GXP Solstice Need Help

[Jack B]

I have some good data and also have some very good questions if anyone can offer me some direction:

Preface:

The 2.0 liter Turbo has the following unusual characteristics:

1. It is "Direct Injecton".

2. It has an oem wideband and runs closed loop during WOT.

3. It has such a fast and controllable burn rate that at WOT it runs 12-13 degrees advance.

4. At WOT it runs about 13.5 afr till approx 4500 where it drops to 12.8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Logging Information

Observation #1
Everyone talks about torque management because mods don't seem to do too much. That may be the case, but, I was able to isolate an event where power was reduced.

BTW this was not logged with the HPtuner scan tool, because, it does not see the wideband. I had noticed that since installing a high flow cat and 600 hp intercooler that the boost was being limited. I don't go by the gauge, this is from data logging. The car already had hard tubes, 3" exhaust, bov and CAI. Those mods did not seem to limit the boost. It was after the more substantial mods (intercooler and cat) that i started noticing the reduction in boost.

I traced the reduction in boost to a point on the afr curve where it started to deviate from the commanded afr. Immediately the STFT started adding fuel, but, not fast enough to stop the ECU from making the boost go negative. I have saved the log, it is very interesting. When I say the afr went negative, I mean the rate of change went from positive to negative. As soon as the STFT corrected the error the boost went horizontal, but, never climbed during 2nd gear. In 3rd gear it was limited to the max it saw in 2nd gear even though the afr was correct.

Observation #2
The engine runs very close to a zero LTFT for street driving.

Observation #3
The ID of the CAI tube at the MAF sensor is dramatically smaller. This should equate to a higher velocity. The MAF sensor now sees the higher velocity and equates that to proportionally greater mass. Therefore, the ECU see more mass then is actually being consumed. That tells me the car should try to run rich and the LTFT should be extremely negative. As I said before, it runs neutal on the street. On the track it runs about 10% negative.

Observation #4
I modified the MAF correction Table because logic would say the MAF was outputting too high of a voltage when compared to consumed mass. When i reduced the percentage in the airflow vs voltage the LTFT increased (street driving). I added to the base and the LTFT came down and gets close to zero.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions

1. Am I correct in saying that the 2.19 beta does not read the wide band?

2. I have not found the VE Table and the Transient Table is blank - are these still missing?

3. Is there any work-around to map the new CAI without the VE table

[Baldturbofreak.com]

Yes, no wideband yet. Hopefully in the next release, rumored to be out shortly.

Hmm have to double check but I don't remeber any VE tables yet. Just cam timing, igintion timing.

Hell yes. I had outstanding luck with the maf vs load correction table in getting the calculated vs actual lbs/min the same. but that was after significant reprogramming of the MAF curve. It was disussed in the other thread that my CAI is 3" all the way thru,requiring at least 25% more across the range. Perhaps the insert near the maf is causing odd behavior?
The other table has to be there to take care of quirky parts in the operating range like for example when in light load recirculate.
Log the MAf vs load correction table vs your stft , another w/ ltft ,and MAF V vs ltft in the form of a histogram. Use that to compare against your dashhawk (?) data Im interested to see where they correlate.

Like I said I read over in the lounge that it was supposed to be released in the next couple of days. I hope we are included in the next round of fun.

But after reading your first observation Im goign to take a closer look at things now that it's had a few thousand (trouble free) miles on the tune. always 14-15 psi. Ive never really considered perhaps that it could be a fueling nanny. Or could it be you were seeing two forms of torque nanny @ work?