EFILive's GM Tuning Resource Wiki

[WeathermanShawn]

For you members following a recent thread http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=12848there seems to have been a lot of interest in 'simplifying 'Tuning basics for beginners'. Curious as to whether this site is still 'up and going'? I was intrigued by the general web layout, and the one-stop resource of tuning material.

Anybody know?

[mr.prick]

The Wiki is a great idea but no one contributed to it.
IMO the calc_pid section needs more in regards to the function/operators.
An in depth WBO2 install/configuration would be nice too since
the LC-1 tutorial is outdated w/serial abilities now available.

[mr.prick]

You meant this site, right?
http://gmtuning.info/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

[WeathermanShawn]

You meant this site, right?
http://gmtuning.info/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Yes.

But, I certainly understand you almost have to be a full-time editor to keep something like this going. Always nice to have one site to start navigating all the variety of tuning topics.

What do you think?

[mr.prick]

It won't hurt. ;)
I signed up but I haven't added anything.

[acomp917]

I am lacking in my ability to label(make correct reference to) what I an talking about. I will try and make updates to THIS post as I figure it out. ANY HELP WILL BE APPRECIATED. Email to: hoopie127@hotmail.com with ANY AND ALL INFO/RECOMMENDATIONS.

I'm really new to this. I understand some basics of a lot of newer technologies(uC/programming/EFI/). I would like to create a GOOD beginner tutorial(and continue that thinking up the advanced level). I have little ability in editing/ understanding the creation of a wiki. I am williqng to learn and make a contribution. I am not surprised that there is talk of "not wanting to teach a person how to tune". I know from experience in the computer business that there is nothing better than a confused customer. Perhaps I am being somewhat short sited. Although, I see nothing wrong with teaching the very basics of a complicated subject. At least a person might be able to use his/her new $800 purchase before perusing 2 weeks of dis-jointed information.

My current noob thoughts are:
1- make a basic generic folder.
------------In that folder explain:

__________________________________________________ ________________________


1- PID's

a. what they are.
b. how to add one(including syntax). eg. wideband.
Adding a serial wideband is a PID. Any of the analog wideband inputs have been covered many times. I have yet to figure out how to add a serial wideband PID. Perhaps I will understand it better when I connect my V2 and LC-1(better weather).

Best display settings/ how the pids interact(eg. imperial-metric)
http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=164 (REALLY of little use). I am just learning how to select the correct PID'S.


2- DASHBOARDS. Used for realtime monitoring of data and analysis of recorded data.

How to setup the dashboard(s) gauges in order to get started with logging> This does not need to be as difficult as it is. Also, the gauges are not configured NEARLY as well as they could be for the beginner(even advanced) user. Part of the problem is the way the program defaults the changes (eg. as you pick gauge specifics, they are saved in the original directory). At least the PID selections are saved in a dedicated directory. I have yet to figure out where the PID's are saved.

3- Data logging. Have the basics, will create a simple view.
a. what pid's are needed for each type of data analysis and why. eg. MAF/MAP auto correction.
b. This list could get very long
-------------------------------------------
Order of inclusion of data below unknown GETTING BETTER

4- Maps(method of applying gathered data to the required areas). (will elaborate on this as I get a simple method of relating this to a beginner(better understanding).

5- Filters to limit data to only useful limits. There is a tutorial on this subject in the tune manual.pdf. Filters are simply a way to eliminate errata(incorrect data, eg. out of limit(upper or lower), or transitional change) from what you see or apply to your corrections.

6- Application of newly logged information/changes(unknown)

7- PCM preparation.
a. Shut off AIRpump, EGR and LT/STFT, ect. Including table #'s and explanation.
b. Decide on tuning method. eg. leave IFR or MAF cal. alone(orig. or SSPd method)

CAN I GET SOME HELP ON THIS???
I am going to get started on this as soon as my upgrade gets here. I want to leave 1 licence on the old V1(don't want to use the last one).

Will add more noob viewpoint as limited knowledge allows :).
S

[joecar]

The Wiki is owned by Garry (http://forum.efilive.com/member.php?u=1301)... it seems like a lot of work, so we would have to have some organization to it, some writers, some readers...

[acomp917]

To all,

I just PM'd Garry about trying to revive a beginner wiki.

