Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 203

Thread: Quick guide to simultaneous VVE/MAF calibration for gen4+

  1. #21
    Awesome work

    Someone got the parameters listing to add
    2312 ?
    2127.240 ?

    Im looking for a datasheet to know parameters listing

    Thanks

    The full math parameter: GMVE STFT =
    (([16.71]*(1+(.01*[6.156]+.01*[8.156])/2)-[12.56]/60*4*[11.92]*[2312]/[2127.240])/([12.56]/60*4*[11.92]*[2312]/[2127.240]))*100

  2. #22
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    807
    Is there any reason why when I plug the math parameter in there are two sensors that are in red?
    GMVE STFT.JPG

  3. #23
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by sgod1100 View Post
    Is there any reason why when I plug the math parameter in there are two sensors that are in red?
    GMVE STFT.JPG
    You have to record them in the channels list for them to be available to the parameter.

  4. #24
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by smokeshow View Post
    You have to record them in the channels list for them to be available to the parameter.
    i knew it was something stupid I was missing...thanks

  5. #25
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    17
    thanks for laying this out smoke, i came across it a month or two ago while trying to dial in new (larger cu in) engine. having it as a check against the error% helped a bunch and finally got it close to move onto full SD tune

  6. #26
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by jsllc View Post
    MVE WB % error = ((MAF_af)*(1+(WB_avg)/100)-(GMVE_af))/(GMVE_af)*100

    GMVE_af = (MAP*GMVE/MAT)*RPM/60*4

    So on a E67 with 2 WBs using lambda:

    WB_avg = ((((WB1+WB2)/2)/EQ Commanded)-1)*100

    using odrer of precedents this would become

    WB_avg = (((WB1+WB)/2/EQ Commanded)-1)*100

    This should work. If you only have one WB the math to average the two would be replaced.

    WB_avg = ((WB1/EQ Commanded)-1)*100

    This is inaccurate as only one bank is used and all of the gen4 engines I have tuned show one bank richer than the other.
    Been a while since I got brain fog from math, so bear with me.
    Since fuel trims are an error, why is WB Error Ratio ((WB_EQ - EQ Commanded)/EQ Commanded)*100 not used in this math?

  7. #27
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by JtblckZ View Post
    Been a while since I got brain fog from math, so bear with me.
    Since fuel trims are an error, why is WB Error Ratio ((WB_EQ - EQ Commanded)/EQ Commanded)*100 not used in this math?
    It's there. Your statement is equivalent:

    ((WB_EQ - EQ Commanded)/EQ Commanded) = ((WB1/EQ Commanded)-1) = WB_avg

  8. #28
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    201
    Can you replace the GMVE_af calculation by logging the "Volumetric Efficiency Airflow" parameter from the E67 ECU and let the ECU do that math? I've tuned my MAF with a WB and I compare the logged "Mass Airflow (SAE)" value against the "Volumetric Efficiency Airflow" value to help tweak my VVE table.

  9. #29
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    926
    I want to update/clarify part of this process. There are a number of things in my bag of calibration tricks that I don't necessarily keep to myself but just neglect to heavily detail due to complexity and/or implementation time. One of these things is the first order lag filter that the software uses to model the actual charge temperature. You will know it as the 'complex cylinder temp model' with the bias and filter tables. When I come across data that suggests the fueling isn't lining out due to temperature model issues, I can run the IAT/ECT data through my own scripting and correlate the data with a temp calibration problem that way...but this isn't possible unless you're familiar with MATLAB or Octave. However, as HPT continues to improve their definition files, this becomes unnecessary in some applications.

    Any vehicle where HPT has the CAN variable 'Manifold Air Temperature' or 'MAT' defined, you should absolutely use it in place of IAT in the original math parameter. This is the charge temp estimate that is actually input to the GMVE speed density equation after the complex cylinder temp bias/filter has performed it's calculation. While IAT is pretty close, it is insufficient to properly model cylinder airmass at low engine airflow. This of course begs the question, is my bias/lag filter calibrated properly...that depends on your engine hardware mods, and I haven't detailed that here or made a writeup on it. But MAT will net you better results during your VVE calibration than IAT will, if you have it available. So use it if it shows up in your parameter search in the HPT scanner.

