LS1GTO Forums banner

61 - 80 of 109 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
705 Posts
Discussion Starter #61
So, let me say this.

THEORETICALLY with trims enabled, the car would be running around 14.7 AFR, and your AFR error should be close to if not zero. Your STFT's are why they are close to zero.

disable closed loop entirely and then they won't be.

but the AFR error and STFT's you get in closed loop with LTFT's disabled still won't match up exactly.
Yeah i understand this part fully. The trims are keeping the afr at the 14.7 in CL.

In OL the afr error should have had similar values though to what the trims were doing (or is that wrong?). I was only getting a couple of percent error but reading like 12.5 (which is more like 14%). This is the part that has me confused. I want to pull another OL log and see what im getting error wise
 

·
Worthless reject member
Joined
·
43,924 Posts
Yeah i understand this part fully. The trims are keeping the afr at the 14.7 in CL.

In OL the afr error should have had similar values though to what the trims were doing (or is that wrong?). I was only getting a couple of percent error but reading like 12.5 (which is more like 14%). This is the part that has me confused. I want to pull another OL log and see what im getting error wise
hmmm. yeah i was just trying to make sure, lol, not trying to say you didn't get it. that i really couldn't tell you, unless there is an error in the histogram set up, or the commanded AFR isn't 14.7.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
705 Posts
Discussion Starter #63 (Edited)
hmmm. yeah i was just trying to make sure, lol, not trying to say you didn't get it. that i really couldn't tell you, unless there is an error in the histogram set up, or the commanded AFR isn't 14.7.
here we go. this looks correct now with OL and AFR err. not sure what i did wrong the first time, maybe i didnt actually get the LTs reset. confirms AFR error in OL should be similar to STFTs in CL (if LTFTs are disabled)


i am still surprised the VE table is excessively rich like this in a stock tune.

505822
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
705 Posts
Discussion Starter #64 (Edited)
its not perfect yet but quite a bit smoother now.

For a stock motor taking 15% off the stock table would have made it easier

505861
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
705 Posts
Discussion Starter #66
Kinda wondering why it was so off.

Running the stock injectors?
As far as i know the motor is 100% stock, only had header/midpipe and stock intake still when i purchased. My best guess would be prefer richer if the maf failed?

I have a little of the PE area corrected so it pulls the 12.5 i have commanded as well.

Corrected the MAF as far as i can tell. Did a frequency/mass airflow histogram. The previous maf tune wasnt far off.
 

·
Worthless reject member
Joined
·
43,924 Posts
i don't quite remember my 05, but my 04 VE was pretty spot on stock.

i don't think GM would have made it that much richer. frankly they set the PE enrichment fairly fat for safety.

are you sure the VE table is stock? all of the speed-density related sensors operating correctly, like the MAP, ECT, and IAT?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
705 Posts
Discussion Starter #68
Let me compare my original "upload" to the stock reference file i downloaded.

MAP, ECT, IAT are definitely working
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
705 Posts
Discussion Starter #70
Well i think im just going to leave the table how i have it now. Without constantly trying to get high map or high rpm on the road its pretty close.

The high rpm all makes me cringe, just doesnt feel right letting it hang up there to get a good reading.
 

·
Worthless reject member
Joined
·
43,924 Posts
you might want to try it in case your maf fails. extrapolate using the date from the lower rpm cells first. if the percentage was pretty consistant across the board, do the higher and add/subtract a few percent for a margin of safety.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
705 Posts
Discussion Starter #72
you might want to try it in case your maf fails. extrapolate using the date from the lower rpm cells first. if the percentage was pretty consistant across the board, do the higher and add/subtract a few percent for a margin of safety.
I think its close. I know some of the cells are within a percent but i just havent been able to hit them all consistently throughout the whole table.

Maybe ill keep logging for a bit then.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
705 Posts
Discussion Starter #75
smoothed this thing out. still logging though. WOT seems to be on-point within a 2-3% (seems a safe factor). need to get a few more logs of just under full throttle to check the high map areas though

505978
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
705 Posts
Discussion Starter #76
Something fucky has been going on today. Early today logs seemed all in line.

This afternoon i was getting way lean logs. Reverted back to an old file and still had some weird reading. Rewrote the entire calibration and rechecked to make sure i had a p0103 error. Laptop dead now before some more checking.
 
61 - 80 of 109 Posts
Top