First look at VE table

[chipflyer]

Rookie here and could use some guidance. I spent a few days tuning the MAF and I got it dialed in perfectly and now I have moved on to VE tuning. This is a 2013 5.3 with DOD removed and a stock cam. I think I have everything I am supposed to have in the tune and was quiet shocked at how lean it appears to be across the board and I wasn't expecting this. It looks like I could start by richening it up by 20% across the whole table. Would like to see if someone can verify my tune and scanner log and let me know that I am thinking correctly? Would it be ok to highlight the whole table and multiply it by 1.20 and then go for a drive?
As always, thanks.

Jeff

SDLog1.hpl
VEstep1.hpt

[dhoagland]

Judging by your log, yes you should be okay to increase by 20% I would do it from 800 RPM and above.

Are you 100% certain you do not have a vacuum leak?
I ask because your idle kpa is about 10 higher than mine runs

[dhoagland]

Oh
forgot to mention.. I've been told when tuning with your MAF failed you should remove it from your logged channels as it could skew your data

Also set code P0101-0103 to MIL on first error

[chipflyer]

I don't believe I have a leak but could smoke it again. I had this thing professionally tuned and got screwed, that guy didn't notice a leak but that doesn't count for much I guess. I bought my own AEM wideband and MPVI2 and just decided I would learn to do it myself. Been following the goat rope garage videos and have tried to follow them closely. MAF took more tuning than it should have but I learned something and got it dialed in and it runs great with the MAF enabled. I was surprised at how lean the VE logging is and thought I better have someone look at my setup. I did disable only P0103, per GRG recommendation.
Thanks for the reply.

[Lakegoat]

I have a '13 with the same VE table that you posted. It doesn't run that lean as what your scan shows, and like dhoagland, it looks like you have a vacuum leak or something as kpa seems higher than normal---on mine. I would not add 20%, maybe 6%. Maybe that is why it took so long to tune the MAF. ?

[chipflyer]

To be honest, it took longer to tune the MAF because I am new to all of this. I adjusted incorrectly several times, added or removed fuel when I should have done opposite. In the end I did understand what I was doing and why and I could do the next one in few steps I believe.
I should probably take another look at a potential vacuum leak before going any farther. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a glaring issue with my tune or scanner settings that would make this table look so lean.

[Lakegoat]

Did you set all three dtc"s to mil on first? P0101,102,103

[chipflyer]

I did go back before last write and set:

all three dtc"s to mil on first P0101,102,103
Set DFCO Enable RPM to 8000rpm Disable to 7999. GRG shows doing this in one video but not the other for gen4.
from 800rpm and up I multiplied the table by 1.20. recalculated and upladed.

I then took a short drive and it didn't seem to help much, is this a sign I do have a vacuum leak or is it just that out of wack?

SDLog2.hpl

[chipflyer]

Dammit, forgot to copy it to the other table. And Lakegoat, you were correct, 20 was to much, she is rich now. I think I'm back on track now.