Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: 2010 Camaro / blower - OL/CL problem

  1. #1
    Advanced Tuner Bluecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Catlettsburg, Ky
    Posts
    403

    2010 Camaro / blower - OL/CL problem

    I've got a new camaro with a TVS1900 that I'm having trouble with getting it to kick out of closed loop. The PE enable TPS table is labled as "HOT" and is apparently just that since reguardless of what I put in the table it doesn't leave closed loop until 55%. The problem with this vehicle is that at low rpm it will make 3-4 psi of boost on as little as 30% tps. And under that much load its to lean for it to run right and bucks and hunches until you either get out of it or get on it enough to hit pe.

    This is a problem I've never had before because any blower car I've ever tuned that was this new has always had a centrifical style blower or a turbo, and low rpm - low tps boost is not a problem. And obviously most older style ecm's have both a "standard" and a "hot" PE enable TPS table so get it to do what I want isn't a problem.

    Also I noticed the OL lookup works a little different than in the past vs the newer computers. If I disable CL via the temp thresholds is works just like the older pcms. If the PE EQ is less than the end result of the OL EQ, it goes with the OL EQ value. This lets me use the IVT Gain table for boost enrichment. Set the pe table to 1.13 across the board and let the IVT Gain table pull it down to 1.22 or so once you get into boost. But after you enable CL, when it does finally see enough tps to kick into PE is just goes with the PE value reguarless of if the values of the OL tables is richer or not. That stinks...



    So what I'm asking is what are the rest of you guys doing on newers cars with positive displacment blowers that only have a "hot" tps PE enable table?

    ...and to the HPT people - Is thier any plan to add the normal operation tps PE enable table to the newer calibrations?

  2. #2
    Senior Tuner Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    1,792
    Hey Phil,

    I did an PD'd e67'd TBSS that only shows the hot table but it seem to be the active choice in that cal for PE selection.

    I know that Speed Inc has tuned/run a setup as you are describing, maybe PM Jim a link and see if he can shine a light on their own setup. Perhaps they are just living with it for now as well.

    http://www.hptuners.com/forum/member.php?u=3130
    Steve Williams
    TunedbyFrost.com


  3. #3
    HP Tuners Support
    (foff667)
    Bill@HPTuners's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Hailing from Parts Unknown
    Posts
    26,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluecat View Post
    I've got a new camaro with a TVS1900 that I'm having trouble with getting it to kick out of closed loop. The PE enable TPS table is labled as "HOT" and is apparently just that since reguardless of what I put in the table it doesn't leave closed loop until 55%. The problem with this vehicle is that at low rpm it will make 3-4 psi of boost on as little as 30% tps. And under that much load its to lean for it to run right and bucks and hunches until you either get out of it or get on it enough to hit pe.

    This is a problem I've never had before because any blower car I've ever tuned that was this new has always had a centrifical style blower or a turbo, and low rpm - low tps boost is not a problem. And obviously most older style ecm's have both a "standard" and a "hot" PE enable TPS table so get it to do what I want isn't a problem.

    Also I noticed the OL lookup works a little different than in the past vs the newer computers. If I disable CL via the temp thresholds is works just like the older pcms. If the PE EQ is less than the end result of the OL EQ, it goes with the OL EQ value. This lets me use the IVT Gain table for boost enrichment. Set the pe table to 1.13 across the board and let the IVT Gain table pull it down to 1.22 or so once you get into boost. But after you enable CL, when it does finally see enough tps to kick into PE is just goes with the PE value reguarless of if the values of the OL tables is richer or not. That stinks...



    So what I'm asking is what are the rest of you guys doing on newers cars with positive displacment blowers that only have a "hot" tps PE enable table?

    ...and to the HPT people - Is thier any plan to add the normal operation tps PE enable table to the newer calibrations?
    AFAIK the table that is currently in there is the ONLY table in the pcm we just decided to recycle the name more than likely instead of making up a new one which saves us time.

    Regarding the tps gm changed how this is read & how it works on most all gen 4 pcm'd vehicles

    This is what our engineer had to say regarding this a while back

    "Try with smaller values for the enable TPS. From memory it's the same weird ETC % area - idle offset % the LS2 uses. Ie. You need to set it to values like 15-20% for tradtional TPS/ETC% of 40-50%"
    It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be done in two weeks...

    A wise man once said "google it"

  4. #4
    Advanced Tuner Bluecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Catlettsburg, Ky
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by Frost View Post
    Hey Phil,

    I did an PD'd e67'd TBSS that only shows the hot table but it seem to be the active choice in that cal for PE selection.

