Needing Help with Tune using Calc-VE

[spx-7]

I am new to most of this so bare with me!!

I am using the Calc-VE method to tune my truck: Details are this 6.0 - 11.5 to 1, 60lb injectors, 100mm TB and MAF, 227-243 on a 113LC.

LM-2 Dual WB's serial.

Here are my problems my truck is too lean, when i use the Calc-Ve process the numbers i get are leaner in the main ve than what i already have. When i scan my LFTF BENS they remain at 1.000. I need some assistance and appreciate some input.

My truck is 2006 Gen III 24x with converter box - engine is LS-2 58x with mods listed above.

Here are my most latest tune and log.

96709671

[WeathermanShawn]

Hello everyone:

Paul is new to the forum..Please welcome him..

We have been working via PM trying to figure out a few problems, but even I am stuck.

Paul, it appears that even though your Tune is properly set-up for closed-loop..all your LTFT's are 0..Are you sure you still have your O2 sensors hooked up?

I also am not sure what is happening to his AFR..

Anybody got any ideas. Paul has modified his vehicle, including the Injectors...he can fill you in.

..WeathermanShawn..

[spx-7]

Hello everyone:

Paul is new to the forum..Please welcome him..

We have been working via PM trying to figure out a few problems, but even I am stuck.

Paul, it appears that even though your Tune is properly set-up for closed-loop..all your LTFT's are 0..Are you sure you still have your O2 sensors hooked up?

I also am not sure what is happening to his AFR..

Anybody got any ideas. Paul has modified his vehicle, including the Injectors...he can fill you in.

..WeathermanShawn..

Yes, all O2's are connected. I have front and rear NB O2's and 2 WB's one in each collector.

My original tune with the factory 6.0 was set to LTFT Disabled when I bought the truck. It ran fairly good just simple bolt-ons. This may be where the problem has been, I just don't know where to start.

I probably should have posted this in the Gen III because my truck is 2006. The engine came from my 2007 TBSS and was a pulled out at 700 miles and had the heads changed and various other mods made. I do apologize for posting in the Gen IV. All of this will be useful in that I have a single mount turbo for my TBSS and will need to perform all of this for that vehicle as well. I just wanted to get the 06 running first. I am new.

Thank you,

Paul

[WeathermanShawn]

Paul, all I can think of is that you are not going into closed-loop. From your Tune, I don't know why..it seems to be set-up correctly to Trim (in your Tune).

Do you have the Pid SAE.FUELSYS (under Fuel)? That will tell you if you are going into closed-loop or not. Also if you can log HO2S11 and HO2S21. Those will tell us if your front O2's are working at all..

I just don't think you are in closed-loop..:confused:..

[spx-7]

Paul, all I can think of is that you are not going into closed-loop. From your Tune, I don't know why..it seems to be set-up correctly to Trim (in your Tune).

Do you have the Pid SAE.FUELSYS (under Fuel)? That will tell you if you are going into closed-loop or not. Also if you can log HO2S11 and HO2S21. Those will tell us if your front O2's are working at all..

I just don't think you are in closed-loop..:confused:..

I have just selected them in my PID list and have 23 PIDs selected and will go take the truck out for a drive and post scan in just a few.

[WeathermanShawn]

Also, Paul it appears your CALC.VE Table Pid is set-up for a 5.7L engine. Normally, the engine size is picked up correctly, but just make sure of the following.

In your Calculated Pids..where it says 5.669..change that to your engine size..aka 6.0. Then you need to re-save it under 'My Documents..User Configuration...calc_pids.txt..'It should actually make your values decrease..

Let me know if that is an issue..I want to make sure it just not my Scan Tool calculating it incorrectly..

[spx-7]

Also, Paul it appears your CALC.VE Table Pid is set-up for a 5.7L engine. Normally, the engine size is picked up correctly, but just make sure of the following.

In your Calculated Pids..where it says 5.669..change that to your engine size..aka 6.0. Then you need to re-save it under 'My Documents..User Configuration...calc_pids.txt..'It should actually make your values decrease..

Let me know if that is an issue..I want to make sure it just not my Scan Tool calculating it incorrectly..

I have cal pids for 6.0.

