PDA

View Full Version : So I am logging torque...



killerbee
July 10th, 2009, 07:51 AM
using engtrqref dma. But the logged values are not really matching B1115.

What am I missing?

If I set torque equal to, say 150 ft-lb across the entire 20% throttle row of B1115, then apply 20% throttle, I would expect to see a steady150 in the log. Oddly though, as rpm increases, logged trqref increases also. ??? Then in torque based fuel, fuel increases because of this. So I am perplexed here.

Are engtrqref PID and the values entered in B1115 un-related?

killerbee
July 11th, 2009, 01:37 AM
more info:

I limit torque in B1115 to 700. Yet the log is showing 775, and in B1102, I am getting the fueling of the 775 row. It is overfueling.

IOW B1115 does not appear to be an accurate table. Reported torque (thence fuel) does not seem to adhere to it.

HELP!

LBZoom
July 11th, 2009, 04:22 AM
It's not the torque PID that is the issue it is the throttle position PID on the LBZ, you have to change it to SAE_APP.D I believe is the name of it. Something like that, I don't have my laptop here but you'll find it from that.

killerbee
July 11th, 2009, 04:27 AM
Thanks so much, I will give that a look.

killerbee
July 11th, 2009, 04:44 AM
I changed to appD,

b1115, at full throttle, commands 500 ft-lb. I capped it at 500.

The log shows about 700 lbs at WOT. And fuel is way high, reflecting 700 ft-lb fuel amounts from B1102, so B1102 is working correctly, but B1115 does not seem to be correct. I am logging 100-200 ft lbs higher that this table is "commanding".

Other thoughts? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with throttle pids.

bballer182
July 11th, 2009, 05:08 AM
I've been using TP_A... and i have never limited the torque tables just left them with the mins and maxes.

It is known that there are inconsistencies in the torques values in the tables and pids. However what i command in my tables i get and same goes for torques based fueling too.

Also if you haven't noticed there are also inconsistencies in max values in the tables as well.

killerbee
July 11th, 2009, 05:21 AM
Also if you haven't noticed there are also inconsistencies in max values in the tables as well.

Yes. But the table values not being reproduced on logs, is un-nerving. I wonder why I am seeing this. I can probably limit torque with the cieling tables, but that is un-nerving also.

bballer182
July 11th, 2009, 05:35 AM
instead of limiting "torque" why don't you just limit the tq based fuel for for a giving tq reference?

killerbee
July 11th, 2009, 06:27 AM
Through experimentation, I have concluded that engtrqref displays 75 to 140 higher than B1115 values. The more throttle, the higher the disparity.

killerbee
July 11th, 2009, 07:30 AM
reloaded the stock tune, and it does the same thing.

Hopefully this is a known bug and it is being worked. I sent logs off to Ross.

bballer182
July 11th, 2009, 03:08 PM
To be quite frank with you. Everyone else and including me and a lot of Professional Tuners have not found this to be a problem. Doesn't really seem to be that big of a problem.

Since you aren't part of the Beta program you don't know what is going on in that aspect of development. I am. that probably ranks pretty low on the TO-DO list.

killerbee
July 11th, 2009, 03:10 PM
This may simply be an OS issue. But it IS an issue...I get to decide that, without your help...even if I don't have the club password.

GMC-2002-Dmax
July 11th, 2009, 11:48 PM
I think the problem is that the ecm will use averaged values from adjoining cells, if you are trying to cap TQ you need to cap it in a limit table so it hits a wall.

:doh2:

I won't speak for Ross and Paul, but unless it is limiting something it won't be much of a priority, if it is limiting then they quickly look into it.

Perhaps you need to go about what you are trying to do in a different way ??

:welcome:

killerbee
July 12th, 2009, 03:41 AM
It is limiting the integrity of EFILive as it applies to this vehicle. It is limiting the ability of the programmer to predictably change anything related to torque derived fuel.

Really, if the very first table, the one that is an extension of your big toe, the one that governs ALL others... is innaccurate by 30% or more, what could be a higher priority? DSP? That will multiply the problem by 500%.

I guess this was not caught in beta. Then again, beta needs to have testers that are interested in more than just the on-off switch that is the throttle.

It is a significant issue now, and it is posted in the correct forum to be fixed. They have never let me down before, I doubt that will happen now. There are now several reports from others who have this same issue, though were unaware of it before reading about it. Initial indication is that it is OS specific, but I have only tested one LBZ.

bballer182
July 12th, 2009, 04:02 AM
It is limiting the integrity of EFILive as it applies to this vehicle. No it's not. Like i said everyone and their dog have figured out how to use it, and work around this small issue. EFILive is not an exact science. it's still in development and the best tuning/diagnostic tool on the market, period! It is limiting the ability of the programmer to predictably change anything related to torque derived fuel.

