some invalidated pids?

[Wolfie]

yeah, I'm missing something here... but...
I get not valid pids for these...
GM.CYLAIR.DMA
GM.DYNCYLAIR.DMA
GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA.

[WeathermanShawn]

Wolfie:

I'll see if I can't get you some help.

I know Joecar has been pretty busy lately with work and projects, but I'll send him a PM. Perhaps he will have some ideas.

[Wolfie]

Thanks, I've tried everything that has been suggested, and still no go.

[joecar]

Wolfie,

Some other people have said the same thing...

what OS are you running...?

[joecar]

This has popped up before, and it seems to be related to the OS id... but at this time I'm not sure which OS's do or do not.

Checklist:
- you have Validated PIDs,
- you entered your VIN (same as the PCM knows it),
- you selected your contoller.

[Wolfie]

Correct, done that...
OS- 12613248
cal-12597116
2007 Chevy Express 6.0 updated via GM Jan 2008

[Blacky]

Unfortunately the DMA PIDs have not been set up for that OS yet. I've let Ross know.
Regards
Paul

[GMPX]

Wolfie, can you please send support@efilive.com an Email about this, I will get them to forward you a file that should enable those PID's for you.

Cheers,
Ross

P.S - 345,000 miles on your 2007 van, that is impressive.

[joecar]

Ross, remember to update Paul on those.

[Wolfie]

I have received the file this am (Monday), Thanks! I will check it out soon as I get back on the road...

[Wolfie]

I checked the file you sent me, It looks ok to me , but here is a short log in case you want a sanity check.
Thanks again!

[joecar]

I can see those 3 DMA pids and they look correct to me.

[Ninety8C5]

yeah, I'm missing something here... but...
I get not valid pids for these...
GM.CYLAIR.DMA
GM.DYNCYLAIR.DMA
GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA.

Is it possible to get 'GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA' added to the 98 OS 19980400? :lookaround:

[Ninety8C5]

Is it possible to get 'GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA' added to the 98 OS 19980400? :lookaround:

Instead of using 'GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA' which I don't have, I was wondering if I could substitute 'SAE.IAT.C + (SAE.ECT.C - SAE.IAT.C)' in its place. Are these the same or am I way off in my assumption. I know I hate to ASSume, that is why I'm asking.

Thanks!

[joecar]

Is it possible to get 'GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA' added to the 98 OS 19980400? :lookaround:I pm'd Tech Support.

[joecar]

Instead of using 'GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA' which I don't have, I was wondering if I could substitute 'SAE.IAT.C + (SAE.ECT.C - SAE.IAT.C)' in its place. Are these the same or am I way off in my assumption. I know I hate to ASSume, that is why I'm asking.

Thanks!See post #88, by mr.prick: showthread.php?t=13152 (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=13152)

[Ninety8C5]

See post #88, by mr.prick: showthread.php?t=13152 (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=13152)

I'm guessing that 'GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA' is equal to 'Charge Temperature' in degrees Celcius because you are adding 273.15 to convert it to degrees Kelvin in your calc_pid:

% 0.0 100.00 .2 "({SAE.MAF.gps}*(({GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA})+273.15)/((5.669()*61.024)*{SAE.RPM}*{SAE.MAP.kPa})* 212544)*{CALC.LTFTBEN})"

I've made a calc_pid that mimics table B4901 (I think) which calculates "Charge Temperature':

factor 0.0 200.0 0.3 "({SAE.IAT.C}+({SAE.ECT.C}-{SAE.IAT.C})) * lookup({SAE.MAF.gps}, 0.0,0.60, 10.0,0.171, 20.0,0.128, 30.0,0.086, 40.0,0.081, 50.0,0.071, 60.0,0.062, 70.0,0.055, 80.0,0.047, 90.0,0.042, 100.0,0.043, 110.0,0.043, 120.0,0.043, 130.0,0.043, 140.0,0.043, 150.0,0.043)

If this is correct I think I can substitute my calc_pid (CALC.DYNAIRTMP) for {GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA} in the above equation and everything should be okay. Let me know if :) or :bad:.

Thanks.

[WeathermanShawn]

I think thats right..

I must say this. I originally used 'Look-up' Values just like you are proposing. I had some interpolation problems along with a lag in the bias factor. Whether this was a laptop CPU problem, or just the nature of a Look-Up Table..just letting you know I had problems with it.

Short of that you could always use an average factor..perhaps .3 -.5..you could pull that off after the run.

Give it a shot. Maybe I just had a one-time problem.

[Ninety8C5]

I think thats right..

I must say this. I originally used 'Look-up' Values just like you are proposing. I had some interpolation problems along with a lag in the bias factor. Whether this was a laptop CPU problem, or just the nature of a Look-Up Table..just letting you know I had problems with it.

Short of that you could always use an average factor..perhaps .3 -.5..you could pull that off after the run.

Give it a shot. Maybe I just had a one-time problem.

According to 'Black Box' logging the Calculated PIDS aren't looked at until the log is opened in the Scan tool. If so that should eliminate any lag in logging (I think). My next task is to setup the PIDS for BBL.

[WeathermanShawn]

Thats probably the smart way to do it (apply CALC PIDS after the log).

Let us know if that works. I am curious to see the results. I had most of the problem at the Look-Up value at the lowest MAF (g/s) flow.

One way or another there should be a reasonable 'work-around' for it..

[Ninety8C5]

Thats probably the smart way to do it (apply CALC PIDS after the log).

Let us know if that works. I am curious to see the results. I had most of the problem at the Look-Up value at the lowest MAF (g/s) flow.

One way or another there should be a reasonable 'work-around' for it..

