O2 sensor tuning with Headers

[JBZ]

guys I don't want to hear any bad news about the 0333 I just got mine on Friday. replacing my Ballenger V2 with the AEM because like a dummy I bought the MPVI standard rather than the pro and couldn't justify the cost to upgrade the MPVI when the AEM was cheaper and I can turn around and sell my Ballenger.

[schpenxel]

Not quite true

The computer can't do anything with the data.. I wish it could.. that would be awesome, but it can't

HPT can read the WB data from over the OBD port/CAN bus. I think EFI Live can do the same.. but the factory GM ECM can't

[GHuggins]

Something I found interesting now that I've been changing this on header setups - Stock LS3 crate engine tunes - or at least the last one I did - have the limit table set to all 0's... Something commonly installed on crate engines = headers? It also had injector tip temp 0ed out with OEish GM injectors... Anyway, just something I thought was interesting...

[JBZ]

Something I found interesting now that I've been changing this on header setups - Stock LS3 crate engine tunes - or at least the last one I did - have the limit table set to all 0's... Something commonly installed on crate engines = headers? It also had injector tip temp 0ed out with OEish GM injectors... Anyway, just something I thought was interesting...

that is interesting, wonder if they expect that the purchaser will inevitably put headers on. I may try and set my limit to zero. honestly I have left my settings alone and am happy with them for a few weeks now.

here are my current settings

[gmorris]

that is interesting, wonder if they expect that the purchaser will inevitably put headers on. I may try and set my limit to zero. honestly I have left my settings alone and am happy with them for a few weeks now.

here are my current settings

Hey JBZ, I may be pestering you at some point soon...I just bought a 2015 ZL1 A6. Got a good deal on it due to the 6th gen's coming out soon. Very low mileage and already planning intake, pulley and lt's eventually. It will be my first crack at pd blower tuning. Have you done much work with your trans tuning?

[JBZ]

Hey JBZ, I may be pestering you at some point soon...I just bought a 2015 ZL1 A6. Got a good deal on it due to the 6th gen's coming out soon. Very low mileage and already planning intake, pulley and lt's eventually. It will be my first crack at pd blower tuning. Have you done much work with your trans tuning?

Absolutely ask away...i will help where i can. As for our 6l90e i have changed alot of setting. To be honest i kind of got a head start by copying some settings from another v buddy with a pro tuner thats well known for trans tuning. But there were quite a few things i didnt like so i started messing witth some stuff. Mostly shift speeds, shift rpms, and varying the differences between sport and regular mode. I like it to shift hard and hold gears quite a bit more in sport...while in regular i like it to be pretty much stock feeling, good for Houston traffic . I have inertias and shift time (not speed as in road speed) changed from my stock values but that was more or less what was given to me. I have not messed with it to much as im happy with how it acts since changing shift (road) speeds and rpms

[JBZ]

Just a quick observation here to all that have used this thread for o2 tuning and those that have experemented with o2 tuning....

So i started re-vve tuning yesterday and all my normal closed loop cells are ALL in the -2 to -4 rich range now. I had tuned my vve table before i set the proportional limit, lowered the bank 1 and 2 settings and lowered the limits. Although there are threads stating that these closed loop mv settings dont do anything i now have to say they do make a difference. Last time i messed with my vve table i had it pretty dead nuts in the cl areas.

[GHuggins]

^^^^ I've been saying for awhile that the settings make a difference - You don't notice it until you either do like you did Josh by tuning one way then changing it and re-tuning or by carefully watching which way the O2's stay the majority of the time during their switching events...

[JBZ]

Yeah im really happy that i started this thead and have such good feed back, advise and help its not only made the car act much better in closed loop but also brought my wideband in agreement with the narrowbands. Before i started making cl changes the nb and wb differed by up to .4-.6 lambda.

Now SD tuning without the proper tools...thats another story feel like im trying to loosen a bolt with a butter knife

[GHuggins]

I'm glad you started it too If nothing else it has lead me to a better understanding and realizations of these tables and then not to mention forced me to reinvestigate and make new discoveries on them Really glad we found the error table on the gen3's and how it corresponded to the limit tables on the gen4's not to mention I finally more thoroughly understand the airflow modes and how they relate to all the other tables themselves... We may still have some "details" to work out on them, but I think we've made some pretty decent strides on this

Thanks Josh and everyone else who participated...

[gmorris]

That error table totally changed how my 418 runs. WB barely even moves while cruising.

[dunce79]

I seem to have a shark tooth pattern with my o2 switching. They reach 800mv or 150mv and then ramp back the other way very quickly. I just tried bumping the integrator delay by 35% in a couple of the effected airflow modes but it didn't have any effect really. Will the error table help me out here? I'm running mid length headers but already using integrator delay numbers that are more than someone else has used successfully for LT headers. Proportional fueling is x 1.45, integrator 1.45 except for modes 14 and 16 that have a bit more than that now. last log v46.hpl

my current error table is currently not far from stock

[schpenxel]

Try changing the error table closer to what was posted and see what happens.

