Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: VVE OS or 2-bar OS

  1. #1
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Waldorf MD
    Posts
    774

    VVE OS or 2-bar OS

    Which do you all prefer for a boost application? I personally run a 2-bar OS (E38) simply for the fan control. Factory has boosted cars on VVE OS's (of course).

    So this begs the question. Is the really any REAL benefit to running a 2-bar OS, considering now that we have the VVE editor in HPT?
    Daily Driver= 2003 BMW 330xi
    Weekend Cruiser= 2009 Pontiac G8 GT (Vararam, TSP LS3 N/A Stage 1, OBX, CTS-V converter, MagnaFlows w/ J-Pipes, 160 t-stat)
    Project Car= 1991 Chevrolet Camaro RS (LQ4 w/ Gen 4 Rods, LS3 heads, turbo...)
    Truck= 2007 Chevy Silverado 1500 LT LY5 4x4

  2. #2
    Tuning Addict 5FDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rogers, MN
    Posts
    13,533
    To me the OS upgrade makes VE tuning much faster because you don't have to deal with the built in VVE editor and calculating coefficients. It makes it more like a P01/P59 VE table.
    2016 Silverado CCSB 5.3/6L80e, not as slow but still heavy.

    If you don't post your tune and logs when you have questions you aren't helping yourself.

  3. #3
    Senior Tuner mbray01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Slidell, La.
    Posts
    1,015
    I use the editor everyday, on every gen4/5 vehicle i do, so tuning it is second nature, honestly takes more work to do the custom os.

    Kiss
    keep it stupid simple
    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

  4. #4
    I just changed over to 2 bar in order to make it "easier" now the truck wont stay running long enough to populate the zeroed cells, I would like to learn the 2 bar for future boost BUT I want to enjoy this cam I just put in. I thought about running 2 bar and enabling maf and factory o2s to get something in the 2 bar ve, and then tweeking after I get something to work with (would this work?) Another thought, would the ltft eventually correct for the cam or is sd a necessity?

  5. #5
    Tuning Addict 5FDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rogers, MN
    Posts
    13,533
    The zero'd cells must be populated with the VVE data from the stock file first. The axis are flipped so most use a program like excel to get it to work.

    Fuel trims can only do so much, don't rely on the computer because it can only correct fueling so much while in closed loop. Any time you are in open loop the fueling is going directly off the MAF and VE or VVE data.
    2016 Silverado CCSB 5.3/6L80e, not as slow but still heavy.

    If you don't post your tune and logs when you have questions you aren't helping yourself.

  6. #6
    Senior Tuner kingtal0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    1,799
    I Know HPtuners isn't a stand-alone

    And I know for somebody experienced its probably faster to do it the "Hptuners way"

    However if you are new to all this, it wouldn't matter either way, I would just treat it like a stand-alone

    In other words, change to the 2-bar OS then slap it into open loop and guess initial VE values rich enough to keep it running
    Then grab a wideband log and within 1 to 2 uploads it should be driving fine to do the rest.

  7. #7
    I converted to 2 bar os recently and its a lot easier to work compared to the VVE. after converting I copied a boosted tune and filled the ve with it, I figured it would be rich and safe, it was and in a couple afternoons I'm close enough to let the o2s handle the rest