yes i do sorryOriginally Posted by cobaltssoverbooster
yes i do sorry
Do you have the latest beta? When I open your tune the turbocharger files are all nulled out.
'12 Camaro T3 2SS/RS LS3 M6, SLP TVS 2300, Flex Fuel
try making your torque management cyl disable chart all zero's. i think your trq man is kickin in there moving the throttle plate trying to control something happening at that time. also your COT chart i wouldnt recommend making that all 1.00 lambda that means if for some reason it desides to use that table then you will run 14.7 AFR at all load and rpm ranges. this would be no bueno under boost.
also currious as to why your duty cycle charts for the wastegate are showing all zero's??? do you have the most recent beta??
2000 Ford Mustang - Top Sportsman
what are you doing with your IAT Spark Multiplier?
you turning it off cause im getting some kr in max of 3* and its either one of those multiplier tables or it really doesnt want timing haha
2000 Ford Mustang - Top Sportsman
with my COT I was under the impression if I had no cat just 1.00 it out and also I’m not using the factor boost controller i have a greddy e-01 as my boost controller that’s why its all 0 out and turned of the codes for it the greedy boost controller works perfect as of now i have it turned off so it opens with just spring pressure which is 8psi I think but it will boost it up to 30 if I command it LoL
Last edited by Black SS; 07-08-2011 at 12:40 AM. Reason: ADD ON
Wow, not sure where to start...I'll try to throw a few things out there.
I'll start at the top and go down through some of the tables.
You're skewing the MAF cal table richer but taking it back away leaner with the correction table. Weird. Holy crap, you're running at -9.4 on LTFT? You need to zero out that correction table and put the cal table back to stock, then retune the MAF. -9.4 LTFT is WAY off on fuel trims on a DI motor. These motors can be tuned to run without any LTFT at all because fuel control is so good on DI motors with a Lambda sensor.
DAL table is interesting. I don't understand why tuners throw all the power of that table away by making half the columns flat. What you're seeing in your logs is either MAF turbulence or compressor surge, I can't tell for sure with the config pids you have. I'm betting that DAL table is a big factor in your drivability issues. That table is one of the strongest influences on throttle mapping. By setting up a DAL table like that you're pretty much throwing throttle mapping out the window.
PE- OK guys this is another one that just blows me away. FACT- you will make more power, have less driveability issues, have less fuel supply issues, be safer and easier on your motor and even get better mileage if you don't run these DI motors pig rich like this! Sorry to yell but this one is a biggie for me because I see just about every tuner out there doing this wrong. .85 PE Lambda is WAY too rich. I could go into the theories and reasons behind what I'm saying here but that's probably something for another thread. Please just take my word for it and lean these tunes out people! Show me someone that's blown an LNF because it was run too lean and I'll show you ten that were blown because they were run too rich. You'd be better off with stock PE table than what you have here. (Not saying it's right either, but it's better than what you have in this tune.)
Ign timing tables- it appears that you're trying to get rid of KR? Not sure but there's some weird changes there also. Everyone is so hell-bent on getting rid of KR on these motors (and others motors as well) because they think KR will also blow their motors. Here's another little known fact... KR does not blow LNF's. If it did, GM would have blown motors all over the place. Every late model motor that GM produces makes significant amounts of KR. That's how the system works. Again, KR in logs does NOT mean your motor is gonna blow. Heat breaks LNF pistons (the first weak point when pushing this motor), and that heat is usually from pushing the stock turbo too far, not from being too lean or from excessive knock. Edit- I went back and looked at your log, you do have a sh!tload of KR. Most of that it caused by the jacked up fuel trims.
Sorry if I slammed your tune a little too hard, just telling you what I saw and my opinions on it. Again, I'm thinking what you're seeing in the logs and feeling when driving is either MAF turbulence or compressor surge. You can hear compressor surge, does it make any weird noises when it's acting up? What intake do you have? What are you using for a blow-off or bypass valve? Is it part of the greedy boost controller?
Last edited by gmtech16450yz; 07-08-2011 at 02:17 AM.
Torque Management Cyl Disable has no control over the throttle on these motors. It only controls fuel shutoff. If you zero out the whole table, you will disable DFCO. Leave the table stock or at least leave all 15's in the far right column too keep DFCO working.
With a bigger turbo making bigger power, you need to run a bit richer then the .88 on the stock turbo. We saw minimal gain going from .85 to .88 on a bigger turbo and the EGT rose a lot faster and ran hotter then I liked. For stock turbo, I totally agree tho that .85 is way too rich.
no need to say sorry!!!!!!!!!!! for it thank you thats why im here to learn form my mistakesi value any senior tuner opinion and i have the zzp kit 252 i listed my mods on a earler post
ill try to retune the maf agian tomorrow or later today ill post up my numbers before i make any changes to the tables maybe im doing something wrong thanks agian guys
Hi Nick, I have to respectfully disagree with you on the .85 issue for several reasons, here's a few...
