FSCM (FPCM) Tables/Settings - 2010 Camaro LS3 vs ZL1

[[email protected]]

I know I am really taking this thread sideways so last post about my trans. The attached log at the 7:20 mark shows me using TUTD to go from 1st to 2nd then back to 1st and the tires start to turn. What is strange to me is the trans RPM slip go to -1400 - what's with that?

[RRRocketMan]

I think the decreasing PSI was only happening over a certain Fuel Flow Rate, which I dont think the stock SS ever saw that high of flow rate without boost... but yea basically same thing your saying.

I would love to ditch the BAP.. it actually creates FM static on weak stations, which means if you live far out then the MSD BAP just car running creats enough noise to make my stations static. Noticed this the instant I insalled it. Was looking at bigger pumps just to eliminate the BAP for this single reason.

Interesting. Makes sense though since any BAP is nothing but a DC-DC converter and these all rely on a fixed PWM frequency to chop the input voltage. Usually the frequency is chosen in the 10s of kHz to reduce component size requirements but yours must be in the MHz range.

[RRRocketMan]

wow that sucks about the trans, really sucks.

Ran without the BAP hose and it hold solid to around 5500rpm then started falling FAST. all the way down to 31psi. At 31psi ant 6500rpm I am at 106% Injector DC.

I dont know whats up with SCanner, 3.5. latest BETA's and 3.6.5, my Fuel Pump DC doesnt work anymore, my Fuel PRessure Desired always reads 58psi (used to go to 54psi which is where actual PSI hangs for awhile at WOT until 5500rpm when FP drops off so I know the FPCM is asking for 54psi, and I get all kinds of SCANNER FREEZES AFTER going WOT.

Starting to hate this software now all I do is spend my time debugging crap trying to figure out why things in scanner dont work, I used to love it.

Log of a WOT run with MSD BAP hose removed, Fuel Pump DC not working, Desired FP stuck at 58psi.. in the last the Fuel Pump DC was stuck at 99.7% but is a scanner issue
Attachment 70166

You wouldn't happen to have a dyno graph for your current setup would you? Fuel can be calculated but might be nice to know what your HP level was at 5500.

BTW... what the heck is 106% duty?

Welcome to my world regarding bad form in software development... but I won't get into that for the millionth time. Based on your experience with both the beta and full release, would you say there's any risk in reading/writing the FPCM in the full release? Which is more reliable for the write, so as not to brick the FPCM? (then again, if you knew this, you'd have bricked yours by now I'm sure).

Thanks very much for conducting this experiment.

[10_SS]

You wouldn't happen to have a dyno graph for your current setup would you? Fuel can be calculated but might be nice to know what your HP level was at 5500.

BTW... what the heck is 106% duty?

Welcome to my world regarding bad form in software development... but I won't get into that for the millionth time. Based on your experience with both the beta and full release, would you say there's any risk in reading/writing the FPCM in the full release? Which is more reliable for the write, so as not to brick the FPCM? (then again, if you knew this, you'd have bricked yours by now I'm sure).

Thanks very much for conducting this experiment.

no I dont have a dyno graph, keep wanting one, just never went. I go to Alternative Auto if anybody's ever heard of it... they recently switched to using HPTuners as well. Making some pretty impressive gains with a shop Hellcat as of recently, spinning it past 7000rpm!

What do you mean "What the heck is 106% Duty?" Thats the reported Injector Duty Cycle, I know it's over 100% and in theory that's impossible but that's just what HPT says. The Pulse Width is 19ms and increasing still and fuel AFR is spot on and Im sure fuel is dripping out of the injector at 31psi (21psi Delta pressure) but that's what it says at 6500rpm. It's in that log attached above if you want to check it out. I don't really trust accuracy of any reading in scanner anymore, just use them for reference.

I've really never had a problem reading and writing with any version, I never wrote with 3.6.5, just recently I started having pretty serious scanner issues, I'm really just hoping they are all related to the scanning if FPCM PIDs, as they are new and never really had a problem before that chapter in my life. I do know they with the new 3.5 BETA they slowed down the write process, it used to take 10-15sec now it takes ~45 seconds.... I believe they did it for reliability.

