I just wanted to start a new thread instead of necroing old ones because I'm sure I'm going to have more questions when I get further along.
 

·
Worthless reject member
Joined
·
53,848 Posts
prevent transient conditions from showing up in your graphs by adding a filter.

EQ and lambda are indeed inverse.

double check how the WB is set up in hptuners.

do you have fuel trim learning disabled while you are logging?

i have an easier time just using stft logs to tune VE and MAF and using the wideband for WOT tuning.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
764 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I do need to delve into the filter thing more.

So the channel I'm logging must be displaying lambda properly (based on my gauge), but still calling it EQ? Tbh I just kept trying channels until one matched the gauge so that could be the issue right there.

Yes I think LTFT was one of the things I turned off along with DFCO and all that.

Ok, I read a lot about using STFT before I had the WB but I thought using the WB was preferable so I'll look back into that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
764 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Right, that's what confused me. The channels in my scanner are called eq ratio but they're going to .8 when in PE. And I plotted commanded and actual in the chart and they're both doing the same thing too (roughly).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
764 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
It's like something's wrong but it's behaving correctly somehow. Or at least that's what I want to make sure of.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
764 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Here's a screenshot of the last log right at a PE area:
Rectangle Font Line Screenshot Software


Surely it wouldn't be commanding 1.18 lambda during PE?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
274 Posts
Use your wideband for the tuning. Start out only going to 3K rpm, then 4, 5, etc, making your 1/2% adjustments along the way. 5-10 hits per cell will work, but longer drives/logs will help average out your cells. Vary the loads during your road tuning, finding roads with elevation changes if possible. Take your time, follow the process, and enjoy the results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,635 Posts
Use your wideband for the tuning. Start out only going to 3K rpm, then 4, 5, etc, making your 1/2% adjustments along the way. 5-10 hits per cell will work, but longer drives/logs will help average out your cells. Vary the loads during your road tuning, finding roads with elevation changes if possible. Take your time, follow the process, and enjoy the results.
this is a waste of time.

use the stock narrowbands for anything outside of PE as they will be doing the adjusting anyways.

I prefer cell counts 50+. as you have found small cell counts can throw stuff off quite a bit depending on what happened. youll be chasing your tail (i did for a while)

turn dfco back on and set a filter to not include when STFT=0 or you can base it on the pedal = 0.

i really enjoyed the chopperdoc videos and thought they were helpful.

feel free to ask anything
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
764 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
this is a waste of time.

use the stock narrowbands for anything outside of PE as they will be doing the adjusting anyways.

I prefer cell counts 50+. as you have found small cell counts can throw stuff off quite a bit depending on what happened. youll be chasing your tail (i did for a while)

turn dfco back on and set a filter to not include when STFT=0 or you can base it on the pedal = 0.

i really enjoyed the chopperdoc videos and thought they were helpful.

feel free to ask anything
Originally I had planned to start off using STFT since I didn't have my WB installed yet but figured I'd wait on it, (wrongly) assuming that using a WB would be preferable.

Looks like I've already watched a few of his videos.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
764 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
You guys think I should go back to stock and start over or just go back to before I started getting these lean values? I was starting to get somewhere before that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,635 Posts
Originally I had planned to start off using STFT since I didn't have my WB installed yet but figured I'd wait on it, (wrongly) assuming that using a WB would be preferable.

Looks like I've already watched a few of his videos.
the WB really isnt useful when the narrow bands will be what the car is working with anyways for closed loop. might as well utilize them like the ecu does.

You guys think I should go back to stock and start over or just go back to before I started getting these lean values? I was starting to get somewhere before that.
go back to before you started get lean values. i save every revision i made.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
764 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Man I've never been pulled so many different directions when trying to learn something. Before this thread I was under the assumption that using LTFT/STFT for tuning was just a stop gap for when a WB wasn't available. Now 2 respected (yes, you're respected NotHubert) members of this forum are saying not only is it not a bad way to do it, but it's actually preferable. Then I watch chopperdoc and he's saying to use a WB. Then when I run some searches on hptuners forum there's something of a debate between ltft vs stft, and even some guys saying to make a custom PID that combines the 2.

I just took a lot of information in all at once. Like with a lot of things for me, I think my brain needs to take a break for tonight and come back to it later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
There are many ways to do things. You seem to understand that now. Pick what works for you and go with it. No one is wrong if the end result is the same...a safely tuned engine making it's max potential power with great drive ability.

My car is tuned in open loop in speed density so the narrow bands aren't being used at all. Obviously I tune 100% by the wideband. With maf cars/trucks I do use the narrow bands for part throttle tuning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: evsnova74

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
764 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Well I know you aren't talking about me either :LOL:
Yeah I am, and hadagto makes 3 so that settles it.

No offense to maradamx3 obviously, in my mind this isn't about using fuel trims vs a WB, but whether fuel trims are good even if you do have a WB.

So how do you do it, everything the same as with a WB but don't disable closed loop? I noticed I have all 0s on all my logs for the ltft and stft graphs, must be because I had closed loop turned off for those logs I'm guessing
 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
Top