Dont think Ive ever noticed this before, but 2015 5.7 Challenger, set it to PRatio from the factory air mass (target air fuel vs boost/rpm makes a whole lot more sense) but it still seems to be referencing the airmass table for its power enrich values? Which OS does this work correctly on and which do not?
No one?
I end up turning them both the same as the mechanism to select each table is not in HP that I know of.
I've only ever got Aricharge to work on the 2015 and 2016 that I tried it on.
Bump, have a 2019 jeep that acts the same way, if it doesnt function why does HPTuners have the switch even shown???
I've noticed inconsistencies in my 2023 GPEC2A-18 as well. I tested it at one point, and it seemed to be accurate for that log ... but then sometime later, I adjusted my PRatio table to provide less enrichment, when I had the switch selected for PRatio ... but the next log it was referencing the Aircharge table instead?
There must not be a "one or the other" type logic at play here. Maybe the 34229 selector is controlling a bias instead? Not sure, but as others have stated .... after observing what I have with this, I now set both tables to be the same enrichment.
2016 GPEC2
p ratio table is stock
aircharge table is flat .016
ballenger level 2 ntk sensor
where in this photo do you see what they were describing, and which table do you think i am accessing:
Do you have a tune to share?Quote:
Originally Posted by GrannySShifting
You don't show FA Power Enrich, or say what the Stoich is ... so your screenshots are not enough to tell which table is being referenced to target 0.86 lambda for commanded EQ. Carrying over 4.7% STFT into WOT is throwing it off though, so your actual EQ of 0.86 includes the added 4.7% fuel the STFT is bringing in.Quote:
Originally Posted by LilSick
Here's an example from my vehicle, without playing the "gotcha" game :p ....
Tune file: Attachment 159520
Log file: Attachment 159521
If you look at this tune, you'll see the Aircharge PE table maxes out at 0.0209 while the PRatio PE table maxes out at 0.0192
Attachment 159522
When I tested with this tune loaded, I saw 0.0209 for FA Power Enrich at WOT though:
Attachment 159523
No fuel trims carried over into WOT either here. It was obviously referencing the Aircharge table even though [ECM] 34229 was set for PRatio.
I did perform a similar test as you show above, with setting one table for static values, and in that case the PCM did honor the selection of 34229. This is what makes me think the selector isn't an absolute selection for which table to use.
It's because Lilsick is not a tuner, and doesn't know detailed information like what you are sharing Stoopalina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoopalini
Quote:
Originally Posted by DodgeBoy_8HP
Happy to help where I can, but to be fair, I am definitely not a tuner LOL! I do work with advanced data scenarios in my "day job" though, so extracting meaning out of the data isn't that much of a stretch for me ... applying my findings to determine what tune file changes I should make is where I am still learning :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 1320bee
This definitely looks like it's referencing the Aircharge table and not the PRatio table as selected. Is there a reason why you don't just set both tables to the same values?Quote:
Originally Posted by GrannySShifting
Other than the fact I like others have many thousands of dollars spent on this software suite and would like it to function like it says it will - no
LOL Kinda like I hate how you tell it to unlock gen3 GM converters and it locks them, or the other 3242 things that dont work as labled
i find it very odd that you started this thread pointing out supposed flaws in the power enrichment portion of your OSQuote:
Originally Posted by GrannySShifting
but then when you post your log it does not include any wide band info
Ha! Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrannySShifting
Why would you need wide band info to determine which PE table is being used? His log has FA Enrichment and FA Power Enrichment being logged, and it clearly shows it to be referencing the Aircharge table values even though [ECM] 34229 is set for PRatio.Quote:
Originally Posted by LilSick
Now if the actual EQ is hitting the commanded, not sure ... but it doesn't really have any bearing on which PE table is being referenced.
I understand you don't look at commanded EQ during WOT, and just make adjustments until the actual is where you want it to be; hence the wide band is critical for that. But I don't think that's what most folks do ... at least that's the impression I get from reading the forum and interacting with different folks. It seems most do care about the commanded, and then strive for the actual to match commanded. When it does, it means the airflow model and fuel injector data are setup properly and tracking. Controlling the fueling is then just a matter of making adjustments to the PE tables ... but, if you set it for one table and it's actually using another ... then it can certainly cause confusion.
what???
you been over at dudes house again...
smoked.
"you do not look at commande eq"??? - yer fkn high
"Why would you need wide band info to determine which PE table is being used?" - ummm because that is the only way to measure what changes to the tables do to the mixture
there is literally no other way to test them
peace
Great post Stoopalini.
