Tweaking VE Tables on GPEC2A

[LilSick]

its electronically fuel injected

"high pressure"

on gasoline, not alcohol

pump gas at that

and it is supercharged

and it is a hemi (a cast piston hemi)

if it were me i woulda put a pressure gauge on it before i ever tuned it

but i do stuff no one else here does

blue print engines

centerline cams

etc

is it a pressure problem? i have no idea. you don't log pressure : )

[Stoopalini]

Well, the symptoms aren't presenting as a pressure problem to me, so I've been looking elsewhere. Agree I should put a gauge on it to be sure though.

I've been looking for a flexible gauge solution, one that doesn't have multiple gauges up the A-pillar, but something more discrete. In my GTO, I have a single Aeroforce Interceptor digital gauge integrated into the cluster, which allows reporting of ODB PIDs as well as two analog inputs. On that vehicle, I have an oil temp sending unit connected as it was a road course race car for several years and oil temp was something I needed to watch. I like this concept because it keeps the gauge footprint down but still allows monitoring and alerting to multiple parameters when they cross a boundary.

In the Durango, I only have the AEM x-series wideband right now, which injects data into the canbus for VCM scanner to pick up on. This is temporarily mounted until I figure out a permanent solution.

Do you know of other solutions which can feed data to the canbus for VCM Scanner .... for fuel pressure, boost, IC coolant temp, IAT (I already have IAT2 of course), etc ...?

I found "One Gauge", which seems like a good solution for in vehicle custom gauges, but not sure if it can inject data onto the canbus for VCM scanner to pick up when logging. I could have a custom sized LCD panel mounted in the overhead sunglasses holder and connect it to the sensor hub mounted behind the dash somewhere. This would be a great solution for multiple gauges without being intrusive. The wife could close the sunglasses holder to hide it even.

https://www.theonegauge.com/

[LilSick]

these guys incorporate ect map and more into their 02 controller

just think what all you get with their dash/ecu

normally 4800

on sale for 27

[Stoopalini]

I think that's probably overkill for the wife's daily driver, but thanks for sharing. I can get a custom LCD screen, OBD hookup, and additional sensors all for less than $1k from One Gauge.

If I end up going to an IC Chiller setup, I could even have soft buttons added to the LCD for switching the IC Chiller into track mode, or for bypassing the OEM heat exchanger.

So one LCD integrated into the overhead sunglasses holder to show AFR, boost, IAT1, IAT2, Intercooler coolant temp, fuel pressure, and anything else I'd like to add. Ideally I'd like to be able to unlock the Hellcat gauges in the uConnect and feed a signal into those, but I haven't been able to get them to display ... and I've done quite a bit of work with the canbus and uConnect systems already.

[LilSick]

you put a 3 liter screw blower on your wifes daily driver?

wanna sponsor a drag team?

[Chubby Racer]

I personally paste 50% when I apply corrections to VE. It?s an option when you right click to paste.

[Stoopalini]

you put a 3 liter screw blower on your wifes daily driver?

wanna sponsor a drag team?

Ha! Yes .... and No LOL

I was a road course racer for a while and got into instructing new drivers for NASA Texas as well. It's been almost 10 years since I stopped competing though ... man, I'm getting old! The wife is as much of a HP/TQ junkie as I am and she used to volunteer in the control tower for timing & scoring when I was competing/instructing.

It was actually her idea to add power to her then-new daily driver. We really wanted the Hellcat Durango, but it's not offered in a 7 seat config and could only be ordered with red interior leather in 2023. Both were deal killers. So I ordered her an R/T with the Tow & Go package, which adds all the SRT components except it retains the R/T's 5.7L motor. And ... we could order it in a 7 seat config with black leather do do some sort of power adder if the 360HP / 390TQ wasn't enough.

The 1st week she had it, she said something like "The new Durango sounds and looks great! But it has way more bark than it has bite. I kind of feel like a poser ... What can you do to fix that?" To which I replied "Well, it really needs $10k for a supercharger" ... she then asked how quickly I could make it happen I then placed the order for the 3.0L Whipple during their 2023 Black Friday sale.

Front_Corner.jpg

SC_Complete.JPG

My goal was to match or beat the SRT 392's power level, which we did. The only dyno I've run thus far was with the VE tune loaded, and it hit 440 all-wheel HP and 420 all-wheel TQ on a mustang dyno. Figuring 20% parasitic loss through the AWD drivetrain, that would be somewhere around 550 flywheel HP ad 525 flywheel TQ.

