Printable View
Setting up a flex tune right now for my 18 2ss 1le, and I noticed that the alcohol SOI offset table is very....random. Can I just 0 the entire table out because fuel timing shouldn't differ just because its ethanol vs gas, or does it actually need to be slightly different? If so, why? Thanks
bump, trying to flash this in asap
Leave it stock. In some instances, You actually have to add to those values to make it spray earlier.
I also studied this table and it makes little sense to me. I can see how you need to spray earlier at high load to complete the extra needed fuel supply in time but why all the up and downs during part throttle? Even on a stock engine with a flex fuel sensor like the 2014 L83, the table looks all hacked up.
There is conflicting opinions weather or not the non flex fuel engines flex fuel tables are setup correctly in the factory tune or not. If GM didn't intend to make the LT1 and LT4 flex fuel you could argue they wouldn't spend the time and money to correctly populate the tables, but then that brings the question on why aren't they just zeroed out?
A lot of other factory stock tables look really weird and make no sense at all, you would think by now GM has some way to pre calibrate tables based on simulations, then back those numbers up and update or confirm the values with real world testing.
It would be really nice to have an answer to all these unknowns.
I would compare a similar family engine's calibration that has factory flex fuel (L83) for a point of reference.
still looks like hot garbage. im still stock just trying to make sure itll run on e85 with no issues, so fuel demand shouldnt be an issue at my slightly modified SOI numbers so I think im just going to 0 it out until someone thoroughly convinces me otherwise hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by tunerpro
are you considering vvt retard in your calculations?
I'm starting to think the reason why do many GM
factory calibrations make no sense and have
random discontinuities is just because the
engineers got lazy and are using the table in
question to compensate for another table, either
because they don't want to change the other table
and have to change code again or for some other
reason. But this still seems impossible, maybe
when it has to do to ECM tuning when the liability
is limited (although they still have a emission
liability (emission cheating etc.)) Instead when
they are calibrating the stability control or
something like that were safety is more impacted
if they do something wrong.
Although it could just be straight up beaurcacy at GM, it could take so long to do one thing they just hack it in another place to fix it. This is a very real problem in engineering companies.
I say slightly modifed in that I smoothed the WOT sections above 5600 and added 10 degrees so it peaks at 340ish. not going crazy with it so no i didnt but based on other threads ive read, im nowhere near spraying before evcQuote:
Originally Posted by Higgs Boson
Stock and what I'll be flashing in tomorrow if I can get some free time. Still working on timing and random little things on gas before adding E since i got rid of static retard and leaned it out a tad
Attachment 96674Attachment 96675