I have all PIDs selected as per your tutorial and the following as well SAE.FUELSYS, HO2S11 and HO2S21.

I don't know if it ran closed loop this time, if i look at SAE.FUESLSYS on Scan it show OL-Drive.

Idle is crazy and off idle stumble. It hunts idle real bad when it comes down.

Paul

I flashed the following Tune and attached the following log

[spx-7]

My mistake, It did run CL when watching the replay.

I new as some of this advance tuning.

[WeathermanShawn]

Wow, now I think I see the problem.

Your O2 sensors are switching very slowly..only 1-2 times per second. They should switch 3-5 times per second at cruise. You can see you have thrown a DTC code for it also.

So, that has made your LTFT's way out of limits (extremely positive). This explains why you have been so lean.

You have two choices. One is to add +20% to your entire MAF Table B5001. Is that Table stock? You may need that much more airflow/fuel. That will also make your VE Table more reasonable. Second is to change those O2 sensors out, or make sure they are getting nice and hot. I take it they are also located in the headers?

So, yes you are extremely lean. Try adding +20% to your MAF. That should help until you can chase down the O2 problem.

You Calc. Pid for VE looks good..(my mistake)..

[spx-7]

Wow, now I think I see the problem.

Your O2 sensors are switching very slowly..only 1-2 times per second. They should switch 3-5 times per second at cruise. You can see you have thrown a DTC code for it also.

So, that has made your LTFT's way out of limits (extremely positive). This explains why you have been so lean.

You have two choices. One is to add +20% to your entire MAF Table B5001. Is that Table stock? You may need that much more airflow/fuel. That will also make your VE Table more reasonable. Second is to change those O2 sensors out, or make sure they are getting nice and hot. I take it they are also located in the headers?

So, yes you are extremely lean. Try adding +20% to your MAF. That should help until you can chase down the O2 problem.

You Calc. Pid for VE looks good..(my mistake)..

Yes, front O2's are in the collectors as well 90 degrees to the WBO2's.

I will get some new NBO2's is there any suggestion on brand or type or just go to Advance Auto Parts and get what they have?

I will add 20% to B5001, Yes it is stock MAF table.

How do you know if the O2's are getting hot enough? Never realized this?

[WeathermanShawn]

With headers the O2's are located farther away from the cylinder heads (vs stock manifolds). So sometimes they don't heat up enough to work properly.

I would just try the stock O2's. I run the Bosch rear-Corvette types up front, but that may be overkill.

+20% to the MAF is a lot, but you have added a lot of power. That should at least get you close to +/0 Trims..

[spx-7]

With headers the O2's are located farther away from the cylinder heads (vs stock manifolds). So sometimes they don't heat up enough to work properly.

I would just try the stock O2's. I run the Bosch rear-Corvette types up front, but that may be overkill.

+20% to the MAF is a lot, but you have added a lot of power. That should at least get you close to +/0 Trims..

What year Corvette NBO2's do you run? I will get some today.

The truck has a true 11.5 CR engine not a guess it is actually 11.6 to 1, Engine was re-done by professional builder. We had the heads for another project, but I had them already done and thought whats 11.5 -11.6 on the street if we can tune it. Headers are 1 7/8 and NB ans WB are at the collector.

[WeathermanShawn]

I used the 2002 Corvette Bosch rear O2 sensors. That way I could run them without extensions..they are longer. I have them located inches away from the wideband..after the collectors and just before the high-flow cats. So far 30+K on them and working good.

I ended up with about +15% overall on my MAF Table vs stock. If you normally reach the upper MAF frequency..well you could run out of MAF. But your vehicle should run much better with the additional airflow and resultant fueling. That and getting your O2's to switch normally will help a lot.

Keep us updated..

[spx-7]

I used the 2002 Corvette Bosch rear O2 sensors. That way I could run them without extensions..they are longer. I have them located inches away from the wideband..after the collectors and just before the high-flow cats. So far 30+K on them and working good.

I ended up with about +15% overall on my MAF Table vs stock. If you normally reach the upper MAF frequency..well you could run out of MAF. But your vehicle should run much better with the additional airflow and resultant fueling. That and getting your O2's to switch normally will help a lot.