  10. #30
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    VIC Australia
    Posts
    1,107
    Hey smokeshow, thanks so much for sharing this tip. It has helped me out heaps and I use it all the time. I had to modify your parameter slightly to suit my setup i.e. LTFT + STFT and WB EQ ratio error.

    I am using manifold air temp sensor.

    I have had the calculator out a number of times for sanity checks comparing the math result with the the expected result. For testing I tried the following in your formula:
    • VVE air flow PID (g/s) -not ideal as it maxes out at 512g/s
    • VVE PID (mg*K/MPa)
    • + all of the above with LTFT + STFT and WB EQ Ratio Error

    All methods came out near smack on.

    Well done, and thanks so much once again

  11. #31
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by smokeshow View Post
    Any vehicle where HPT has the CAN variable 'Manifold Air Temperature' or 'MAT' defined, you should absolutely use it in place of IAT in the original math parameter.....
    This brings up another point for those of you who have added blowers and hopefully relocated your IAT. There are a couple of biasing charts for MAT based on ECT, time, vehicle speed that should be zeroed out since your relocated IAT is now reading directly from the manifold. Some of the canned tunes that come with a blower kit do not do this, even if they provide a IAT relocation in the kit.

  12. #32
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by hjtrbo View Post
    Hey smokeshow, thanks so much for sharing this tip. It has helped me out heaps and I use it all the time. I had to modify your parameter slightly to suit my setup i.e. LTFT + STFT and WB EQ ratio error.

    I am using manifold air temp sensor.

    I have had the calculator out a number of times for sanity checks comparing the math result with the the expected result. For testing I tried the following in your formula:
    • VVE air flow PID (g/s) -not ideal as it maxes out at 512g/s
    • VVE PID (mg*K/MPa)
    • + all of the above with LTFT + STFT and WB EQ Ratio Error

    All methods came out near smack on.

    Well done, and thanks so much once again
    No problem. The math parameter is meant to be adjusted anyway, depending on your specific vehicle and whether you're working in OL or CL. This procedure assumes the user is comfortable with calibration enough to edit the math parameter to their liking.

  13. #33
    Will this work on a gen v using e92 ecms? I ask because I assume it will not but maybe with slightly different math? Or no because of the vve and not a true ve?

  14. #34
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd1991 View Post
    Will this work on a gen v using e92 ecms? I ask because I assume it will not but maybe with slightly different math? Or no because of the vve and not a true ve?
    It does. I'm using it on my E92A ecm now, after some help from Smoke. Just make sure the math is set up for your specific application.

  15. #35
    It’s hard, if there is a video tutorial, it’s OK

  16. #36
    Senior Tuner LSxpwrdZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    on the Dyno
    Posts
    1,825
    Easiest method is calculating GMVE from the Dynamic Airflow when in MAF only mode.

    Dynamic Airflow = the filtered airflow used by the ECM to fuel the engine. In MAF only mode this will = Filtered MAF airflow.

    Once you have made wideband and/or fuel trim corrections to Dynamic Airflow you can then use that value as "Corrected Airflow" to then use the GMVE model to derive a GMVE value. You can then compare that Generated GMVE or what I call "CalcGMVE" to the GMVE delivered from the VE/VVE which is logged as GMVE. A simple error calculation can then be used to give you a GMVE Error to plot against your VE histogram to make corrections to while you are also using normal error calculations to dial the MAF in.
    James Short - [email protected]
    Located in Central Kentucky
    ShorTuning
    2020 Camaro 2SS | BTR 230 | GPI CNC Heads | MSD Intake | Rotofab | 2" LT's | Flex Fuel | 638rwhp / 540rwtq
    2002 Camaro | LSX 427 | CID LS7's | Twin GT5088's | Haltech Nexus R5 | RPM TH400

  17. #37
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by LSxpwrdZ View Post
    Easiest method is calculating GMVE from the Dynamic Airflow when in MAF only mode.

    Dynamic Airflow = the filtered airflow used by the ECM to fuel the engine. In MAF only mode this will = Filtered MAF airflow.