Really, if the very first table, the one that is an extension of your big toe, the one that governs ALL others... is innaccurate by 30% or more, what could be a higher priority? DSP? That will multiply the problem by 500%.

I guess this was not caught in beta. Then again, beta needs to have testers that are interested in more than just the on-off switch that is the throttle. WOW i hope that wasn't a poke at the beta program or me. Because if it was you should probably look into answering more questions that asking. As a supposed "tuner" you are the one who is supposed to be knowledgeable and have all the insight to all of us poor little "user" needs who could never aspire to the all might tuners' powers..

It is a significant issue now, and it is posted in the correct forum to be fixed. They have never let me down before, I doubt that will happen now. There are now several reports from others who have this same issue, though were unaware of it before reading about it. Initial indication is that it is OS specific, but I have only tested one LBZ.

Just so you know the Beta program is currently working on BB (black box) stuff NOT DSP. So "tuners" like your self might be able to make a little more money with the AutoCal. Also there are like 2 other LBZ beta testers for the BB stuff coming out other than me out of 40 something total. So you're welcome.

LBZoom
July 12th, 2009, 05:11 AM
Guys, let's all drop the arrogance here. There's absolutely zero need for it. Killerbee is merely trying to get some help with a problem that he's discovered in his tuning as of recently, and to him it is becoming an issue. Everyone has there method of tuning and there is no right or wrong way in all cases. I agree that it would be a frustrating problem if I were in his position.

My OS# 6128 hasn't had the severity of issues that Michael is having, all I had to do was change the throttle positon PID to log torque accurately. It's hard to build a tune that you can sleep easy on when you can't feel good about the data you're basing it on.

bballer you've been decent and helped me many times with issues but I don't feel the arrogance is warranted especially as a representative of EFI live's BETA program, we "tuners" (who our the number one customers) feel better knowing that even if it's not top priority, it's still being looked at with some concern and being noted.

That is all

killerbee
July 12th, 2009, 05:34 AM
Thanks. I am now getting a P0606, and VIN mismatch warning. Not sure if it is related. Tune tool VIN reported in the warning is "N/A".

The CEL and 0606 came shortly after an ABS light. That (ABS light) is probably because of the 35" tires on this vehicle.

bballer182
July 12th, 2009, 08:08 AM
Thanks. I am now getting a P0606, and VIN mismatch warning. Not sure if it is related. Tune tool VIN reported in the warning is "N/A".

The CEL and 0606 came shortly after an ABS light. That (ABS light) is probably because of the 35" tires on this vehicle.

It's been rumored or hypothesized the 35's are about as tall as you can go without having the ABS computer reprogrammed by the stealership.

Oops i mean 6128 in one of my earlier posts.

If you are doing a cal only flash with a tune that has a different VIN; you will get that.

killerbee
July 12th, 2009, 08:19 AM
Hmmm. I used the trucks original tune. But now I am starting to wonder what I have here. The "stock" tune has "N/A" as the VIN. I just picked that up now, on investigation.

GMC-2002-Dmax
July 12th, 2009, 09:30 AM
using engtrqref dma. But the logged values are not really matching B1115.

What am I missing?

If I set torque equal to, say 150 ft-lb across the entire 20% throttle row of B1115, then apply 20% throttle, I would expect to see a steady150 in the log. Oddly though, as rpm increases, logged trqref increases also. ??? Then in torque based fuel, fuel increases because of this. So I am perplexed here.

Are engtrqref PID and the values entered in B1115 un-related?

maybe the method you are using is not what needs to be done to get the results you are looking for.

:secret:

cap tq based fuel and see what you get.

:cucumber:

killerbee
July 12th, 2009, 09:34 AM
If that will correct all the values below full throttle as well, I will give it a try. I assumed it would only cap the max. Is that not true?

I appreciate the help.

bballer182
July 12th, 2009, 11:09 AM
Hmmm. I used the trucks original tune. But now I am starting to wonder what I have here. The "stock" tune has "N/A" as the VIN. I just picked that up now, on investigation.

There you go that's the issue with the VIN mismatch. I ran across that once before with one of my own tunes.... dunno how it happened. Just re-enter the VIN and it should work just fine. that's what i did.

bballer182
July 12th, 2009, 11:13 AM
using engtrqref dma. But the logged values are not really matching B1115.