Keep us updated..

I will get the Bosch tonight and put them in. I hope to scan tonight and post that as well if not will post tomorrow with new NBO2's tomorrow. My bungs for NB's and WB's are in the same locations just 90 degrees to each other.

[joecar]

I agree with Shawn, NBO2 signal is too slow... in Log_0004 the HO2Sx1 voltages switch at approximately 1/2 times per second (i.e. almost 2 seconds for one switch cycle).

[joecar]

Comparing DYNCYLAIR_DMA and CYLAIR_DMA it seems your VE and MAF diverge... but first get the NBO2's sorted out.

And then remember to reduce the pid channel count to 24 (or less).

[spx-7]

Shawn,

I have the new Corvette NBO2's now how are you referring to installing them, are you wanting suggesting to rewire the connectors to install them in the front harness? I'm a little confused. If i wire them into the front harness, i just need to get a pin-out and i will have them installed tonight.

I logged the truck with 25% added to the MAF just for the heck of it and it still is asking for Less VE.

Paul

[WeathermanShawn]

Paul, my mechanical skills are not as great as some.

If you have new O2 sensors and can connect them, then just do that. I think I just bought a set of rear sensors for the additional length of the sensor wire. I guess an O2 is an O2. If you can hook it up, try it out.

As far as the CALC.VE Table values..Try this first. Using the Scan Tool..Calibrations..Long Term Fuel Cells..get those values to re-set to zero.

The main thing is to get your LTFTBENS to near 1.00. Once we get good values and your O2's are switching properly we can evaluate the VE Table Values. On a MAF-Enabled vehicle, the MAF will drive a significant portion of the airflow and fueling. Its hard to say how your VE Table will ultimately look. Most follow what a Torque curve on a dyno would look like.

We need your MAF and O2's first..

[spx-7]

Paul, my mechanical skills are not as great as some.

If you have new O2 sensors and can connect them, then just do that. I think I just bought a set of rear sensors for the additional length of the sensor wire. I guess an O2 is an O2. If you can hook it up, try it out.

As far as the CALC.VE Table values..Try this first. Using the Scan Tool..Calibrations..Long Term Fuel Cells..get those values to re-set to zero.

The main thing is to get your LTFTBENS to near 1.00. Once we get good values and your O2's are switching properly we can evaluate the VE Table Values. On a MAF-Enabled vehicle, the MAF will drive a significant portion of the airflow and fueling. Its hard to say how your VE Table will ultimately look. Most follow what a Torque curve on a dyno would look like.

We need your MAF and O2's first..

Shawn,

My question is this regarding the NBO2's, the plug connector in front is different from rear connector on 2006 GM. What I needed to know is you are suggesting wire the new sensor into the front NBO2 connector. I am not trying to ask a stupid question wanting to make sure i am doing the correct thing. We are very skilled and modifications if need be, we have many resources, just needing clarification.

Thank you,

Paul

[WeathermanShawn]

No, it is not a stupid question..I really don't know the answer. On the 2002 LS1 it was just a simple plug-in (does that make sense?). I guess I would not deviate too far from a mechanical norm. If you need two front O2 sensors and can get them..perhaps that is the thing to do.

Anybody know for sure?

[spx-7]

No, it is not a stupid question..I really don't know the answer. On the 2002 LS1 it was just a simple plug-in (does that make sense?). I guess I would not deviate too far from a mechanical norm. If you need two front O2 sensors and can get them..perhaps that is the thing to do.

Anybody know for sure?

New Sensors in and here is my log and tune file. It is now removing and adding fuel.

I hope this is a move in right direction.

Thanks
Paul

[WeathermanShawn]

Well, they still look slow and your getting a current DTC code for insufficient O2 switching.

They are 'working'..they just seem slow. Believe it or not, it still looks like you need to add another +10% to the MAF..

I guess you could clear the DTC's, try adding more MAF. I'm running out of ideas as to the O2's. Maybe on your type of vehicle they run slower. But, we need to see if that DTC persists..

[spx-7]

Well, they still look slow and your getting a current DTC code for insufficient O2 switching.