    Once you have made wideband and/or fuel trim corrections to Dynamic Airflow you can then use that value as "Corrected Airflow" to then use the GMVE model to derive a GMVE value. You can then compare that Generated GMVE or what I call "CalcGMVE" to the GMVE delivered from the VE/VVE which is logged as GMVE. A simple error calculation can then be used to give you a GMVE Error to plot against your VE histogram to make corrections to while you are also using normal error calculations to dial the MAF in.

    I think you're swapping some definitions around there. Dynamic airflow should not be used to calculate the VVE. It is a modeled representation of the nonlinear relationship between the two (technically three) methods for estimating cylinder air mass and the actual cylinder air mass that gets trapped in the cylinder. With the distance between the MAF and the intake valve, the MAP sensor and the intake valve as well as the tuning effects of the manifold and cam phasing, in an airflow transition both the MAF and VVE are inaccurate. Dynamic air exists to correct that inaccuracy during a transition - but it requires the MAF and VVE to be steady-state accurate already. MAF and VVE air estimation are the starting point in the calculation which dynamic then modifies during transients...so you can't calculate GMVE values from dynamic airflow. It only works the other way around.

  18. #38
    Senior Tuner TheMechanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by LSxpwrdZ View Post
    Easiest method is calculating GMVE from the Dynamic Airflow when in MAF only mode.

    Dynamic Airflow = the filtered airflow used by the ECM to fuel the engine. In MAF only mode this will = Filtered MAF airflow.

    Once you have made wideband and/or fuel trim corrections to Dynamic Airflow you can then use that value as "Corrected Airflow" to then use the GMVE model to derive a GMVE value. You can then compare that Generated GMVE or what I call "CalcGMVE" to the GMVE delivered from the VE/VVE which is logged as GMVE. A simple error calculation can then be used to give you a GMVE Error to plot against your VE histogram to make corrections to while you are also using normal error calculations to dial the MAF in.
    Do you have a good video of that process? I was getting just a little lost on each step.

  19. #39
    Senior Tuner LSxpwrdZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    on the Dyno
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by smokeshow View Post
    I think you're swapping some definitions around there. Dynamic airflow should not be used to calculate the VVE. It is a modeled representation of the nonlinear relationship between the two (technically three) methods for estimating cylinder air mass and the actual cylinder air mass that gets trapped in the cylinder. With the distance between the MAF and the intake valve, the MAP sensor and the intake valve as well as the tuning effects of the manifold and cam phasing, in an airflow transition both the MAF and VVE are inaccurate. Dynamic air exists to correct that inaccuracy during a transition - but it requires the MAF and VVE to be steady-state accurate already. MAF and VVE air estimation are the starting point in the calculation which dynamic then modifies during transients...so you can't calculate GMVE values from dynamic airflow. It only works the other way around.
    Definitely not mixing definitions around. You only see all those models when you have it in blended mode... Obviously filtering transients which should be done anytime you are trying to dial in a fuel model anyhow. Hence why I also said using it in MAF only mode. Dyno tuning everyday with an eddy brake dyno proves this functional 100%. One WOT pull both MAF and VE/VVE are within 1-2% error.
    James Short - [email protected]
    Located in Central Kentucky
    ShorTuning
    2020 Camaro 2SS | BTR 230 | GPI CNC Heads | MSD Intake | Rotofab | 2" LT's | Flex Fuel | 638rwhp / 540rwtq
    2002 Camaro | LSX 427 | CID LS7's | Twin GT5088's | Haltech Nexus R5 | RPM TH400

  20. #40
    Senior Tuner LSxpwrdZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    on the Dyno
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMechanic View Post
    Do you have a good video of that process? I was getting just a little lost on each step.
    No I don't currently. I may make one on it one of these days.

    This same system works on Gen5 stuff also on certain years (at least the years GMVE PID is logable).
    James Short - [email protected]
    Located in Central Kentucky
    ShorTuning
    2020 Camaro 2SS | BTR 230 | GPI CNC Heads | MSD Intake | Rotofab | 2" LT's | Flex Fuel | 638rwhp / 540rwtq
    2002 Camaro | LSX 427 | CID LS7's | Twin GT5088's | Haltech Nexus R5 | RPM TH400