Bigger turbo needing more fuel- So which one makes more heat, a stock turbo @30psi or an aftermarket turbo @30psi? Stock turbo. So why would you need more fuel? Put those EGT probes on a stock turbo and manifold and run it at 30psi and see what the temps are. That's why more pistons are broken by stock turbos than aftermarket turbos.
You absolutely WILL make more power going from .85 to .88, and again more going from .88 to .92. Here's the biggest reason for this false assumption or conclusion on only getting "minimal gains" going leaner- Dynojet. Put an LNF on a steady state dyno and you'll actually be able to tune mixtures properly. Most shops out there are using Dynojet's because they're cheap, not because they work the best at tuning, or should even be used for tuning specifically. Here's another reason, how many times have we heard someone say "minimal gains" when talking about LNF mixtures? This is a clue for me because the internet is an interesting place. False information can travel WAY faster than fact. The reason these two words jump out at me is every time I hear someone talk about not gaining power by running leaner they say the exact same words, "minimal gains". I'm not saying you Nick in particular, but I'm guessing 90% of the guys using those words are using them because they're just repeating EXACTLY what's been spread around the 'net on this subject. I know for a fact I've heard it from guys that have never personally tested what they're talking about, they're just repeating what they've read. Well I'm saying it's wrong, and I'm saying that because I've tuned on a steady state dyno personally and done the testing myself.
As far as safety goes, I have a couple points here...
This is a DI motor. Running too rich can actually be MORE damaging to the motor than running too lean. Running too rich causes massive KR, overloads the fuel system and dilutes the oil with raw fuel. (Being forced past the rings even more with aftermarket turbos and higher boost pressures, yet another reason NOT to run those turbos too rich.) How many times have these guys running hella rich mixtures on big turbos or E85 run out of fuel pressure and run lean? Lots. How many have blown doing it? None that I know of. Lean out that PE and guess what, our fuel system is good to over 450whp/tq, even on E47.
Here's another little known fact... A lot of the time LNF guys are running at Stoich (14.7) at full throttle and full boost and don't even know it. How many tuners actually know how PE is controlled? I'm betting not all of them, that's for sure. PE is controlled by PEDAL POSITION not THROTTLE POSITION. For all these guys that are running ridiculously high DAL numbers, try logging pedal position vs. throttle position. Guess what, your throttle is at 100% when your foot is at 50%! You know what that does? It keeps it from even going into PE. I wonder how many guys even realize that. Again, I'll guarantee this is happening on hundreds of tuned LNF's out there, and those motor's aren't blowing up because the mixture is too lean.
dude great info i learn something new all the time. Thanks for the set straight
im gonna fix my table as well then.
2000 Ford Mustang - Top Sportsman
I noticed what your talking about with the throttle opening all the way at no where near full throttle a long time ago. If you increase the DALs to far too early its almost like a cruize control, making the car boost in normal driving sometimes and become super sensitive to your pedal movements. Ive talked to a few people at meets that say "these cars are fast when you tune them, but they are really hard to drive off a light when they are tuned" after taking a look at the tune its the DALs 50% of the time or a horrible MAF tune. If you play with that table you can make this car super smooth to drive and squeeze a couple mpgs out also.
As far as the PE on these cars you did teach me a little. I wasnt aware that PE was controlled by the DAL table. Usually its controlled by a mix of rpm, map, and pedal position.... but thinking about it that would be the only table that could control all of those factors on the LNF. So thank you for pointing that out. Ive always thought about it as a desired torque by pedal, rpm and load table. I would still put up a small arguement on making more power at a .92 vs a .88 lambda and still being safe. Ive tried leaner lambdas and richer ones. Richer than .87 i will get a misfire occasionally on my histo, and misfires when on E47. Leaned out to about a .91 i notice more power and torque than the .86 area according to the butt dyno and logger timer. I dont notice much of a difference going down from .91 to .88 though. But like you saaid it needs to be on a steady state dyno to see the real gains from it. My arguement is that I dont see any time improvements on a 60-100 pull from .89 to .91-.93 so why run it leaner and cut the cushion you have in the case that the car does go lean during a pull for some reason? I run .898 lambda in my cars to actually accomplish a .89 WOT AFR. so yes this is actually a leaner PE than most people run but there is still room for error if it does occur. I dont notice any gas in the oil like you stated, dont have any problems running out of fuel at the time "even on full E" so i really cant see the point of running a car that lean on the stock turbo that is creating a insane amount of heat. And like you said in your post these cars lose pistons due to heat from maxing the turbo out... "little gas in the oil sounds better than a melted ring" But dont take this as a dick type of post. Just giving you a good arguement toward your point of view. If you have something that can prove me completely wrong then im all ears, i love to learn especially when it comes to cars.
Also explain a little on the DAL table controlling PE. My guess would be to coordinate the actual PE tables load to the DAL tables load and rpm. Is this correct?