They are 'working'..they just seem slow. Believe it or not, it still looks like you need to add another +10% to the MAF..

I guess you could clear the DTC's, try adding more MAF. I'm running out of ideas as to the O2's. Maybe on your type of vehicle they run slower. But, we need to see if that DTC persists..

Shawn,

What if I lower the "Injector Flow Rate" want that increase the fuel as well or is this not suggested to do?

[WeathermanShawn]

I have a couple of concerns. First off we have added an incredible amount of Airflow to the MAF. I mean a lot. I don't know what kind of HP you are pulling down, but as an example my 430HP Camaro pulls ~ 320 g/s at 10,000 Hz (MAF) at 5400' MSL. Maybe yours need that much..but thats a lot over stock.

Since you have bigger injectors, I wonder if those Tables may not be set-up correctly. Most people actually go too rich when adding bigger injectors. But hacking the IFR Table is seriously frowned upon. You MAF and VE Table will still be jacked up. Granted you might solve one problem, but you will get all sort of weird AFR spikes when you attempt to do it via the IFR Table.

I did P.M. Joecar earlier. He is very busy, but he may get some free time to look over a few things. I have to pull a midnight shift here shortly..if I get a break overnight I will also look it over again and see if I can figure anything out.

I would make sure your Injector Tables are accurate. I'll get back to you sometime in the next 8-12 hours..You have done good work..keep it up, we will figure it out.

Later..

[joecar]

Paul,

You said you have 60lb/hr@43.5psi injectors...? I calculate that your IFR should be 8.72942g/s @ MANVAC=0.

Does your vehicle have a returnless FPR or a manifold-referenced FPR...?

[spx-7]

Paul,

You said you have 60lb/hr@43.5psi injectors...? I calculate that your IFR should be 8.72942g/s @ MANVAC=0.

Does your vehicle have a returnless FPR or a manifold-referenced FPR...?

Yes, it is return-less. I checked the fuel pressure last night running and it was 63psi. I use the Fuel Injection Program from EFI Live and it gave me the following IFR:

9.098032
9.150246
9.202164
9.253791
9.305131
9.356190
9.406972
9.457481
9.507721
9.557698
9.607414
9.656875
9.706083
9.755044
9.803759
9.852234
9.900472

When these numbers are used it goes super lean.

[spx-7]

This is what i have in my tune currently loaded in the ecu:

8.187500
8.234375
8.281250
8.328125
8.375000
8.421875
8.468750
8.515625
8.554688
8.601563
8.648438
8.687500
8.734375
8.781250
8.828125
8.867188
8.906250

This is what I have in my tune with the latest scan, even though the IFR program is asking for higher number.

Paul

[WeathermanShawn]

Paul:

I did not come up with any real insights overnight, but a few points to ponder.

1. Is this the stock MAF..Has it been ported or altered?
2. Are we 100% sure of the injector size and flow rate.
3. Are you still getting a current DTC on 'insufficient switching on your O2's'.

I think you need to mechanical track down that DTC. Perhaps there is still problems in the wiring or connector if the problem exists.

Thats all I got. Perhaps you and Joecar can problem-solve any inconsistencies in the published IFR rate of those injectors..

Later..

[spx-7]

Paul:

I did not come up with any real insights overnight, but a few points to ponder.

1. Is this the stock MAF..Has it been ported or altered?
2. Are we 100% sure of the injector size and flow rate.
3. Are you still getting a current DTC on 'insufficient switching on your O2's'.

I think you need to mechanical track down that DTC. Perhaps there is still problems in the wiring or connector if the problem exists.

Thats all I got. Perhaps you and Joecar can problem-solve any inconsistencies in the published IFR rate of those injectors..

Later..

Shawn,

Yes, it is the stock MAF and is brand new. I have not modified it. I had though to change the factory one and had a new GM replacement on the shelf. I do have a Lingenfelter 100mm as well if needed.

I am positive of the injector size, i thought the same thing. I have 3 sets of the same injectors, they are Siemens Deka Injectors.

Yes, still getting the same DTC, is it possible it is setting because the truck is lean and not getting enough cross counts?