The experiment was also something I needed to do, just never did so it's all good.

[RRRocketMan]

It's hard to interpet some of the data as it's a bit erratic and even counter-intuitive at times but it looks like the flow maxes out at 9 g/s where it counts. That works out to 71 lb/hr (ie. that size of injector running static would completely use up the pump). Somehow I don't believe the pump is actually flowing this much because if it were, you'd be able to produce damn near 700 HP but your MAP never goes above 1.5 bar so I feel like the calculation of flow rate is a bit off. Nevertheless I think this proves that you can "almost" run through an entire gear at 7-8 psi at 11.something AFR without running out of fuel. This should put you at or above 600 BHP easy.

[10_SS]

It's hard to interpet some of the data as it's a bit erratic and even counter-intuitive at times but it looks like the flow maxes out at 9 g/s where it counts. That works out to 71 lb/hr (ie. that size of injector running static would completely use up the pump). Somehow I don't believe the pump is actually flowing this much because if it were, you'd be able to produce damn near 700 HP but your MAP never goes above 1.5 bar so I feel like the calculation of flow rate is a bit off. Nevertheless I think this proves that you can "almost" run through an entire gear at 7-8 psi at 11.something AFR without running out of fuel. This should put you at or above 600 BHP easy.

I think Whippple dyno'd ~650 bhp 92 octane fully stock car, stock exhaust, stock air box cut open as they advice, just like mine sits, probably cold 50F air except I have JBA straight through mufflers.

The log was probably a 3nd gear run, are you talking about the wheelspin creating non-smooth data? Wheelspin is why the RPMs are wavy.

Are you asking me if I personally can run all the way up 6600rpm on the stock SS pump with BAP and FPCM at 9psi with no loss of fuel pressure? Absolutely I do it 3x a day with the changes to the FPCM table. But not without the BAP she runs pretty dry past 5500rpm (down to 31psi).

I tell you what, it's good to know the Fuel Pressure sensor and Delta Pressure fuel corrections are spot on because my AFR never skipped a beat through that Fuel Pressure loss... really good to know, glad you pushed me to run this test
139b NO BAP WOT FP LOSS AFR CORRECTIONS.PNG


Here's another pic with the Inj PW scaled to fit with the loss of FP and zoomed in a bit..
139b NO BAP WOT FP LOSS AFR CORRECTIONS 2.PNG

Running basically 21psi FP with 105% Inj DC at 6500rpm an 9psi Boost.. No Knock and good AFR.. awesome lol. Maybe I'll try some E90 just go WOT all the way to the top.

[mowton]

Great thread, thank you all for sharing. I am about to try out this new feature on a newly Procharged 2007 4.8 Silverado. As we have installed 1000cc injectors, we have employed the Double/half scaling strategy to fit the IFR hardcoded limit and are running the tune in SD. As a result, I believe we are lying to the PCM about injector sizing and will have a direct effect on the fuel flow calculations. Based on that, my plan is to copy in the ECP IFR table and cut the FSCM flow rate criteria values in half to match the new calculated value.

Lastly, we have installed Walbrro 255 Fuel pump and currently seeing 71 PSI (desired = 58 psi) of fuel pressure at idle and drops to 44 psi (desired=53psi) at 6200 rpm/full boost (10 psi). I am also assuming I will have to reduce the Pump DC values at idle to bring down the idle pressure and will have to increase the DC (like a BAP) to get back the lost fuel pressure. Won't have the answers until we actually pull the FSCM file later this week.

2 DTC's with this current setup...P069e and P2635 (IIRC...insufficient pressure). Believe that to be at the top where 53 psi is commanded (High Flow) and we are seeing 39-44 psi. Again, assume we will be able to increase the pressure with this new tool.

Lastly, the tune is in Open Loop which seems to result in 2 fuel pressure states....predominately Cold Engine and High flow just prior to end of the pull. Again I assume when we put this back into closed loop we will see the Cold Engine change to Normal settings.

