New updated 2010 Camaro tune file?

[RonC]

I have been reading some people have been complaining about their early L99 cars not running as good as they should with 6 to 7 second 0 to 60 times (GM says 4.7 sec.). Later ones seem to be ok.

Some have read the later files and said there were several changes done to the tune to correct this.

Does anyone have a later tune file (around 30,000 & up vin) that they would share with me or post it up? I posted my early one, vin 3xxx, in another post. Inquiring minds just want to know.

Ron

[gmh308]

I have been reading some people have been complaining about their early L99 cars not running as good as they should with 6 to 7 second 0 to 60 times (GM says 4.7 sec.). Later ones seem to be ok.

Some have read the later files and said there were several changes done to the tune to correct this.

Does anyone have a later tune file (around 30,000 & up vin) that they would share with me or post it up? I posted my early one, vin 3xxx, in another post. Inquiring minds just want to know.

Ron

Curious about this change too. Certainly the timing table has a strange ripple in it where it jumps up and back 4 or 5 degrees.

Octane scaling rather aggressive too. 50-70% more than typical.

[ringram]

Sounds like Torque Management to me.
Check the trans tunes too.

[RonC]

I have seen where some have pulled the ECM fuses #5 & 20 to reset it and have had good results. What would be reset in the ECM to do that? Octane scalar? LTFT's? Anything else that would do this?

Link http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38964

Another thought. What happens if you do the same thing to the T43 trans?

[gmh308]

I have seen where some have pulled the ECM fuses #5 & 20 to reset it and have had good results. What would be reset in the ECM to do that? Octane scalar? LTFT's? Anything else that would do this?

Link http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38964

Another thought. What happens if you do the same thing to the T43 trans?

Yes the Octane scaler returns timing to the hi octane table with a power down. Trims yes also but the would need to be out substantially to make a difference. Cant imagine that on a new car. T43's dont seem to show any effects from power downs.

[RonC]

Do you know what resets the scalar normally in the E38's? Fuel refill, restarts, so many heat cycles, etc?

[gmh308]

Do you know what resets the scalar normally in the E38's? Fuel refill, restarts, so many heat cycles, etc?

Lack of fast knock will see it incrementing (decrementing...) back toward the hi octane table.

[RonC]

Within what time frame does this happen? Same heat cycle or over a longer time?

I just noticed the Octane Scalar pid in the scanner but I have never logged it. It should tell you where it's at while logging.

My Camaro probably had this poor performance when I got it because it would not spin a tire with the TC off. After 3 weeks I couldn't stand it anymore and started tuning it. It will spin the tires now.

It would be interesting to log the scalar on one of the cars with this problem.

[gmh308]

Within what time frame does this happen? Same heat cycle or over a longer time?

I just noticed the Octane Scalar pid in the scanner but I have never logged it. It should tell you where it's at while logging.

My Camaro probably had this poor performance when I got it because it would not spin a tire with the TC off. After 3 weeks I couldn't stand it anymore and started tuning it. It will spin the tires now.

It would be interesting to log the scalar on one of the cars with this problem.

Have never bothered to wait and see how long it took to get back to the top table. :)

Always powered down the ECM or simply copied the top/hi table to the low table.

It does depend on the difference between the two tables and the "decrement rate" which does not appear to be in the Camaro OS. Having watched it on a few logs (and given up waiting LOL), I would guess that in 20 miles it may be back to normal, and recall it that it may return on a tank fill, though that may be hearsay. Someone may chime in and confirm.

It appears GM may be on their 4th OS to date:

12632464
12633056
12635166
12635863

Though 12633056 isnt even listed. But does turn up in cals.

As you may head read elsewhere, GM knows they have a problem with this and is making solid efforts to get on top of it, so why not report it to you dealer and get them to fix it. (after you flash your original tune back in :)).

Dealer may even have some good intel. They have been through 5 engine calibrations, and the last was to improve misfire detection, so maybe that has something to do with the issue.

Cheers.

[RonC]

Mine is the 12633056 OS. Does anyone have a file of any of the others? Do the manuals have different OS's? I guess no one has a "late" OS file?

I kept the hi/lo tables the same when I was working on the 91 oct or 87 oct tunes. I did the 91 tune first and when I finished tuning for 87, I then put the 91 table back in it's place. It really runs well on 87, even better than stock with 91. 93 oct. is not available here.

I have read that there are updates available but they hook up the car to their database to get them and GM can tell if the ECM has been re-flashed as it keeps records of sorts. Mine would not match up with theirs, I'm sure. I am going to leave the sleeping dog alone on this one.

[gmh308]

Mine is the 12633056 OS. Does anyone have a file of any of the others? Do the manuals have different OS's? I guess no one has a "late" OS file?

I kept the hi/lo tables the same when I was working on the 91 oct or 87 oct tunes. I did the 91 tune first and when I finished tuning for 87, I then put the 91 table back in it's place. It really runs well on 87, even better than stock with 91. 93 oct. is not available here.

I have read that there are updates available but they hook up the car to their database to get them and GM can tell if the ECM has been re-flashed as it keeps records of sorts. Mine would not match up with theirs, I'm sure. I am going to leave the sleeping dog alone on this one.

Yes sleeping dogs are best left sleeping :).

I checked an old log. Octane scaler learned down by about 8-10% in 10 minutes, even with up to 6deg of KR during that time. Also 2% down in 6 seconds: while accelerating vigourously. So the rate is not slow.

The challenge with letting the scaler do the management vs getting timing right is that it conservatively overshoots.

A link from someone else re new Camaro convertibles at Holden led to this info re slow L99's on www.camaro5.com Seems to be well documented, though looks like some less than accurate info re octane scaling with different gas.

[GMPX]

We've only seen Camaro's using either 12633056 or 12635863, the others may not have made it out in the wild, or where updated at the dealer before delivery.

[RonC]

Yes sleeping dogs are best left sleeping :).

I checked an old log. Octane scaler learned down by about 8-10% in 10 minutes, even with up to 6deg of KR during that time. Also 2% down in 6 seconds: while accelerating vigourously. So the rate is not slow.

The challenge with letting the scaler do the management vs getting timing right is that it conservatively overshoots.

A link from someone else re new Camaro convertibles at Holden led to this info re slow L99's on www.camaro5.com (http://www.camaro5.com) Seems to be well documented, though looks like some less than accurate info re octane scaling with different gas.


That's why I worked up the low oct. table to have no KR on 87 so it shouldn't go below that in "theory". Is that correct thinking or am I off somewhere? It seems to work ok so far but we'll see. Thanks for the info on the scalar, it helps to understand it better.

Any other thoughts on why the Camaro reset works?

Ross, BTW is 12635863 a new auto OS or is it for the manual or do both use the same OS? Share a copy? Inquiring minds, you know.

[gmh308]

Any other thoughts on why the Camaro reset works?



The GM approach seems to be that it needs to be done with a TechII, so not sure on what additional "features" this would bring to the picture, apart from maybe they are revising the calibration or simply following published process to ensure consistency and also to read freeze frame data for the record.

If misfires are being detected, from memory this may drop back to the low table, or limit power in some way. But would expect stories of DTC's then too.