I would like to keep the logging/tuning kind of basic in the beginning. I going to try to document the method of:

1-shut off AIR and EGR
2-shutting off all trims(open loop)
3-make sure timing is ONLY a single base timing map(no K sensors)(copy HO spk map to LO map)
4-shut down the MAP sensor
5-adjust the IFR in-order to get the MAF imposed fuel to command stoic for <70kPa.
6-shut off MAF and enable MAP. Use auto VE to modify table for stoic <70kPa
7-re-enable MAF and see what happens
7a.-re-enable o2 sensors
8-monitor LTFT's to see if they subtract ~3% fuel
9- figure out how to make PE work for >70kPa
10-re-enable Ks, and paste LO spark table back, switch back to LO fuel and monitor Knock sensors

If this works, I am going to publish all of the steps required to accomplish the end result. I will then make further timing/fuel/transmission changes and add them to the wiki. NOT in a linear string of ongoing mods(as many do).

Does this sound like a way to iron out a stock tune? If anyone has anything to off, please feel free to chime in.

Also, if you know the table numbers or any caveats for my proposed methods, please help me by posting them.

TIA,
S

[Steve Bryant]

I think that the Wiki idea is a good one and should be pursued. I have been very inactive in the forum for several years, but I believe that I can contribute some ideas to the Wiki and I will try to do so.

Acomp917, in step 5 above, you don't want to adjust your injector flow rate tables to change anything unless you change to injectors that have a different flow rate. Perhaps you mean adjust the MAF sensor calibration using AFR as a reference. If you adjust IFR, your VE tables will become wrong. Also, the knock sensors are your friend and you don't want to disable them in my opinion.

Steve

[acomp917]

Steve

Thanks for the reply. At least I don't have the general feeling that the EFI live beginners have been abandoned.

SSpdDmon posted an alternative method of tuning a PCM.
listed in post #4 here: http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=7866

In my limited knowledge, I kind of agree that considering all of the dynamics... the MAF is "probably" the least effected, most calibrated device. I think it is also easier to do a quick and dirty re-cal with this method(if total overall accuracy is maintainable?).

I am VERY open to ALL help/opinions at this point. I hope to get the basic steps refined quickly. I will then try to get proficient with the tools at hand. After(if :)) I ever get through that, I will attempt to post a wiki about my methods.

BTW, I pm'd Garry(wiki owner). Never got a reply. If I am not mistaken... nobody can modify the wiki without his access. Please understand that I am VERY new to both EFI live and attempting to publish a wiki

Steve

[redhardsupra]

guys, you are making an imperial shitton of assumptions here, you might wanna ask more questions instead of repeating old answers.

[mr.prick]

IMO
The wiki should only be about hardware & software features & configuration ect.
it should not go into tuning methods.

[redhardsupra]

http://forum.efilive.com/showpost.php?p=27652&postcount=7 ah look, we've tried it before in 2006, and it didn't go far. one can only hope that the gearheads finally caught up with the 21st century ;)

[acomp917]

redhardsupra,

What guys? What assumptions? If your ability to understand what is WAS like to begin using EFI live is ANYTHING like your ability to relate the most basic of information, I can see why we have a difference of opinion.

I have stated that "I" am new to this stuff. I have read a bunch of the forum, most of both types of tutorials. There is really good information ALL OVER THE PLACE... that is the problem. I would like to make a contribution to the new users. Basically a step by step for understanding of the available tools, understanding of PCM preparation, and finally a tuning solution(or many, as myself or others contribute). I would also like to make ALL of this available in ONE place...a wiki.

I know from learning other difficult subjects that as a person becomes more advanced, they loose sight of just how difficult it was to get into the ballpark. It is also becomes EASIER to ad to a library of knowledge by browsing a forum. This is called populating of your cognitive map. Forming one is difficult. Forming one correctly is of paramount importance. I might make mistakes in my attempt to teach the basics of getting started... Atleast I tried.

