Tuning VVE: Zero out intake cam angles and step through?

[itspeat]

Hey all, just had a random thought.
Whenever I've tried to adjust the VVE table in the past, I've always had the Intake Cam "Desired Angle" and the "WOT Desired Angle" maintain their advance (I think positive numbers are actually retard though?)
Then it hit me that this might have been messing up the tuning process considering a changing cam angle would change the VE... my dumbass finally realized that I should do it in iterations.

Is my head in the right place or am I over thinking it?

For instance, if doing WOT tuning I should do it in iterations and:

1. Zero out the Intake Cam Angle WOT table then adjust the VVE table at intake cam 0*.
2. Retard cam 5 degrees across the RPM range, adjust VVE table at intake cam 5*.
3. Retard cam to 10 degrees, adjust VVE table at intake cam 10*

VVETables-IntakeCamAngles.png

[GHuggins]

To do this - 0 out cam tables to lock cam at 0. Tune in main VVE table with cam locked at 0. Then using Cringer's tool - reload you cam tables into the tune and work the coefficients to get fueling back pretty close to what it was when you tuned it locked at 0. When changing the coefficients I just use the highest cam setting for that corresponding zone.

Actually just got through doing this to a customers.

Should also note that Cringer's tool currently isn't working for the fuel display corrections. He's working on getting it fixed

[GHuggins]

You'll also want to 0 out any zones you're not using in the cam table - this way they aren't changing fueling when they're not supposed to.

[itspeat]

I've been looking into Cringer's tool and it really seems awesome. Excited to start using it! Good to know about the fuel display corrections.
I was discouraged adjusting the VVE tables the first time around (9 months ago) because it seemed like I wasn't making any progress. I was also trying to smooth it too much, then I learned that the Gen V VVE table shouldn't really look like a Gen 3 VE table (rookie mistake).

Also, I only have headers as of now, so the stock VVE table is probably fine?...but I wanted to understand the process before throwing this cam I have into the car and possible heads and MSD manifold.

I think I understand your process. So basically, zero out the Low, Med, High Desired Angle tables and the WOT table (make sense). Stops the cam from moving (in theory)
Make changes to VVE table at 0* intake.

After that you're saying I could theoretically throw my original Low, Med, High, and WOT cam tables back in. For instance my WOT table went from 0 to 11

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.5 4 4.5 5.5 7 7.5 9 11 11 11 11 11 11

And then I would work the VVE table based on the highest cam angle at a particular zone in the VVE table.

So no need to do the following then:


Log 1 WOT Cam Position 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Log 2 WOT Cam Position 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Log 3 WOT Cam Position 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Make changed to VVE table at intake cam 0, 5, and 10 positions.

Thanks by the way!

[GHuggins]

It's actually a little simpler than that, but requires more thinking and back and forth checking which you're going to have to do anyway, BUT basically you don't have to put the different values in the tune and then log.

Basically put all of the tables back to how you want them and do your logging. You're going to have to use load and throttle settings to hit all of the high rpm areas and make sure DFCO is killed. That'll save some headaches on it's own Now using Cringer's tool, your log and the zone boundaries you'll have to swap back and forth between the 3, but that'll tell you everything you need to know about where to set the tool settings to dial in the coefficients... You'll probably realize all of this better after you start using it, but no reason to make all of the different locked cam positions anymore like I used to do.

Just another word to the wise - don't be afraid to really manipulate the coefficients with big changes. Sometimes you really have to in order to get the sections to twist how you want them to.

[Cringer]

New version of the VVE Assistant posted tonight. Please update.

[GHuggins]

Not trying to hijack the thread, but yesterdays 4-22's has all of the issues fixed for dialing in the cams. If you downloaded when Cringer mentioned, it was still broken. Don't guess I clarified what was wrong well enough - my fault... Make sure to download both the 3d and regular exec files. Save both into one folder. Just in case anyone's ever wondering what we're talking about when reading all of this

Here is the link so you don't have to look for it. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yw...m&usp=drive_fs

[itspeat]

New version of the VVE Assistant posted tonight. Please update.

Not trying to hijack the thread, but yesterdays 4-22's has all of the issues fixed for dialing in the cams. If you downloaded when Cringer mentioned, it was still broken. Don't guess I clarified what was wrong well enough - my fault... Make sure to download both the 3d and regular exec files. Save both to their own folders. Just in case anyone's ever wondering what we're talking about when reading all of this

Here is the link so you don't have to look for it. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yw...m&usp=drive_fs

Hey fellas, thanks for the updates and the additional explanation.
I did get a chance to mess with Cringer's tool this weekend and it's addictive! Kind of fun to be honest. It's satisfying working on particular zones of the table.