Once again the airplane fella was runover with the impressive explanation give by Stoopalini.
LilSick, if you dont have technical argumentation to discuss, just leave the forum.
Based on our previous discussions here: https://forum.hptuners.com/showthrea...l=1#post820494 and here: https://forum.hptuners.com/showthrea...l=1#post809737 .... I thought you didn't look at commanded EQ or EQ Error during WOT, but only looked at the wide band's actual. My mistake if I misunderstood this.Quote:
Originally Posted by LilSick
For a 1/4mi car, it makes sense ... who cares what is being commanded, just get the actual fueling where you want it for maximum power down the strip. But for a daily driver with ANN enabled, the EQ error between "Commanded" and "Actual" is one of the indicators of how well the airflow model is dialed in.
In terms of determining what PE table is being referenced ... details about the Commanded EQ are going to tell you that, not a wide band's actual EQ reading. That said, to know the actual outcome from it, sure ... you need the wide band; But to determine which table the PCM is referencing? FA Power Enrich is all you need. Or you can use "Commanded EQ" - "Stoich" (meaning the value defined in the tune for stoich, not the fuel's actual stoich).
I suppose you could take a log and capture the actual EQ from the wide band. Then make a change to the tables, and do a 2nd log. Then the comparison of the wide band actual readings from both logs could tell you which table affected the readings. But it seems just looking at the commanded is a much easier way to check.
Hmm ... I am definitely not intending to runover anyone LOL. I do enjoy these types of discussions though, where the details behind how the system is operating are being flushed out. Forums can be an interesting way of interacting with folks, as tone and intent are often misinterpreted. That, plus the fact I've been accused of being argumentative on more than one occasion when I'm really just wanting to understand things better ... can sometime create a perception I am not intending to create....Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Carter_2
Yes. That is how we tuners tune. Exactly. Word for word. We use hard data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoopalini
Looking at the commanded is not checking anything other than what numbers you have in the box. When adjusting power enrichment using a wide band is the only way to verify what those numbers are actually doing.
...and that's exactly why I stated:Quote:
Originally Posted by LilSick
To which you responded by insinuating I was stoned ... LOL! I'm not 20 anymore :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Stoopalini
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilSick
I think most tuners do look at commanded EQ and compare it to actual EQ from a wide band though; especially if they are tuning a street car which will be daily driven. At least all of the other guys I've met and interacted with from this forum have stated that. You're actually the only one who has told me it doesn't matter ... but I think that's because your goals and focus is a bit different than others.
That aside .... The OP of this thread was specifically asking about what you're calling the "numbers you have in the box". He noticed the commanded EQ during power enrichment appears to be referencing the opposite table of that which is selected in the tune. You cannot tell this from the actual EQ signal of the wide band, but it is easily determined by looking at commanded.
where's my god damn cheerleader when i need her?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoopalini
apparently we do not speak the same language you and i
any value that is populated in vcm scanner is just that
a value
just because scanner sees the value does not mean that the controller is looking at it
it can populate but not be part of the logic
when tuning open loop acceleration fueling (pe) you need two things to accurately measure what the logic is spitting out and throwing at the injector
1) wide band sensors
2) zero exhaust leaks
gimme both those and i can tune power enrichment with zero vcm parameters
i can just look at the stupid go pro and adjust the pe table accordingly
could test the ops theory the same way - all it takes is a test tune or two : )
Look at the screenshots in post #9. My FA stoich is set at 0.0709. The PRatio PE table commands a 0.0192 enrichment and the aircharge PE table commands 0.0209. The selector was set for PRatio, but the log shows FA Power Enrich commanding 0.0209 and a commanded EQ of 0.77.
In terms of actual readings, and confirmation this is what is really being used by the PCM …. the wide band reading is hitting the commanded EQ of 0.77 pretty much dead on, which corresponds to the Aircharge table values not the PRatio values. If the OS was referencing the PRatio table as it should have been, but reporting commanded FA Power Enirvh incorrectly as you seem to be suggesting, then the FA Power Enrich commanded would have really been 0.0192 (even though the channel was reporting 0.0209) and the actual EQ would have been 0.79 (0.786).
When I change my commanded PE, my actual EQ (measured by the wide band) follows the commanded EQ pretty accurately because I’ve dialed in the airflow with the ANN trainer.
It is funny to see the airplane fella getting upset because this person cant, technically, handle a good discussion.
LOL
Just disregard what he said John_Carter_2. Lilsick has a habit of insulting other members who disagree with him. I guess he just doesn’t understand that other members have valid ideas and explanations, which he doesn’t like.Quote:
Originally Posted by LilSick