Mind taking a look at my SD tuning

Another noob here. Been reading, looking and got Ed's tutorial and thought I would give a shot at SD tuning.
this is in a 2007 jeep Jk with a 2013 LS 6.0 with 6l80e transmission. computer is a E38 out of 2011 gmc Denali 1500 6.2

Please take a look at it and let me know where I am going wrong. 3D map looks like the Rockies.
Thanks for any help.

VVE-SD Is base tune then 1, 2, 3 of course

Guess scans are to big, will try and reduce or something then add to post.
reduced scans, hopefully not to much.

Have a log file?

I'd be curious if the MAF status says failed and if you are still logging the MAF. It can skew the numbers a little. Me personally would have the MAF fail high set to 2hz and the low fail at 1hz instead of 1,400.

Are you do the changes with the paste special by half?

You can also and should also use the smooth section feature in the editor after each change, then calculate the coefficients.

Thanks 5FDP for replying. I just put the maf status in the channels and went out and check it is saying failed. I was using a guide I found on the site for maf fail and just used that one. I can do what you suggest if needed. It is not like any of the scans and edits I made worked:mad:

How can I reduce my scan and still get it to show the majority of my scan for the numbers. I have tried to export it and it looses so much of the scan.

Smooth section of the editor? Would that be the first one of the smooth selections "smooth selection" correct?

First edit was paste special %, rest were past special by half.

May be answering my own questions. Went back into the editor did a paste special by half on my first scan and did some hand smoothing to the ve table and then smooth selection then calculate the coefficients.

Looks better, will scan again and see what it does for me.

Well this is what I ended up with. Set the MAF fail high to 2hz and the low fail at 1hz instead of 1,400 as 5FDP suggested. How's it look?

Almost used VVE-SD 4.4 scan but liked the VVE-SD 5.5 for staying on positive side.

On another note, I was looking at a 2010 6.0 stock tune and I noticed on the cylinder volume that it has .75 L. Mine has .745 L (remember that my computer was for a 2011 GMC Denali with the 6.2 in it. Is that enough to make a difference and or should I change it to .75. If I do will that effect my tune?

Several views but no responses? Anybody? Like I said I have done a lot of reading and Just wanting to know if I am going in the right direction or not, so I know if I am really learning or not. Maybe some guidance.

take the maf reporting out of your logging, it can skew data from what i have been told. i would also add to the rpm cut off of the dynamic airflow, even if you're only going to use it to 4000rpm's, might as well tune it as though there is no maf. i would turn off long term fuel trims and only use short term trims as well, it takes a while for long terms to learn themselves. set them at like 400 degrees or something and that will disable them. i would disable dfco, cot, transients, possibly a few other things to keep them from skewing the data you're trying to capture- just to start

1. I couldn't open any of your original log files
2. You have virtual flex fuel sensor enabled which will screw with fueling in all kinds of annoyingly inconsistent ways. I'd disable that
3. You've increased in the PE enable so high that it will likely never go into PE mode. Is that on purpose? Most people want to make it go into PE more easily, not never. I have an L92 truck and making it go into PE earlier makes it feel a lot stronger
4. You've made High octane and low octane spark tables match each other; I would not recommend that. The low octane table would only be used after there has been enough knock to warrant it, so I usually make the low octane table 6-8* under the high octane table
5. Looks like you've lowered the high octane table by 5* in some spots and decreased it in others? How did you go about finding these values? Note: I'm basing this on a random "stock" tune in the repository, so it's possible what I'm looking at is not a stock file
6. Looks like variable cam timing table is increased quite a bit.. again, any details on how you came up with these numbers or am I just comparing to a file that isn't the same as what you started with?
7. Fuel trims look a bit higher than I'd want, so I'd work on that some. I would increase the entire VVE table by 7% and start there.
8. I don't see a wideband reading so you're limited to part throttle tuning
9. Both logs I could open are very short, much too short to get good data from. You're only giving us data for maybe 20-25 cells in the VVE "table" when you need data for hundreds of cells

That's about all I've got right now. I haven't looked through them page by page but there are def some places left to work on. I also haven't looked at the transmission settings at all but I did see there were a lot of changes

Whew! Thanks schpenxel for the response. Lots to look at.
1. Did not realize that, will look into it and see what is up.
2. Ok, will do. That is under fuel sytstem>diagnostics>flex fuel>sensor diag? It says disable.
3. Honestly was told by someone on the forums to set it to that to bring pe in quicker. Apparently went the wrong way. What would you suggest? That is under engine>fuel>power enrichment...then?
4. Ok, will look at that.
5. I did not mess with these tables as of yet. Not saying that it had not been altered before I got it, the pcm, but do not believe it has been.
6. Have not altered that table, yet.
7. So try and get closer to zero?
8. No wideband so was staying below 4000 rpm's
9. My logs are about 30 minutes long and when I try to download them it fails even though they are smaller than the max allowed. Any ideas as to how to get them to load?

And to your other question, cylinder volume field does not do anything on gen 4 ECM's

My scan logs are to big to download. Is there a way to reduce them in size so I can upload one so you guys can look at it. I have tried everything that I can think of or find to reduce the file size with no luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kansasjk

My scan logs are to big to download. Is there a way to reduce them in size so I can upload one so you guys can look at it. I have tried everything that I can think of or find to reduce the file size with no luck.

---

You can zoom to portion of the data you want or that you think is important and then (use +/- on your keyboard) and then go to "Log File > Export Log File," select hpl and then Visible Data Range and see if that gets it small enough.

If you'd like to show the whole log you can cut it in half this way upload both.