Good Day,
Steve

[redhardsupra]

few assumptions that most people are comfortable making, that make me cringe, because i've seen what happens when you try to verify some of these things:
1. MAF is correct from factory--it's a technically correct statement which is weak only because in reality the intake tract is usually the first thing that's altered, which invalidates the 'MAF is correct' premise. If you don't believe me that MAFs need recalibration when changing anything in the intake tract, go rotate your MAF 90 or 180 degrees, and go for a ride. Did your trims/WB readings change in a non-trivial way? I bet you they did.
2. IFR is correct. Kinda, statistically speaking, the IFR values are a good 'estimated values' but with a significant amount of noise. Our fuel systems are weak from factory, and when stressed (aka added higher demand for fuel), they do not perform anywhere near as designed. I've seen the popular racetronix kits drop fuel pressure to lower 40psi on a big cube NA motor, just because the increased airflow demanded matching fuel.
3. WB is correct. Between electrical problems (bad ground), and most people not being able to determine an equation for a straight line between two points, I have rarely seen a WB that reads correctly.
4. AutoVE/AutoVE is correct. It isn't, it's flawed at the very onset. I have written on this topic extensively, and it's beyond the scope of this post, so the short version is: you're not normalizing your conditions as you should, and thus you're not attributing the airflow changes to the correct source.

Put these four cardinal tuning sins together, and I guarantee your tune will never be stable, robust, or controllable.

[acomp917]

redhardsupra,

Before I begin.
I have just read some of your incomplete wiki(barely started). Not bad. Sort of Naysayerish... good advice for novice "with a heavily modified car". Whoa, we know were off to a good start now! :) Also, that tire radius measurement should be taken from the axle ctr. to the top of the tire. Measuring to the flat spot at the bottom(pavement) will throw off the calculation.

Now I will begin. :)
I believe you understand much of what is going on. I know from experience with simple aftermarket SD systems that the engine does not care how the PCM figures the AFR/ and to some degree timing... as long as it is correct. I know the GM systems are a LOT more complicated than that and they expect the 2D and 3D tables to reflect at least a moderately accurate set of values.

From your previous post, you have stated that there is not a single functioning method from which to create a baseline from. SD...IFR is not accurate-VE table will never be correct, MAF... both MAF and IFR are not accurate-we have nothing to work with here. Without calibrated measuring (lab) equipment, we cannot begin to tune our cars. Both the injectors and the MAF will have to be sent in for calibration, at least you did not pick on the MAP sensor. :)

You started a wiki. If you are not in the business of tuning for profit... I cannot figure out why you have not published the basics for engine tuning. Since you offer mostly NAYSAYER information... PLEASE, enlighten all of us as to how exactly you tune an engine.

S

[redhardsupra]

That wiki is 4yrs old and it was abandoned for lack of interest. I understand the concepts and issues presented there in a lot more detail then before.

And no, I'm not a naysayer, if you've read more of my stuff, you'd be aware of how many tools and methodologies I've made available to the public for free over the last 5yrs. So why would you concentrate on the negative, you naysayer you? :)

I do have a method of tuning that works and does not violate any of my own rules. The problem is that the solution to it is so computationally complex that I have not been able to make my software robust enough that you could just put in your logs and let it spit out a reliably good results; there's always a need for tweaking and sanity checks. once i solve these problems, it will be available.

[Steve Bryant]

redhardsupra,
I believe that you do have some good points as I have read some of the information in your hyperlink, here and in other fora like LS1Tech.com. But a fair amount of it is so math intense and borders on being incomprehensible.

1. Are you willing to constructively help with some basic tuning information for beginners and intermediate folks?
2. Do you want to be a cynic who just wants to belittle the efforts of others?
3. What is your point of strategy here?

Steve

[redhardsupra]

1. yes, i have been for 5yrs. if that doesn't prove intent, i don't know what does.
2. i am not belittling efforts of others. i am merely pointing out the bad science and garden-variety mistakes.
3. my strategy? to release a tool that will put the end to all of discussions, and does things correctly, regardless of model, year, or platform. It's actually done, just not something i'd ever hand over to general public.

you're right about the math intense. it's just the nature of the beast and there's no way around it. you can beat around it all you want, but all you're gonna do with basic math is keep going in circles by adjusting one table, only to find out that the same error pops out somewhere else; it's a tuning equivalent of whack-a-mole.

that's why i've been showing the more advanced tricks to people individually, usually using skype and remote desktop, because you need a lot of tricks in your bag before you even think of attempting doing this the right way. it usually takes few weeks before people even get close to understanding all the pieces involved, yet alone putting it all together and solving it with some actually fairly advanced math. if you think you got the mental skills for it, please hit me up, and i'll show you a whole different way of thinking of this stuff. however, and this is a big however, this is not for the faint of the heart, impatient people, or anyone mathematically challanged.

[acomp917]

readhard supra,

I think you are FOS!