[GHuggins]

Casey, the error table on yours is the same as the Limit table on the gen 4's... Put the settings in I posted and see how it does...

[dunce79]

Just noticed that. Thought I hit that table with your magic but guess not. Will do.

[JBZ]

I seem to have a shark tooth pattern with my o2 switching. They reach 800mv or 150mv and then ramp back the other way very quickly. I just tried bumping the integrator delay by 35% in a couple of the effected airflow modes but it didn't have any effect really. Will the error table help me out here? I'm running mid length headers but already using integrator delay numbers that are more than someone else has used successfully for LT headers. Proportional fueling is x 1.45, integrator 1.45 except for modes 14 and 16 that have a bit more than that now. last log v46.hpl

my current error table is currently not far from stock

sorry a little late to the party proportional fueling seems to be the amount of fuel added/subtracted vs o2 swings so it should be defined by the size of injectors (or in my personal experience) the adverse of injector size added. larger injectors smaller proportional number. integrator delay for me was measured by the time the injector PW swing's vs time the o2s swings. find a common point(i.e. start/mid point/end of injector PW swing vs delay that the o2 reads that swing) and take multiple readings. back calculate the time it takes to read (with o2's) the rich/lean swing vs injector pw swing per each airflow mode. get at least 5 to 10 reading for each airflow mode and average them out and that should work. if you cant hit a particular airflow mode then guess based on pervious/post airflow mode calcs and call it good. limit table is really for me what puts it all into perspective...anyone with larger injectors needs to lower this table, by how much I cannot say. that's still a trial and error basis at this point until someone can quantify results. but I can say lowering mine from 2.00 to .5 has made a huge difference in swings

[Michael_D]

I had not thought about the proportional table modification in relation to injector size.... Damn, that just makes too much common sense. So therefore, it can't work that way......

I've been pretty happy with how the car runs lately, and have not fussed with O2 tables (been distracted by transients). I think I might try halving the proportional. Could quarter it I suppose, considering the size disparity of ID 1000s I'm using.

[dunce79]

Can you guys comment on if I'm understanding these two tables correctly for Gen3? They are stock for 2002 LS1 Camaro.

with the delay vs o2 error, once the o2 reading is about 250mv past the switch point the curve below starts cut the delay down dramatically to get the o2 to swing the other way (i feel somewhat confident about this one)

With the prop gain vs o2 error table at about 250mv past the switch point the curve below starts to increase the gain on the proportional base fuel rate to help create the top or bottom of the o2 wave and roll it the other way (this one I'm not so sure about.. been reading and rereading others info and its description in HP tuners and I go back and forth on what it means exactly. The description says a value of 1 is no effect with a range of 0-2 so is a value of .15 = 15% gain and then does that mean 15% of the proportional fueling number?

At any rate I feel like these two tables control the shape of the wave and the other two (Proportional and Integrator) control the height and the length? Thats an oversimplification I'm sure..jkheolcocbldfhfg.png

[JBZ]

Can you guys comment on if I'm understanding these two tables correctly for Gen3? They are stock for 2002 LS1 Camaro.

with the delay vs o2 error, once the o2 reading is about 250mv past the switch point the curve below starts cut the delay down dramatically to get the o2 to swing the other way (i feel somewhat confident about this one)

With the prop gain vs o2 error table at about 250mv past the switch point the curve below starts to increase the gain on the proportional base fuel rate to help create the top or bottom of the o2 wave and roll it the other way (this one I'm not so sure about.. been reading and rereading others info and its description in HP tuners and I go back and forth on what it means exactly. The description says a value of 1 is no effect with a range of 0-2 so is a value of .15 = 15% gain and then does that mean 15% of the proportional fueling number?

At any rate I feel like these two tables control the shape of the wave and the other two (Proportional and Integrator) control the height and the length? Thats an oversimplification I'm sure..jkheolcocbldfhfg.png

I don't have the integrator delay error on my Gen 4 so can say much about that table. but it is probably like the proportional error table which in my understanding is the error between commanded and actual. just like any PIDE controller this controller does have error although it is more of an PIE as we don't have access to a derivative table. If I were you I would focus more on the proportional and integrator vs airflow tables as those in my case are what defines the P&I gains. ive only messed with the proportional error table once and I didn't see any measurable difference so I went back to stock.

[NJ_Phil]

I realize this is an old thread but info here helped me get my WB oscillations running CL with errors now under 2%. Car is a lot smoother and even picked up a few extra MPG.
No more O2s swinging into saturation before corrections. Just takes time to tune in all the gains and delays for each airflow step.

cl_tuning.png