    I know that Speed Inc has tuned/run a setup as you are describing, maybe PM Jim a link and see if he can shine a light on their own setup. Perhaps they are just living with it for now as well.

    http://www.hptuners.com/forum/member.php?u=3130

    Yeah, I'd felt the same way. I was just using the hot table assuming it was the only table. I would just put the numbers in there that I would normally use on a big cam or set it up appropriate for a blower, but I don't know that I've ever actually looked at a log to see if it was doing what I told it. I never had a problem that cause me to question it. So the earlier ls2/3 stuff might use the hot table exclusively, but I know a new camaro dosen't.
    Last edited by Bluecat; 08-10-2009 at 02:30 PM.

  5. #5
    Advanced Tuner Bluecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Catlettsburg, Ky
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill@HPTuners View Post
    AFAIK the table that is currently in there is the ONLY table in the pcm we just decided to recycle the name more than likely instead of making up a new one which saves us time.

    Regarding the tps gm changed how this is read & how it works on most all gen 4 pcm'd vehicles

    This is what our engineer had to say regarding this a while back

    "Try with smaller values for the enable TPS. From memory it's the same weird ETC % area - idle offset % the LS2 uses. Ie. You need to set it to values like 15-20% for tradtional TPS/ETC% of 40-50%"
    Roger that. I've got in the habit of logging etc pedal % since that seems to be close to what normally gets used in table look-ups for the tranny and so on. Atleast when there is no etc limiting going on.

    The values I have in that table right now are from logged data on how much tps it took to reach 105 kpa at the givin rpms of the table. I'll scale that table back by .33 and see if it changes anything. It just seemed like in the logs that the magic number was 55 etc pedal % regardless of rpm, so I was assuming that there was a table populated my all 55's that I couldn't get to. Hopefully I just need smaller numbers. Thanks for the quick responce Bill.

  6. #6
    most tuners out here are setting the enable % to 5-15% on PD blower apps. It really has to be a lot lower than LS1 style becuase it is a non-linear weirdly calculated value rather than just a straight linear % TPS or pedal. This typically enables PE around 20-30%.

    There is still only one enable table in the code (the is a Baro offset table but have only ever seen it calibrated to 0). Send your file to support if you want me to check it.

    Chris...
    I count sheep in hex...

  7. #7
    Senior Tuner Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    1,792
    You're the man Chris!
    Steve Williams
    TunedbyFrost.com


  8. #8
    Fwiw on our car I disabled dynamic airflow and ltft's and tuned it strictly with the maf. PE set to 1.25 across the board and the car will go straight to 11.8-1 if I go WOT at 2k rpm.

    Driveability seems perfect at all throttle/rpm/load positions though I can log something specific if you like.
    07 ZO6- warhawk 427/APS TT/HPT 2.5bar

    10.19@152.9mph

  9. #9
    Advanced Tuner Bluecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Catlettsburg, Ky
    Posts
    403
    That was it. At 2000rpm it took a value of 9 in the table to get it to switch out of closed loop by 110kpa. That corisponded to etc pedal of 32% and absolute tps of 40%. Thanks for all the help everyone.

  10. #10
    Senior Tuner 5_Liter_Eater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,970
    Glad you were able to get it sorted.

    Just want to chime in and say I think it's BS that something as simple as PE Enable is so damn complicated now. It's like GM is making things more complicated/confusing with each new PCM on purpose... I don't think all this complication is making vehicles run any better. [/RANT]
    Bill Winters

    Former owner/builder/tuner of the FarmVette
    Out of the LSx tuning game

  11. #11
    Senior Tuner Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    1,792
    Quote Originally Posted by INTMD8 View Post
    Fwiw on our car I disabled dynamic airflow and ltft's and tuned it strictly with the maf. PE set to 1.25 across the board and the car will go straight to 11.8-1 if I go WOT at 2k rpm.

    Driveability seems perfect at all throttle/rpm/load positions though I can log something specific if you like.
    How much MAF do you have left from where you guys are now?
    Steve Williams
    TunedbyFrost.com


  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by 5_Liter_Eater View Post
    Glad you were able to get it sorted.

    Just want to chime in and say I think it's BS that something as simple as PE Enable is so damn complicated now. It's like GM is making things more complicated/confusing with each new PCM on purpose... I don't think all this complication is making vehicles run any better. [/RANT]
    this is what happens when you give engineers more processing power you don't think Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook really need a P4 2Ghz and 1G of RAM to run do you ? LOL
    I count sheep in hex...