Dyno_6-17-2024.JPG

I'm good with those numbers, especially considering I'm on a stock lower end ... but that tune's driveability was not smooth and stable at idle, off idle, part throttle, etc ... Plus, it started showing quite a bit of misfires in the logs sometime afterward and the tuner stopped responding to my emails. To be fair, the vehicle was a nightmare to tune and took 20 revisions to get it to where it was when it went on the dyno. I'm sure he lost money on my vehicle considering how much of his time it consumed.

[Stoopalini]

I personally paste 50% when I apply corrections to VE. It?s an option when you right click to paste.

Thanks! So the chart I created showing deviation of LTFT+STFT against RPM, and taking those %'s out of the chart and bringing them to the VE table is the right approach?

So if a cell in the Chart shows a negative number, I reduce the same cell in the VE table by that percent (or 1/2 of that percent like you recommend)?

[Stoopalini]

So I pulled the plugs out of cylinder 7 yesterday. Looks like there may be some detonation happening? Either that, or some anti-sieze contaminated the porcelain when I was removing them.

These have about 6k miles on them.

Cyl-7_Plugs.JPG

There's another owner of a Durango Tow and Go, using the same OS as me, where the tuner he was using said that HP Tuners had a spark and fueling table swapped with each other in VCM Editor.

Spark-Fuel_Mixup1.jpg

If this is the case, I can absolutely see how this would cause extreme frustration for a tuner. You see the lean spike and add some fuel to try and address it ... but it doesn't and instead, you've inadvertently added timing so now it's worse. etc ...

I've no idea if this is the case, but I've reached out to his tuner to ask what tables he was referencing in that text conversation.

[LilSick]

said they have a spark and a fuel table swapped

didnt say which table(s) tho

checks out...

[Stoopalini]

said they have a spark and a fuel table swapped

didnt say which table(s) tho

checks out...

I was able to connect with that tuner over email, and here's what he said:

I was logging and played with the torq switches a bit and saw they were backwards. I still am not sure that has been fixed. It is something I keep an eye out for now.

I've read this elsewhere in the forum (maybe posted by you actually?), so it does seem to check out.

Although I'm not sure which torque switches are backwards, as I can't seem to find that info.

[LilSick]

yes, that was me

i do not refer to them as 'tq switches' tho

"type of tq mgmt master enable/disable"

44825

44829
44830

2048
2049

44831
44832
44833
44834

which ones are switched, you ask?

took my car to stop shifting at the track (hella embarrasing), followed by 3 test and tunes back to that semi local track (not cheap), and a lot of good data logging to figure that shit out

will i share that with you?

sure i will

for free?

not so much

have fun : )

[LilSick]

had a shitty experience with one of our very own yesterday

not feeling super generous

i gave you what you need to figure it out

^^^

[LilSick]

ps - i can see those dingle balls from here

[Chubby Racer]

Thanks! So the chart I created showing deviation of LTFT+STFT against RPM, and taking those %'s out of the chart and bringing them to the VE table is the right approach?

So if a cell in the Chart shows a negative number, I reduce the same cell in the VE table by that percent (or 1/2 of that percent like you recommend)?

Just like excel you can highlight a section from VCM scanner, and right click on the matching cell in VE and choose “paste percent” or “paste 50%,” and VCM editor knows you want to do.

[Spray-Cam Hell-Ram]

Looked at your tune and log. Would like for you to load each version and let me know if either one helps with your lean spike...

[Stoopalini]

yes, that was me

i do not refer to them as 'tq switches' tho

"type of tq mgmt master enable/disable"

44825

44829
44830

2048
2049

44831
44832
44833
44834

which ones are switched, you ask?

took my car to stop shifting at the track (hella embarrasing), followed by 3 test and tunes back to that semi local track (not cheap), and a lot of good data logging to figure that shit out

will i share that with you?

sure i will

for free?

not so much

have fun : )

Well, I appreciate the point in the right direction. I was able to compare the stock calibrations against Whipple's calibrations against the 1st tuner's calibrations and think I figured it out. I gave it a quick test earlier today and it worked out pretty well. Looks like all the misfires are now gone. I made a few other changes at the same time, so not sure which change specifically addressed the misfires, but it's all a step in the right direction and I appreciate the input.