Soy for the long winded post but am a bit apprehensive about getting into this new area.....customer is looking for his truck :-)

Ed M

[10_SS]

Great thread, thank you all for sharing. I am about to try out this new feature on a newly Procharged 2007 4.8 Silverado. As we have installed 1000cc injectors, we have employed the Double/half scaling strategy to fit the IFR hardcoded limit and are running the tune in SD. As a result, I believe we are lying to the PCM about injector sizing and will have a direct effect on the fuel flow calculations. Based on that, my plan is to copy in the ECP IFR table and cut the FSCM flow rate criteria values in half to match the new calculated value.

Lastly, we have installed Walbrro 255 Fuel pump and currently seeing 71 PSI (desired = 58 psi) of fuel pressure at idle and drops to 44 psi (desired=53psi) at 6200 rpm/full boost (10 psi). I am also assuming I will have to reduce the Pump DC values at idle to bring down the idle pressure and will have to increase the DC (like a BAP) to get back the lost fuel pressure. Won't have the answers until we actually pull the FSCM file later this week.

2 DTC's with this current setup...P069e and P2635 (IIRC...insufficient pressure). Believe that to be at the top where 53 psi is commanded (High Flow) and we are seeing 39-44 psi. Again, assume we will be able to increase the pressure with this new tool.

Lastly, the tune is in Open Loop which seems to result in 2 fuel pressure states....predominately Cold Engine and High flow just prior to end of the pull. Again I assume when we put this back into closed loop we will see the Cold Engine change to Normal settings.

Soy for the long winded post but am a bit apprehensive about getting into this new area.....customer is looking for his truck :-)

Ed M

yep I would think you would have to adjust these if you have them avail:
Openloop DC:
Openloop DC Mult:
Min DC:

Just like you have to adjust your MAF and VE tables when changing cam, intake, etc.

Did the original pump have a bypass regulator built in the pump, and now it doesnt?

I didnt want to touch mine as I didnt need too... really curious how this works for you, please update with results

[mowton]

My plan is to set up a table similar to the DC table and create a math function to calculate the error between Desired and actual pressure and use that error to correct the DC......

Thank you for the look and input...

will report how it goes for sure. Hate people who ask for help, get it fixed and are never heard from again :-)

Ed M

[mcfarlnd]

My plan is to set up a table similar to the DC table and create a math function to calculate the error between Desired and actual pressure and use that error to correct the DC......

Thank you for the look and input...

will report how it goes for sure. Hate people who ask for help, get it fixed and are never heard from again :-)

Ed M

If the math works, please share if you don't mind. The pressure sensor in that 07 is a different part number than the rest of the years, depending on what FSCM you are using. So, the cal of the sensor will throw you off between desired and measured. 07 trucks are the only ones I am aware of with this problem. Sensors changed in 08 and remained the same. Quick question for you, is the walbro 255 PWM capable? Also, I was unable to use my stock 07 FSCM (unsupported) and had to use a CTSV FSCM which is when I found the sensor problem. What are you using for FSCM?

[mowton]

If the math works, please share if you don't mind. The pressure sensor in that 07 is a different part number than the rest of the years, depending on what FSCM you are using. So, the cal of the sensor will throw you off between desired and measured. 07 trucks are the only ones I am aware of with this problem. Sensors changed in 08 and remained the same. Quick question for you, is the walbro 255 PWM capable? Also, I was unable to use my stock 07 FSCM (unsupported) and had to use a CTSV FSCM which is when I found the sensor problem. What are you using for FSCM?

You may have blown my entire plan to pieces.....The FSCM # I got back from the owner is 13501024....is it not supported?

Ed M

[mcfarlnd]

You may have blown my entire plan to pieces.....The FSCM # I got back from the owner is 13501024....is it not supported?

Ed M

Sorry man. Wasn't the intention lol! Check out my write up too if you would like. https://www.performancetrucks.net/fo...ite-up-549140/

I haven't finished the tune on the FSCM yet but, what I have right now works well and haven't thrown codes. I have requested support on that part number before but, can't remember for the life of me if it was my buddies dads 08 or my 07 that had it. Either way I do not believe it had the tables needed to do what you are wanting. I'll try to post them here this evening and let you be the judge.