I do feel like I messed up my low RPM/low pressure ratio section of the VVE table though (<1100 RPM and <0.340). I guess the LTFT or the LTFT+STFT aren't accurate the long tube headers at idle?
Car was idling all over the place on cold start this morning until closed loop kicked in.

Otherwise, I'm just working on my "steady-state" logging technique. I feel like the filters don't really work after I add more than two AND conditions. I copied and pasted the filters Cringer provided in his text file such as this one:
[2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2 and ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0

I wanted to see if I could add in a condition to filter out data when the commanded throttle is over 80% just see if it would wipe the histogram out.
When I add another AND for the commanded throttle to be over 80%, I'd expect the histogram to go blank (since I only logged partial throttle and no WOT or PE). Yet the histogram stays the same

[2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2 and ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0 AND [76.156.avg(100)]>80

If I used [76.156.avg(100)]>80 by itself, it works as I'd expect. Nothing shows up on the histogram.

Not sure if you've ever experienced that?

[Cringer]

Hey fellas, thanks for the updates and the additional explanation.
I did get a chance to mess with Cringer's tool this weekend and it's addictive! Kind of fun to be honest. It's satisfying working on particular zones of the table.

I do feel like I messed up my low RPM/low pressure ratio section of the VVE table though (<1100 RPM and <0.340). I guess the LTFT or the LTFT+STFT aren't accurate the long tube headers at idle?
Car was idling all over the place on cold start this morning until closed loop kicked in.

Otherwise, I'm just working on my "steady-state" logging technique. I feel like the filters don't really work after I add more than two AND conditions. I copied and pasted the filters Cringer provided in his text file such as this one:
[2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2 and ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0

I wanted to see if I could add in a condition to filter out data when the commanded throttle is over 80% just see if it would wipe the histogram out.
When I add another AND for the commanded throttle to be over 80%, I'd expect the histogram to go blank (since I only logged partial throttle and no WOT or PE). Yet the histogram stays the same

[2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2 and ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0 AND [76.156.avg(100)]>80

If I used [76.156.avg(100)]>80 by itself, it works as I'd expect. Nothing shows up on the histogram.

Not sure if you've ever experienced that?

These will work, I would suggest using [50090] rather than [76]. The problem with the equation you posted above is that is using the average over .1 second. To eliminate anything over 80% you need to get rid of that average.

[2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2 and ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0 and [50090.156] > 80

[2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2 and ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0 and [76.156] > 80

[itspeat]

These will work, I would suggest using [50090] rather than [76]. The problem with the equation you posted above is that is using the average over .1 second. To eliminate anything over 80% you need to get rid of that average.

[2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2 and ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0 and [50090.156] > 80

[2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2 and ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0 and [76.156] > 80

For some reason I think the ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0 is messing up the filter for me. I'm in a 2017 C7 Gen V.
I wonder if the my Fuel Trim Cells are messing me up since my Airflow modes are: 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64. I am assuming those are the Fuel Trim Cells? (screenshot attached)

Once I remove that part of your filter the histogram populates as expected with the [2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2

Airflow Modes.png

[Cringer]

For some reason I think the ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0 is messing up the filter for me. I'm in a 2017 C7 Gen V.
I wonder if the my Fuel Trim Cells are messing me up since my Airflow modes are: 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64. I am assuming those are the Fuel Trim Cells? (screenshot attached)

Once I remove that part of your filter the histogram populates as expected with the [2517.161.avg(1500)]=0 and [2517.161.avg(-200)]=0 and (abs([50090.156.slope(1500)])+abs([50090.156.slope(-500)]))<2

Airflow Modes.png

I am not sure what the fuel trim cells are for a Gen5. In a pinch you can use the [commanded eq ratio] like this...
[commanded eq ratio] < 1 (for PE)
[commanded eq ratio] = 1 (for CL)

[liviner]

For some reason I think the ([6310]=9 OR [6310]=14 OR [6310]=15)=0 is messing up the filter for me. I'm in a 2017 C7 Gen V.
I wonder if the my Fuel Trim Cells are messing me up since my Airflow modes are: 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64. I am assuming those are the Fuel Trim Cells? (screenshot attached)

From working with my 2016 Camaro SS, here's the info I've gathered on FTC definitions for gen V:

cell 0-5 Airflow based, Purge On
cell 6 Idle, Purge On
cell 7 Decel, Purge On
cell 8-13 Airflow based, Purge Off
cell 14 Idle, Purge Off
cell 15 Decel, Purge Off