I have been tuning engines for 30 years, even before computers. I know that since the invention of (I hope fairly accurate +-.5) WBO2's about the only mistake you can make in "BASIC" tuning is to chase your tail with the timing/fuel scenario. eg. adding timing...shows leaner, add more fuel..., add more timing... ect.

You seem to REALLY embrace the computational aspect of engine tuning. I know for a fact that an engine is just an air pump with a personality(CAM DYNAMICS/ and other influences). All you have to do is mix the correct amount of fuel with that air(I don't care if you pour it out of a beer bottle, read:carburetor) and set fire to it at the correct point. If I have the ability, I would limit fuel after the peak torque and tada the engine is happy.

I have logged powerful ECU's with a limited amount of required calculations and their logs are so close to the actual events that corrections made from them are "perfect". I have also logged doggy ECU"s and during transition, their logs are useless. I hope I am pleased with the logging capabilities of this PCM/V2 setup. If so, I will try to show you and your believers how simple tuning an engine can be.

I'm off the box now :)
S

[redhardsupra]

yes, EFI and in general the computational approach to fueling is completely useless, as proven by the last 30yrs of automotive history. if you're so knowledgeable, why do you need this forum? go hug a carburetor ;)

[acomp917]

readhardsupra,

I think I will take your advice. :cheers:


;) S

[mr.prick]

:laugh:

[5.7ute]

acomp17. There is a difference between getting the tune accurate enough to get a commanded AFR all the time. To getting it close, some of the time to a single commanded AFR, temp etc. You only have to look & see how much IFR raping is still going on to notice a lot of tuners dont really care. A quick fix is a quick buck mentality.
How Marcin has been trying to educate people, while heavy on the math is based on how the PCM thinks, as well as what even basic science tells us. While the engine may be a glorified compressor it still needs accurate information in the pcm to work efficiently.
However, if you are happy with your methods & resultant tune that is all that really matters. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

[acomp917]

5.7 ute,

I built and programmed a few uC devices and reverse engineered the megasquirt when it was a new device. I'm slowly learning the logic flow chart for the LS1b controller.

Yes, I know that it often more complicated to actually implement theory into a "good" working model. That is why I decided to try and teach this ( :doh2:, did I say that). I just thought I'd release some aggressions.

As soon as I get my V2(friday), I will start on this. I plan to monitor the stock 2ksilverado tune for a few days, then trash the PCM with a COS3 OLSD tune and start from scratch. I'm not afraid... I got another PCM. :)

Even though it seems as if I went after readhardsupra... I really just picked a small discussion. I KNOW(I have read his blog) his abilities are specifically FAR beyond mine. NOW! I going to search out his posts pertaining to those theoretical models.

S

[Steve Bryant]

Marcin,
I'm planning to make it a project to re-read the resources that you've painstakingly put together. You really do have some good information . . . no doubt about that. My only point is that many people need a straight forward approach to begin learning the basics that is not offputting.

Thanks for your answers to my questions.

Regards,

Steve

[WeathermanShawn]

Steve, I still look forward to some of your input. Like you, my time is stretched between job responsibilities and family.

Marcin, I honestly admire your pursuit of perfection. I just wish you could help us out a little more. It is easy to post criticisms, but I never see you helping out beginners, or providing clear-cut answers. This forum has to serve all members and not be so critical of people of less knowledge. Otherwise many of us will abandon forums where members feel like we are being bullied. I really liked SSpDmon's inputs. I noticed he really does not post here anymore (infrequently).

We we need to have a tuning board that allows beginners, intermediates, and advanced 'tuners' to co-exist.

[redhardsupra]

Marcin, I think for the most of us this is still a hobby. I honestly admire your pursuit of perfection. I just wish you could help us out a little more. It is easy to post criticisms, but I never see you helping out beginners, or providing clear-cut answers.
That's what my site is for. I'm not gonna apologize for the fact that I don't feel like explaining OL vs CL or MAF vs SD to someone for 1000th time. The write-ups are there for that very purpose. If someone's got a good question about it, I'm more than willing to answer, but after 5yrs of beating the same material in people, you will get bored and burned out too.


This forum has to serve all members and not be so critical of people of less knowledge. Otherwise many of us will abandon forums where members feel like we are being bullied. I really liked SSpDmon's inputs. I noticed he really does not post here anymore (infrequently).

as you saw in my previous links, i didnt agree with him much because of the same reasons I don't agree with you: you want a quick fix, dont check your assumptions, using circular reasoning, and generally letting science by the wayside. at the same time you bring up excellent questions, that's why I'd rather argue with you, than just ignore you, because I believe you've shown enough interest and insight that you are capable of understanding the real version.


