Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Has anyone seen an ATS-V tune yet?

  1. #1
    Senior Tuner Higgs Boson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    3,299

    Has anyone seen an ATS-V tune yet?

    I can post the stock file this evening but it's like nothing I have ever seen.

    The MAF is functional but it never goes MAF only, it uses VE and MAF all the way to redline.

    VE table (in the VVE Editor) is large blocks of negative then positive number, not a typical VE table at all.

    plus a lot of other weird stuff I don't see in the V8 tunes.

    Is this sort of thing typical for the V6's or new to the TT V6 E92 application?

  2. #2
    Advanced Tuner Road's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Terrell Tx
    Posts
    478
    The 2.0 turbo with the E39 ecm is doing the same. Looks like a turbo thing? Fueling appears to more related to manifold pressure now days.

  3. #3
    Tuner in Training TransAm8723's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    14
    The VVE tables look really different if you change the VE mode to Manifold Switch Open. You can also see them changing as you change the intake and exhaust cam angles. The VVE surfaces look more "believable" or "normal." The ATS-V doesn't have a variable runner length manifold does it? If so, how come both of these tables exist and one set looks so different? Also, the VVE tables only have values up to a Pressure Ratio of 1.29. After this value it runs MAF only?
    Jeremy Capps, PhD
    Weapon-X Motorsports Tuner, Physicist


    "i really think sometimes people are scared of the cobra name....com'n people we have firebirds...its a bird on fire for christ sake...." -staringback05

  4. #4
    I searched the repository and didn't see the tune there...

  5. #5
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    435
    Post tune
    http://www.lsxcalibration.com - Lsx Tuning France - Spécialisé Reprogrammation moteur Corvette Camaro Hummer, Ford Mustang et autres véhicules US

    Check our Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/lsxcalibration.com

  6. #6
    Tuner in Training TransAm8723's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    14
    Jeremy Capps, PhD
    Weapon-X Motorsports Tuner, Physicist


    "i really think sometimes people are scared of the cobra name....com'n people we have firebirds...its a bird on fire for christ sake...." -staringback05

  7. #7
    Anyone have input on this yet? I'm getting ready to take a shot at upping the boost and tuning for my cat-less downpipes.

  8. #8
    Tuner in Training TransAm8723's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    14
    That's exactly what we're doing now (cat-less DP, full exhaust, modified airbox, BOV). We're still having some issues with throttle limiting. We can increase the boost, but the throttle limits more as a consequence. Upping the DD tables and Peak torque tables a bit (~10-20%) doesn't completely fix anything, as the Delivered Torque still exceeds the Max Engine Torque at points throughout the rev range. I've thought about manipulating the Airmass coefficients for the calculated torque and we'll see how that goes next time we're at the dyno. Another idea is that maybe it will get sorted out once we can actually tune the MAF and VE tables to reflect more airflow, and hopefully that will affect the Max Engine Torque. This is the one PID (Max Engine Torque) that I am still unsure how to influence on this ATS-V system, and is the one PID that is holding us back at the moment. I'm sure it will be something simple we haven't had to deal with or think about before.
    Jeremy Capps, PhD
    Weapon-X Motorsports Tuner, Physicist


    "i really think sometimes people are scared of the cobra name....com'n people we have firebirds...its a bird on fire for christ sake...." -staringback05

  9. #9
    Can you post your tune? Have you done anything with the tranny?

  10. #10
    Tuner in Training TransAm8723's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    14
    The tune is licensed to another computer (not mine), so I only have the stock calibration on hand and can't save any changes to show you at the moment.

    We have not touched the transmission yet. Every tranny-related limitation is pretty much maxed out from the factory. It seems like all of the torque management is on the engine side of things. By this, I mean all of the Output Max items are under Engine > General > Maximum Torque.
    Jeremy Capps, PhD
    Weapon-X Motorsports Tuner, Physicist


    "i really think sometimes people are scared of the cobra name....com'n people we have firebirds...its a bird on fire for christ sake...." -staringback05

  11. #11
    Tuner in Training machineworks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Pasadena Texas
    Posts
    42
    I have one on the dyno, kicking my but..... These are very tricky to get right. The tb keeps closing. I have tired everything I know.....

  12. #12
    Potential Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3
    I was getting ready to try to up the boost on my ATS-V.....do you guys have any recommendation or suggestions on setting to change?

  13. #13
    Senior Tuner mbray01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Slidell, La.
    Posts
    1,015
    ats-v's respond very well to boost increase, they are quite easy to tune, once you get the strategy down. been doing a bunch of the 1.4's and 2.0's customers leave very happy. I will say this, make sure you get the trans pressures and shift times correct, because once they increase in power they absolutely will miss shifts
    Michael Bray
    Rusty Knuckle Garage
    Slidell, Louisiana
    20yr Master Tech.
    Advanced Level Specialist
    Custom Car Fabrication, Customization, High Performance.
    GM World Class Technician
    Shop Owner

  14. #14
    Tuner
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    196
    im new with this Turbo stuff. how to increase boost pressure?

  15. #15
    Tuner
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Goleta CA
    Posts
    122
    I've been looking at an LF4 cal file, too.

    While I get it that the first thing many want to do is change the engine's boost curve, I want to better understand what goes on in the E92 before I jump into that. There was a link posted in another thead in re: LF4 which lead to a very interesting article. https://www.hptuners.com/help/vcm_ed...vanced_e78.htm

    In any event, in studying my LF4 cal, I was curious about what I saw in the PE section.

    It looks like the commanded eq ratio is a function of the "Power Enrich EQ" table multiplied by the "Knock Enrichment EQ Ratio" table. Am I right?