TH_Next_Tune-09052024.hpt

TH_Next_Tune-09052024-3.hpl

I do still have a small amount of KR, but this seems to only happen in 7th or 8th gear under cruise (ie: maintenance throttle).

Just like excel you can highlight a section from VCM scanner, and right click on the matching cell in VE and choose ?paste percent? or ?paste 50%,? and VCM editor knows you want to do.

Makes sense, thanks. I just meant if the LFTF+STFT chart showed a negative %, then I want to reduce the VE by that percentage.

Looked at your tune and log. Would like for you to load each version and let me know if either one helps with your lean spike...

Thanks for this! I've been looking over the changes you made in the two files and they make a lot of sense. I haven't had a chance to try them yet, but the Transient one has me hopeful it may address the remaining slight lean spike. The changes I made previously seem to have addressed it enough to prevent the misfires, but you can still see it go slightly lean at tip in.

Moving the breakpoints in Table 34470 seems like a good idea, if I understand what this table is doing ... The values you put in there are similar to what I see in a stock Durango Hellcat file. It makes sense the PRatio Boundary breakpoints for fuel trim should be higher then the stock R/T table, given the supercharger ... and the Hellcat values seem to support that.

R/T values:

Breakpoint 1 0.0400390625
Breakpoint 2 0.2001953125
Breakpoint 3 0.3203125
Breakpoint 4 0.4501953125
Breakpoint 5 0.599609375


Your Values:

Breakpoint 1 0.2109375
Breakpoint 2 0.3515625
Breakpoint 3 0.5
Breakpoint 4 0.650390625
Breakpoint 5 0.7998046875


Hellcat Values:

Breakpoint 1 0.349609375
Breakpoint 2 0.5
Breakpoint 3 0.599609375
Breakpoint 4 0.75
Breakpoint 5 0.900390625

[LilSick]

there is not much that you can compare between a 5.7 tune and a 6.2 tune

not only is one boosted and the other one not, the controllers use completely different operating systems

changing those boundaries changes how the trims adapt, does it not???

[Stoopalini]

there is not much that you can compare between a 5.7 tune and a 6.2 tune

not only is one boosted and the other one not, the controllers use completely different operating systems

changing those boundaries changes how the trims adapt, does it not???

Right, but I'm trying to adapt the 5.7 tune for a now boosted situation. So I've found looking over the 6.2 tune to be highly valuable. I realize I don't have the ability to leverage the SUPERCHARGER tab, because if I enable that, it throws all sorts of errors due to the other missing TMAP sensors as well as the missing H-Bridge of the PCM for controlling the electronic bypass valve through PWM ... never mind a bunch of other differences (like the fuel pressure control approach between the two).

But that said ... I've learned a ton from comparing the two as I go through this process. For example, I grabbed the MAP characterization values from a 2016 Hellcat since I am using a 2.25 bar TMAP sensor from one ... I've also grabbed the Throttle Body Airflow Model table from a 2021 Hellcat, since I am using a throttle body from a 2021 Hellcat. I've also grabbed the RPM idle values from the 2021 Hellcat, since I was getting idle surging rior to doing that.

Related to the "34470 - Fuel Trim Cell PRatio Boundaries" table, I did a comparison of these breakpoints.

Attachment 151488

This morning, I logged the 1st start of the day and a casual drive to drop my kid off at school. Then I analyzed that log, looking for the AFR and misfires, and comparing them to the breakpoints.

The above image shows what the average AFR was when throttle was over 5% and FA Enrichment was zero. Then I counted total cell hits, and looked at how many cell hits would be within the sections the breakpoints create. I also counted up the total misfires. The misfire numbers aren't exactly accurate due to the way the count remains for a period of time (ie: I only had 11 misfires during the drive), but it does show the trend across the PRatio scale.

As you can see, the R/T breakpoints are kind of weird, in that the 1st one is 0.04 PRatio. So it's basically useless. The next one had no cell hits at all, so also seems useless.

It seems the breakpoints Spray-Cam is recommending are well thought out and a good match for what I'm seeing in the data. I'm hoping I can try it later today, but it's a really busy day and I'm not sure if I'll have the opportunity to do so.

But if the PCM will honor the Control Goal FAR target, and adapt fuel trims within the bands defined by the breakpoints, this should provide a way to target enrichment during closed loop for these lean spikes without causing an issue in another RPM/PRatio location .... At least I think so, if I am understanding how these tables are used.

[LilSick]

what are you trying to make it do (or stop doing) by changing 34470