HP-Unlimited Tuning and Custom Fabrication
Houston area performance parts dealer
MD800 Mustang Dyno 713-560-3889 Taylor
2016 Camaro A8 "shop car" FIRST 6th GEN CAMARO OVER 200mph IN THE MILE 203.5mph
Yay! I helped somebody! jk
Thanks for the comment. Common practice years ago was to zero that table out. That was one of the tables I played with because it didn't make sense to zero it out to me. After reading, learning and experimenting myself I found out about the loosing DFCO thing. I then made a thread on here about it and like you said, "set everyone straight" on what that table actually does. One of the reasons guys were zeroing that table out was it was thought to help on misfires during NLS shifts and/or high rpms. I've since found that weak valve springs are the biggest cause of NLS misfiring, and zeroing out the Torque Management Cyl Disable table doesn't really fix the problem.
Glad I could help.
Super LOL's! I'M the one that usually comes off like a dick! As far as I'm concerned, there are no dicks on this forum, that's why I like it. It's always hard to make a point that goes against a certain person or idea. I try to be as neutral sounding and helpful as I can, it just comes off wrong sometimes no matter what I say or how I say it. If we're all learning, it's all good!
Re-read what I wrote, I think I explained it clearly, but probably not. The DAL table effects PE by effecting throttle mapping. Like you've also noticed, raise the DAL's too high and the throttle will be too far "ahead" of the pedal position. PE is triggered by PEDAL position, not THROTTLE position. If you're at 50% pedal and 100% throttle, you're going to be at full load and boost, but not getting any PE because pedal position is too low to trigger it on. Make sense? It would make a lot more sense if we actually had the TPS vs. RPM vs. PE table like other ECM's do so we could all see when exactly it's triggered as far as pedal position goes. I never really looked at it that closely in the LNF logs to figure it out, but I'm guessing it's at around 70% pedal position like a lot of other GM tunes are on other motors. If you're not past that amount (whatever it is), you won't be in PE mode. The fix obviously is to keep the DAL table, and others, so that throttle angle isn't that far ahead of pedal angle.
And yes, you're also dead on, LNF's can be tuned to be a total pussycat at light loads, rpm's and pedal percentages. Even when the motor is making gobs of power. This Bosch ECM most definitely has throttle mapping control, even with the limited tables we have, you just have to know how to use them. I'm convinced most "tuners" don't have any idea how to control the throttle mapping on and LNF.
Rest assured, you didn't come off as a dick! If anyone's gonna come off as a dick it would probably be me. It's not like I try to though, really.
Last edited by gmtech16450yz; 07-08-2011 at 03:36 PM.
Ok i see. So basically PE comes in at user pedal position 70% "about that area like you said", but if you raise the DALs to high to early then you can actually hit full boost before that 70% pedal mark and have no PE due to the TB open all the way already to match your DAL. Got it got it. I understood this table but not to that extent. What we need to make a bad ass DAL table or throttle map would be a scale to boost type of deal. It would be hard to figure out or impossible most likely due to the boost fluctuation we get. Example 255 can be 18psi to 30psi. Would be sweet to be able to log DAL vs rpm and load then compare it to a boost histogram that was set up rpm vs load or throttle position..... Or is that possible? im going to look.
Edit: the only thing we can log is Air load. Anyone know what this actually is logging?
Last edited by silverbullet08; 07-08-2011 at 05:00 PM.
HP-Unlimited Tuning and Custom Fabrication
Houston area performance parts dealer
MD800 Mustang Dyno 713-560-3889 Taylor
2016 Camaro A8 "shop car" FIRST 6th GEN CAMARO OVER 200mph IN THE MILE 203.5mph
Must go and fix DAL table.
If your DAL table is too aggressive and you don't reach PE, how does that effect AFR? If I understand this correctly, you will never reach your commanded AFR (from PE table). So does it go rich or lean?
2009 SS/TC
i have a full ferrea valvetrain now with springs and valves so i dont have the valve issue i probbaly had before which means i can go back to stock inj torque tables and get more mpg's maybe. glad to get that info
2000 Ford Mustang - Top Sportsman
ok guys as promise here is my gm stg 1 stock tune and here is the log file know i just copy the maf calibration and past it with multiply by % is that right
you copy the ltft+stft you recorded in the vcm scanner which is by maf frequency on one axis only. then you go into the editor and open your maf freq table up and paste special by %.
2000 Ford Mustang - Top Sportsman
I have a couple of Histo's setup now that log Pedal vs Plate to dial in the DAL table below boost close to 1:1 throttle. I then use Desired Boost/Actual Boost vs the DAL table to get the rest of the DAL table. This has made the car incredibly nice to drive and very predictable.
Before we had the amount of tables that we do have, we were def ramping the DAL's WAY high trying to force more boost. I have since gone to realistic numbers and the car def drives better half throttle (and full really too).
The Lambda - Our opinions can differ, there's a lot more that goes into it then just run this Lambda IMHO tho. Fuel Quality, Elevation, Boost Level, etc.. The EFR car we just built couldn't run over stock timing at .88 or even .87 Lambda, we dropped it down a lil bit further and it opened up some more room. The car also had a better looking power curve from doing so. Every situation is different tho! The Hahn 20G cars we did really like .88-.9 and performed well there.
I had the ZZP S252 tune emailed to me from a couple different people and you would be shocked how rich they run their setups if you think .85 is WAY rich LOL!
Reply With Quote