Shawn,

I was able to get my calculated PID for DYNAIRTMP to work on an old log file I had, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. If you have the time could you add this to your 'calc_pids' file and compare the results between my pid and the 'GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA' pid.

Thanks.


*CLC-00-054
factor 0.0 200.0 0.4 "({SAE.IAT.C}+({SAE.ECT.C}-{SAE.IAT.C})) * (lookup({SAE.MAF.gps},0.0,0.600098,10.0,0.171387,2 0.0,0.128418,30.0,0.085938,40.0,0.081055,50.0,0.07 1289,60.0,0.062012,70.0,0.054688,80.0,0.047363,90. 0,0.042969,100.0,0.042969,110.0,0.042969,120.0,0.0 42969,130.0,0.042969,140.0,0.042969,150.0,0.042969 ))

CALC.DYNAIRTMP F054 CLC-00-054 factor Tuning "Calculated Dynamic Air Temp"

[WeathermanShawn]

I would have to see a log to really compare.

The Look-up looks fine. I am just not sure how accurately it calculates compared to the DYNAIRTMP.DMA PID.

Do you have a log? It would be easy then to compare?

Edit:..I tried it with the Calc. Pid you provided. I got a syntax error..

[Ninety8C5]

I would have to see a log to really compare.

The Look-up looks fine. I am just not sure how accurately it calculates compared to the DYNAIRTMP.DMA PID.

Do you have a log? It would be easy then to compare?

Edit:..I tried it with the Calc. Pid you provided. I got a syntax error..

That calc_pid file was not a complete file. I've attached the whole file minus the extra pids & it should work. If not can you send me your log file and I will play with it.

Thanks.

[WeathermanShawn]

O.K.

Try this one out. It has the Calc.VE Table & DYNAIRTMP PID.

If that does not work, I can P.M. Joecar. I think he works with CALC. PIDS so much he dreams about them..:grin:.

Perhaps in the future the DYNAIRTMP can be more readily available (no promises).

Let us know how it goes..

[joecar]

lol, yes I can do them in my sleep... :hihi:


The equation ({SAE.IAT.C}+({SAE.ECT.C}-{SAE.IAT.C}))*(lookup(...))

should read {SAE.IAT.C}+({SAE.ECT.C}-{SAE.IAT.C})*lookup(...)

i.e. the red parentheses ( ) should not be there.


See attached calc_pids.txt.


[ remember to have at least 2 blank lines at the end of the calc_pids.txt file ]


Note:

The equation: {SAE.IAT.C}+({SAE.ECT.C}-{SAE.IAT.C})*factor

is a concise form of: {SAE.IAT.C}*(1-factor) +{SAE.ECT.C}*factor

(they calculate the same identical thing).

(i.e. factor is localized to one occurrence... factor is the lookup() call).

[joecar]

I'm too am hoping GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA can be implemented for your OS (19980400).

[WeathermanShawn]

OP:

Looks like we have different Charge Temperature Blending (Factor) Table Values. That may throw off comparing the CALC.VE Table %'s on my log, compared to yours.

It should still be within ~ 5-8 %. I always had trouble with the CALC.PID (Look-up) at 0.0 -10 grams..Never interpolated, but I was not doing BBL..so I never figured out if that was a 'laptop' problem or not.

Let us know how it goes..

Thanks Joe..

[Ninety8C5]

Okay, here are my results after using the Charge Temp Blending table from a 2002 Camaro. I needed the extra () in the calc_pid file to mimic the expression in B4901 without them the temp was way off.

"The PCM calculates the charge temperature (in degrees Kelvin) using the following formula
273.15+IAT+((ECT-IAT)*factor) where factor is obtained from this calibration."

With the new factor from the Camaro the temps were very close (within 1 degree) most of the time. There were a couple of occasions where it was 12 degrees off (I have no idea why, maybe the lookup), but I will continue to play around with it tomorrow. I've attached the calc_pid file I used with the Camaro factor.

I'm too am hoping GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA can be implemented for your OS (19980400). 58 Minutes Ago 09:19 PM
I'm hoping GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA can be implemented in 19980400 also!

Thanks for all the help.

[Ninety8C5]

It looks like I left the last quotation mark off my pid in the above file. I added it in and it looks like everything is close. I'll have to look at it carefully tomorrow.

Thanks again.

[WeathermanShawn]

Yea, I just ran your latest CALC.PID for DYNAIRTMP and it was real close.

I have always wondered if it is possible that the DYNAIRTMP.DMA might also include the Charge Temperature Filter B4902, (differs per OS) but I have ran most of my logs in the early morning with stable IAT's, so I could never really deduce that.

Nevertheless, thats a very good CALC.PID you did. Since every OS is different thats a good way of doing it. Like you said, there are definitely times where it does not match up..but the average temps were comparable.

So I don't know whether the CALC. Dynamic Air Temp Pid is slower, or if there are problems when it does a look-up. I was impressed that it matches most of the time..Still looks like the problem may be at low MAF airflow values..

Let us know if you deduce anything else when you check your log over..

[Ninety8C5]

Yea, I just ran your latest CALC.PID for DYNAIRTMP and it was real close.

So I don't know whether the CALC. Dynamic Air Temp Pid is slower, or if there are problems when it does a look-up. I was impressed that it matches most of the time..Still looks like the problem may be at low MAF airflow values..

Let us know if you deduce anything else when you check your log over..

I exported the log into Excel and it looks like the largest errors are at 10 gps and less. I did lower the value at 10 (added the values at 20 & 30 and used that number for 10) and got them closer, but I have nothing to compare that to in my logs and wouldn't know for sure if I was making it better or worse.

I guess I could just filter out anything less than 10 gps and see how it looks. I'll give it a try when I get some time next week.

Thanks for all the help.