I agree you have excellent papers on airflow models, etc. But, we need a tuning board that allows beginners, intermediates, and advanced 'tuners' to co-exist.
you know, there's a good reason why grade school and grad schools are separate... ;)

[Steve Bryant]

All,
Here is a document that I put a lot of preliminary work into in 2005 and events got in the way of my refinement and completion of the document. I have more time now that when I stopped this effort, although, not as much time as I would like.

There are other competing demands for my time and energy such as family, work, doing the final build and swap of the stroker engine for my truck that I'm getting ready to start once the weather improves, etc. My point is that I don't want to nor can I put an extraordinary amount of time into this right now. However, I'm still very interested in unlocking the misteries and helping others to learn about tuning or I wouldn't be sharing this now.

Look through the attached Adobe Acrobat document and give it some thought.

Steve

[redhardsupra]

NICE! I'm digging the level of effort here, it signifies commitment to the cause ;)

[WeathermanShawn]

That's what my site is for. I'm not gonna apologize for the fact that I don't feel like explaining OL vs CL or MAF vs SD to someone for 1000th time. The write-ups are there for that very purpose. If someone's got a good question about it, I'm more than willing to answer, but after 5yrs of beating the same material in people, you will get bored and burned out too.

as you saw in my previous links, i didnt agree with him much because of the same reasons I don't agree with you: you want a quick fix, dont check your assumptions, using circular reasoning, and generally letting science by the wayside. at the same time you bring up excellent questions, that's why I'd rather argue with you, than just ignore you, because I believe you've shown enough interest and insight that you are capable of understanding the real version.

you know, there's a good reason why grade school and grad schools are separate... ;)

I agree that after 5 years of answering the same questions you will get burned out. I disagree that a quick fix is inherently inaccurate. 5 years of the GMVE method of tuning with no conclusions or practical application is not good science.

Your last statement sounds very arrogant. That drives people away from listening. This board needs to determine if that is the level of discussion that it wants. It drives talent away.

Steve, good work.

[acomp917]

Steve,

Good job on the Doc's. I really have none of your publication talent. I would like to learn how that was done... although I doubt I will ever accomplish something like that on my own.

Now, if we could start to compile a step by step narrative to the tools, preparation, logging, and understanding of the logged data(all basic). I still have some preliminary understanding of the tools to accomplish.

Later,
S

[5.7ute]

Good work Steve, thanks for sharing.:cheers:

[TAQuickness]

Marcin - Let me know when you need a guinea pig for your new stuff.

[Laychut]

Hi Steve,

I know this thread is old, but I am new to LS1 tuning and I found your write up very helpful and informative.

Though it did leave me hungry to know more;)

Have you written any others since?

Thank You!

[Steve Bryant]

I haven't forgotten about the "Basics of Tuning Project" and I have worked on this idea a little in the past year. Also, in the past ten months I have retired, so I will have more time (eventually) to work on this sort of thing. Currently, I'm catching up on a lot of deferred maintenance on my house, helping others with some projects and my biggest project is working on some problems with my 1991 Airstream Travel Trailer (AKA caravan in some vernaculars) as it has a number of significant issues that need to be addressed (see http://www.airforums.com/forums/f36/leaks-and-floor-rot-in-91-34-limited-85517.html if you're interested).

Regarding tuning basics, I've made drafts of a quick reference chart or two that I plan to verify and publish (don't look for this anytime soon). Sometime in the next year, when I finish some of the work on my trailer, I plan to re-tune my engine from the beginning. Then, I'm going to replace the existing 6 L engine in my Yukon XL with a bored and stroked version of the same engine that will displace 6.7 L (408 CID) and re-tune the engine again. Once I'm through will all of this cycle, I'll try to consolidate and refine what I've put together so far (estimated completion time is on or before December 2013).

On a related subject, has anyone read/studied the book Master EFI Tuner - GM EFI - Second Edition that was published about a year ago? I have not, but I have corresponded with someone who has and it might be worth wile as a starting place.

All my best,

Steve

[Laychut]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your reply.

I had a look at your work on your Travel Trailer. It looks like you have your work cut out for you! I think the fact that you are working with a curved surface would not help much.

All the best with your project!