My, 2006 truck is a one owner low mileage 20k only in like new condition. It is a factory GMC v-max 6.0, the GMC version of the Silverado SS. All aftermarket parts ie. fuel, electrical, mechanical, drive-train and etc. are brand new. Only the truck itself and wiring are not new.

I do appreciate your help, I have done tuning before LT1's and other variations, just not on something this aggravating.

Would it be better to run a static fuel pressure with a return?

[WeathermanShawn]

I guess we could still try adding an additional +10% to the entire MAF curve. That should change your LTFT's to slightly negative. If that does not change the DTC, we will have to think of something else.

I will wait for Joecar to comment on the Injector/Fuel Pressure etc,. He is the expert on that.

In summary.

1. Clear Trims Again
2. Clear the DTC through the Scan Tool
3. Add +10% to the entire MAF curve.
4. Repeat Log Run..

[joecar]

Yes, it is return-less. I checked the fuel pressure last night running and it was 63psi. I use the Fuel Injection Program from EFI Live and it gave me the following IFR:

9.098032
9.150246
9.202164
9.253791
9.305131
9.356190
9.406972
9.457481
9.507721
9.557698
9.607414
9.656875
9.706083
9.755044
9.803759
9.852234
9.900472

When these numbers are used it goes super lean.This IFR table is correct for your 60lb/hr@43.5psi injectors running at 63psi (returnless FPR).

If you go lean with this IFR table then your MAF and VE tables are too low... add 10% to MAF table (do what Shawn said above).

[spx-7]

I will make these changes and get a scan first thing tomorrow morning and will make a post of the scan.

Do you have any suggestion on the increase to the VE? The reason I ask this is, when I have been scanning my VE% with the increased MAF, the scan shows decrease to the VE % even though scan shows a 18-25% addition to LTFT.

Thank you
Paul

[WeathermanShawn]

Paul:

I think you are going to be surprised that in the majority of your VE Table you will have airflow values a lot lower than you think. I know this is a difficult concept, but it is your MAF driving the majority of your airflow and fueling. Stock Tables are actually very fat (excessive airflow) in a lot of the Table.

See in your Logs, look at the CYLAIR which is from your MAF and then DYNCYLAIR from your VE Table. In a lot of areas your VE Table is actually over-reporting Airflow and in some areas they are under-reporting. See if you were to fail your MAF and run off just the VE Table your fueling would actually be too rich in a lot of areas.

I will say it again. It is your MAF under-reporting airflow causing your leanness, not your VE Table. For grins I posted your MAF Airflow and your VE Table Airflow as an attachment. I can promise you when your LTFT's go to near zero, your VE Table airflow will match. Some areas will come down. Ironically the areas the VE Table will go up will be in the RPM range (>4000) that is 100% MAF-driven anyway.

So don't do anything to alter your VE Table while doing the CALC.VE Table. It will have little effect on your fueling problem.

Here is your VE Table (SD) air. See how far off it is from the MAF at places. They won't 'merge' until your LTFT's go to zero and your LTFTBEN's go to 1.00..

[spx-7]

Shawn,

I re-flashed this morning with 10% added to the MAF and cleared all DTC's and ecm. I did raise the IFR to the proper numbers as Joecar had suggested post 31.

The Scan this morning shows several more DTC's set "Fuel Trim Lean 1 & 2", "O2 Insufficient Switching", "MAF Sensor Performance"

Also, I am scanning 23 PIDs and the serial WBO2 serial sets at 7.35 AFR and doesn't change, if I remove 2 PIDs the WB serial is ok. I know the WB's are working well, I look at the LM-2 and both WB's are reading and work well.

Truck does idle better now and runs a little smoother. LTFT is still requesting high %. Did get -LTFT at idle now.

Do you know why MAF would have set a code?

[WeathermanShawn]

I wonder if we have just added too much air to the MAF. If you look at C2911 MAF Rationality Test, if there is too much airflow difference between the MAF and MAP (SD), you throw a code. If you had to increase the values in the IFR Table..that would explain the unintended consequence of now being too lean..

For lack of a better phrase..something is definitely wrong. I don't know if it is the conversion, harness, or wiring, but I don't think you can tune it using your MAF and closed-loop at this point.