[mowton]

OK so I got back to my customer and we hooked up to read the FSCM (#13501024). First off, I was incorrect in the year, it is a 2008 Silverado, ot an 07 as I mentioned earlier. We were using version 3.6.15 software. The Vehicle Reader appears to have recognized the FSCM (OS 25774722) and initial look like it would read but then we got an error message "Read Warning....data you just read isn't from your vehicle, Your vehicle isn't readable........" . The subsequent file we read/saved was only the Open Loop DC, Open Loop DC Min and Min DC......guess we are out of luck getting the FSCM to help in this update. According to the W6 Store, the FSCM will work well with this pump.

Sending this info to Bill as well....

Ed M

[mcfarlnd]

OK so I got back to my customer and we hooked up to read the FSCM (#13501024). First off, I was incorrect in the year, it is a 2008 Silverado, ot an 07 as I mentioned earlier. We were using version 3.6.15 software. The Vehicle Reader appears to have recognized the FSCM (OS 25774722) and initial look like it would read but then we got an error message "Read Warning....data you just read isn't from your vehicle, Your vehicle isn't readable........" . The subsequent file we read/saved was only the Open Loop DC, Open Loop DC Min and Min DC......guess we are out of luck getting the FSCM to help in this update. According to the W6 Store, the FSCM will work well with this pump.

Sending this info to Bill as well....

Ed M

Be careful with that pump. May want to call T.I Automotive (walbro) and verify just in case. Most of what i read says that pump is not PWM capable and should not be used as such however, everything i read on the internet is true right? Why not just use a CTSV module? And any reason why your against the 450?

[10_SS]

...initial look like it would read but then we got an error message "Read Warning....data you just read isn't from your vehicle, Your vehicle isn't readable........" . The subsequent file we read/saved was only the Open Loop DC, Open Loop DC Min and Min DC......
Ed M

I think the "error message" is the same message everyone will get, since the FSCM isn't readable according to HPT, it goes on internet (or internally to the HPT program) and supply you with a stock file for that FSCM OS so keep that in mind, if you forget what changes you made one day, you will not be able to read it to see.

Regarding the limited tables, yes that's a bummer, hopefully HPT can add the ones you need...

[Chris@HPTuners]

please make sure you are using the FSCM commanded DC PID and not the ECM one which is used for direct controlled PWM pumps and will read some weird number.

[mowton]

Chris, not at the car, how do you tell the difference?

Thx,

Ed M

[Chris@HPTuners]

Chris, not at the car, how do you tell the difference?

Thx,

Ed M

The FSCM one should be in the FSCM controller group

[mowton]

The FSCM one should be in the FSCM controller group

Thank you sir, see you don't sleep much either :-)

Ed M

[mowton]

Have an update. Finally got all the info I needed and hooked up to the truck yesterday. I am still compiling a detailed response with data to post but as a quick note, things went relative well. "Read", updates and Writes went as advertised. The limited tables (see above) made it a bit tough but looks like my error math and graphs worked very well to help in the programming of the FSCM.

Initial test was to delete the DTC error codes from the DTC list and that worked. Next I worked the high psi readings at idle and medium cruise. Got the low idle/cruise values within 2% of the commanded (were 71 psi vs 58 psi) by lowering the Pressure Duty Cycle. Also had to lower the minimum table as I went lower than its stock setting. It looks like there is a 70sh psi regulator in this 2008 Silverado setup.

The only issue I couldn't resolve completely was the variance between commanded and actual fuel pressure at the very high demand (boost>12 psi and 6000 rpm+) where the commanded dropped to 53 psi and the rail pressure dropped to 39 psi. I did manage to pickup 5 more psi to make the lowest fuel pressure at 44 psi vs the 53. Subsequent increases in DC made no improvement. With the limited tables I couldn't increase the commanded PSI as I believe changing the PCM pressure settings values don't physically change the FSCM. Shutting off the P2635/p069e insufficient pressure DTC corrected the SES light and the Delta Pressure IFR table compensates for the difference.

I will post up the Channel, Chart and Graph information as well as before and after data this weekend. Thank you all again for you assistance in this new endeavor for me. As I tell my clients, I don't know everything about Tuning (or everything else), am not ashamed to ask questions and will continue to learn til the end :-)

Ed M