    If so, let's say the engine is at 5000 rpm and the air mass 1 or better, then the commanded air:fuel is .87-lambda? If stoich is 14.2 (for 7-8% ethanol) then we're at 12.35 wich is maybe a bit lean for a turbocharged engine but great if GM wants to decrease carbon emissions.

    What do you folks think?

  16. #16
    Senior Tuner Higgs Boson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    3,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Hib Halverson View Post
    I've been looking at an LF4 cal file, too.

    While I get it that the first thing many want to do is change the engine's boost curve, I want to better understand what goes on in the E92 before I jump into that. There was a link posted in another thead in re: LF4 which lead to a very interesting article. https://www.hptuners.com/help/vcm_ed...vanced_e78.htm

    In any event, in studying my LF4 cal, I was curious about what I saw in the PE section.

    It looks like the commanded eq ratio is a function of the "Power Enrich EQ" table multiplied by the "Knock Enrichment EQ Ratio" table. Am I right?

    If so, let's say the engine is at 5000 rpm and the air mass 1 or better, then the commanded air:fuel is .87-lambda? If stoich is 14.2 (for 7-8% ethanol) then we're at 12.35 wich is maybe a bit lean for a turbocharged engine but great if GM wants to decrease carbon emissions.

    What do you folks think?
    direct injection engines don't necessarily take the same AF ratio at WOT as port injection.

    GM also rapes their PE tables and just because it is commanding 12.35 doesn't mean it isn't running at 11.35. you need to check it with a wideband.

  17. #17
    Tuner
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Goleta CA
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Higgs Boson View Post
    direct injection engines don't necessarily take the same AF ratio at WOT as port injection.
    Ok.
    What AF ratio do DI engines take at WOT?

    GM also rapes their PE tables
    Being that I'm a tuner in training, can you explain the term "rape" when used in the context of a discussion of PE tables?

    and just because it is commanding 12.35 doesn't mean it isn't running at 11.35. you need to check it with a wideband.
    I have yet to put my WB on this ATS-V, but for the sake of discussion, under what conditions would you think a properly calibrated LF4 which is in good condition and operating properly have an actual AF ratio a full point more rich than what's commanded?
    Hib Halverson
    Just Another Tuner in Training.

  18. #18
    Senior Tuner Higgs Boson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    3,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Hib Halverson View Post
    Ok.
    What AF ratio do DI engines take at WOT?



    Being that I'm a tuner in training, can you explain the term "rape" when used in the context of a discussion of PE tables?



    I have yet to put my WB on this ATS-V, but for the sake of discussion, under what conditions would you think a properly calibrated LF4 which is in good condition and operating properly have an actual AF ratio a full point more rich than what's commanded?
    Depending on who you ask, 12.00 to 12.9 (I tuned my 900 rwhp DI supercharged stroker to 12.2).

    The term rape means to alter a table as means to an end instead of using it as ends in and of itself. The PE table is a command table and when you use it as a calibration table then you have raped it. Command with PE, correct with MAF/VE.

    When the wideband shows 11.35 and the PE table shows 12.35 then you have an improperly calibrated MAF curve (most likely). GM tunes many times have the PE all over the place and also rarely hit commanded PE targets either. Raped and inaccurate.

  19. #19
    Tuner
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Goleta CA
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Higgs Boson View Post
    Depending on who you ask, 12.00 to 12.9 (I tuned my 900 rwhp DI supercharged stroker to 12.2).
    That doesn't seem much different than what a lot of folks think is ideal for port injected engines. To date, I've been tuning NA port motors running on pump gas--which I've tested as having 7-8% ethanol--at .85-Lambda or about 12.2.

    The term rape means to alter a table as means to an end instead of using it as ends in and of itself. The PE table is a command table and when you use it as a calibration table then you have raped it. Command with PE, correct with MAF/VE.
    Now I understand your use of the term. When I first started calibrating an LS7, a year ago, I noted inconsistent cell-to-cell values in the PE Commanded Fuel were inconsistent...rather...they were "raped." As you suggest above, I fixed that with VE and MAF transfer table work.

    When the wideband shows 11.35 and the PE table shows 12.35 then you have an improperly calibrated MAF curve (most likely). GM tunes many times have the PE all over the place and also rarely hit commanded PE targets either. Raped and inaccurate.
    How does GM get cars through the Federal Test Procedure like that?

    I haven't put a WB on the LF4 I have but I have looked at the cal file and the Power Enrichment EQ ratio table and the Knock Enrichment EQ ratio table are consistent cell-to-cell at a combined .87-Lambda. Would you think GM's MAF cals (there are two of them for LF4s) would be so bad that I can expect WB data to be way off commanded values?
    Hib Halverson
    Just Another Tuner in Training.

  20. #20
    Senior Tuner Higgs Boson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    3,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Hib Halverson View Post
    That doesn't seem much different than what a lot of folks think is ideal for port injected engines. To date, I've been tuning NA port motors running on pump gas--which I've tested as having 7-8% ethanol--at .85-Lambda or about 12.2.



    Now I understand your use of the term. When I first started calibrating an LS7, a year ago, I noted inconsistent cell-to-cell values in the PE Commanded Fuel were inconsistent...rather...they were "raped." As you suggest above, I fixed that with VE and MAF transfer table work.



    How does GM get cars through the Federal Test Procedure like that?

    I haven't put a WB on the LF4 I have but I have looked at the cal file and the Power Enrichment EQ ratio table and the Knock Enrichment EQ ratio table are consistent cell-to-cell at a combined .87-Lambda. Would you think GM's MAF cals (there are two of them for LF4s) would be so bad that I can expect WB data to be way off commanded values?
    just have to check and fix, no way to tell for sure, they are all different.