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Frost View Post
    How much MAF do you have left from where you guys are now?
    I'll have to check the logs when I get back in town but I don't even think it's using half of what's available.

    These new cars are gonna rock for big HP builds in terms of ease and simplicity.
    07 ZO6- warhawk 427/APS TT/HPT 2.5bar

    10.19@152.9mph

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by INTMD8 View Post
    Fwiw on our car I disabled dynamic airflow and ltft's and tuned it strictly with the maf. PE set to 1.25 across the board and the car will go straight to 11.8-1 if I go WOT at 2k rpm.

    Driveability seems perfect at all throttle/rpm/load positions though I can log something specific if you like.
    Just curious... If for some reason this car had a MAF failure or reverted to SD for some reason, wouldnt it go lean if the driver was to get it into boost?

    Im by far no expert tuner, just was thinking about this and curious.

  15. #15
    Senior Tuner 10_SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill@HPTuners View Post
    AFAIK the table that is currently in there is the ONLY table in the pcm we just decided to recycle the name more than likely instead of making up a new one which saves us time.

    Regarding the tps gm changed how this is read & how it works on most all gen 4 pcm'd vehicles

    This is what our engineer had to say regarding this a while back

    "Try with smaller values for the enable TPS. From memory it's the same weird ETC % area - idle offset % the LS2 uses. Ie. You need to set it to values like 15-20% for tradtional TPS/ETC% of 40-50%"

    My E38 Gen IV 2010 Camaro:
    PE Throttle: 30% TPS PE = 60% Actual
    PE Throttle: 5% TPS PE = 33% Actual

    Quite a bit different.

  16. #16
    Senior Tuner LSxpwrdZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    on the Dyno
    Posts
    1,740
    Here's another monkey bone to throw in these newer ECM's...

    I tuned a couple of blower LS7's the last couple of day's and started off tuning them like I normally do by doing the VE first then switching to MAF only and calibrating that. When I finished up calibrating both individually I did a final pull running in mixed SD/MAF and the actual Lambda stayed lean even though it's commanding .77 lambda. So I changed the tune back to MAF only and did a pull and it was dead on commanded. Failed the MAF and ran the dynamic RPM up above rev limit so it would stay in SD and did a pull and actual was exactly what commanded read.

    Someone explain that? I ended up having to disable dynamic early on at around 2500rpm and switch over to MAF only to keep the car happy and running the correct fueling.

    I just thought it was weird that individually either of them operate normally but don't when mixed. These particular tunes were scaled 50% to regain headroom on the MAF table.
    James Short - James@ShorTuning.com
    Located in Central Kentucky
    ShorTuning

    2002 Camaro | LSX 427 | TFS245 | Twin S485's | Haltech Elite | GForce T56 | 8.06 @ 181

  17. #17
    Advanced Tuner Bluecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Catlettsburg, Ky
    Posts
    403
    I've seen that too. First noticed on auto camaros with maggies, as they build boost before the dynamic airflow high rpm disable kicks in. Fine it strait SD or MAF, but goes to hell in regular blend mode while in boost. What I saw was fueling literally cut in half for no reason, lol. Not had trouble with m6 cars though, and on ls7 cars I don't know that I've done a boosted one that build enough boost pre the maf switchover to show it. I've always assumed it has to do with the prediction coefficients. Those numbers are wildly different on the cars that don't act right, but to be completely honest I've never understood how those numbers actually work or how they relate. I know any time I've tried changing them or tried to copy over from a different tune that they go completely stupid. I assumed there was more tables than what we see involved and importing from another tune dosen't work because all the settings don't get brought over and end up miss matched. Even if they arn't the problem, I'd still like to understand them better.
    Last edited by Bluecat; 08-16-2012 at 09:35 AM.

  18. #18
    Senior Tuner LSxpwrdZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    on the Dyno
    Posts
    1,740
    This particular LS7 had a Eforce blower so that really killed the 3000-4000rpm disable for me. Basically just had to lower the dynamic disable rpm to keep it happy. It was a mild setup so it didn't have much erratic MAF behavior either.
    James Short - James@ShorTuning.com
    Located in Central Kentucky
    ShorTuning

    2002 Camaro | LSX 427 | TFS245 | Twin S485's | Haltech Elite | GForce T56 | 8.06 @ 181