What am I missing?

If I set torque equal to, say 150 ft-lb across the entire 20% throttle row of B1115, then apply 20% throttle, I would expect to see a steady150 in the log. Oddly though, as rpm increases, logged trqref increases also. ??? Then in torque based fuel, fuel increases because of this. So I am perplexed here.

Are engtrqref PID and the values entered in B1115 un-related?

Have you logged all of the TQ PID's at the same time. there are about 4-5 of them. some in the TCM and some in the ECM. Between the 4 none of them match each other.

I really do think the answer to your problem is in limiting the fuel based on TQ not limiting TQ based on APP.





ALSO, One big thing i just thought of. Are ALL of your logged values and values specified in the tune in the same units? I'm pretty sure the default values while BBL'ing a TQ PID is in Nm, and depending on how you have setup you tune tool for that tune you may have your units in Ft/Lbs?...

killerbee
July 12th, 2009, 11:55 AM
Both B1115 and B1102 show ft-lb as units. Good thought. The log shows ft-lb also.

I have only logged the one tq pid since it is the one referenced in B1102

bballer182
July 12th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Both B1115 and B1102 show ft-lb as units. Good thought. The log shows ft-lb also.

I have only logged the one tq pid since it is the one referenced in B1102

OK.. HMMM... Well what about the discrepancy in the GM.TP not displaying correctly and that's linked to the the THROTTLE in all the tables. Maybe it's the same thing and you really need to be logging a different pid?

Some use APP. I use TP_A.

killerbee
July 12th, 2009, 04:22 PM
If I understand your suggestion, I should log all throttle pids, and change the cal_link, for each of them, to see if any of them make more sense?

Have you change the linked axis to TP_A?

bballer182
July 13th, 2009, 12:11 AM
If I understand your suggestion, I should log all throttle pids, and change the cal_link, for each of them, to see if any of them make more sense?

Sorry no, i was suggesting that maybe a different TQ pid would work better? Just re-read the post; kinda confusing.

Have you change the linked axis to TP_A?


yeah i have changed my axis to TP_A in the cal_link file.

Some other people use APP. That's just the one that i found first that was dead accurate and have never tried APP.

and i just saw that LMM default sample pid lists APP_D is used...

killerbee
July 13th, 2009, 12:21 AM
can't hurt at this point. I will try this. However, it does not look like I have a TP_A option. Several others though.

Using V7.5.5

bballer182
July 13th, 2009, 12:30 AM
For an LBZ?

Are you BBL'ing or using the laptop?

killerbee
July 13th, 2009, 01:44 AM
Laptop

bballer182
July 13th, 2009, 10:13 AM
Ah... that would be why you are seeing some of the things you do. BBL'ing offers way more PIDs than laptop. I believe the TCM TQ PIDs that im talking about and some of the TP PIDs are only available in BBL: mode.

bballer182
July 13th, 2009, 10:40 AM
using engtrqref dma. But the logged values are not really matching B1115.

What am I missing?

If I set torque equal to, say 150 ft-lb across the entire 20% throttle row of B1115, then apply 20% throttle, I would expect to see a steady150 in the log. Oddly though, as rpm increases, logged trqref increases also. ??? Then in torque based fuel, fuel increases because of this. So I am perplexed here.

I have actually responded to this yet...

Even if you have set the max or a constant TQ at a given TP%, B1102 will still adjust fuel at different RPMs.

For instance take a look at 554ft/lb TQ ref in table B1102. 70.56 70.56 75. 73.5 74.8 74. 74.6 73.4 71.6 73.9 73.2 73.3 74. 80.1 77.9 82.2 83.2 84.05 82.9 83.1 82.8 83.6 82.8

See, for the same TQ ref you go from 70.56mm3 @300RPM to 82.8mm3 @4800RPM

Are engtrqref PID and the values entered in B1115 un-related?

This is the main reason i would favor limiting power output with the TQ based fuel table B1102 rather than limiting TQ based on TP, because if you do limit power output by B1115 you also have to alter B1102 anyways to get the fuel you want for that given tp%. Which, incidentally after you have done that to B1115 and B1102 you have kind of transformed 3D mapping in to the stone age 2D mapping. Basically eliminating the need for B1115 altogether.

Just my thoughts i guess.

With respect to the engtqref.... I would try out BBL. this has proven it self to be, on top of being more convenient, more accurate in logging also.

JoshH
July 13th, 2009, 03:23 PM
I use GM.TP to log accelerator pedal position.