Just to clarify. Is this an aftermarket cam or stock? How much HP do you estimate you have.

I think it is a mechanical or harness/wiring issue. All you could do tune-wise is try it SD open-loop. It seems closed-loop is not going to work and we can't add any more air to the MAF.

I am somewhat at a lost..What are you thinking?

[spx-7]

I wonder if we have just added too much air to the MAF. If you look at C2911 MAF Rationality Test, if there is too much airflow difference between the MAF and MAP (SD), you throw a code. If you had to increase the values in the IFR Table..that would explain the unintended consequence of now being too lean..

For lack of a better phrase..something is definitely wrong. I don't know if it is the conversion, harness, or wiring, but I don't think you can tune it using your MAF and closed-loop at this point.

Just to clarify. Is this an aftermarket cam or stock? How much HP do you estimate you have.

I think it is a mechanical or harness/wiring issue. All you could do tune-wise is try it SD open-loop. It seems closed-loop is not going to work and we can't add any more air to the MAF.

I am somewhat at a lost..What are you thinking?

Shawn,

I am just as puzzled, I have done some tuning in the past just not chasing a ghost like this.

Cam is aftermarket 227/243 @ .050, 113LC, 109CL Comp Cams 146-458-11 part number. I would not estimate any more than 550-575hp tops. We have built many engines and dyno'ed tons of combos this is a pretty accurate guess. We have extensive head and intake work done and bottom end is simple basic normal stuff. Its just a truck to goof-off with, something that sounds good and runs decent. It is not a racer.

Is it possible the NBO2's are setting code because it is still too lean and there are not enough cross counts due to being lean?

Could C2911 MAF Rationality Test be modified?

Paul

[WeathermanShawn]

It is entirely possible the O2's are setting codes because they are too lean. The question is why. Is it because they are not switching properly or because the vehicle is really lean.

I would not alter the MAF Rationality Test Table. Here is another Test option.

1. Go back to stock MAF Values.
2. Leave VE Table exactly as is.
3. Decrease your IFR values by ~25-30%.

This is not the smartest way to tune, but is just being used to diagnose the problem. It would be nice to get one run with negative LTFT's and see if the codes persist or not.

My only other thought is that you may be pushing to much HP for that MAF. If that is RWHP (SAE) thats possible. If that is flywheel HP, seems like the stock MAF could handle it.

If all else fails it might just have to go to a SD open-loop tune. Nothing wrong with that, but it would be nice to figure out this tune..

[spx-7]

It is entirely possible the O2's are setting codes because they are too lean. The question is why. Is it because they are not switching properly or because the vehicle is really lean.

I would not alter the MAF Rationality Test Table. Here is another Test option.

1. Go back to stock MAF Values.
2. Leave VE Table exactly as is.
3. Decrease your IFR values by ~25-30%.

This is not the smartest way to tune, but is just being used to diagnose the problem. It would be nice to get one run with negative LTFT's and see if the codes persist or not.

My only other thought is that you may be pushing to much HP for that MAF. If that is RWHP (SAE) thats possible. If that is flywheel HP, seems like the stock MAF could handle it.

If all else fails it might just have to go to a SD open-loop tune. Nothing wrong with that, but it would be nice to figure out this tune..

Here is scan with Stock MAF settings and 25% less IFR.

[WeathermanShawn]

Interesting..

It got your LTFT's closer than anything we have tried yet and your CYLAIR and DYNCYLAIR actually look closer.

Now if you made those IFR Rate another 5% smaller..then at least fueling would be in line.

Of course this is just a test. Even though your LTFT's are getting closer to 'norm', it still appears your O2's are coding out. Its still that max of +25 LTFT that bother me.

There has to be something in that O2 wiring that is not working right???

[spx-7]

Shawn,

Do you know of anything to look for in the wiring, this truck has never been modified, it is in like new condition, wiring looks very clean.

I agree, it idles better and is easier to drive, i don't understand the O2's either nor the +25% LTFT.

PAul

Paul

[WeathermanShawn]

Paul, you might PM Joecar on any wiring concerns or specific test to insure those O2's are functioning properly. Some headers (ceramic-coated vs non-ceramic coated) effect the EGT and the resulting O2 functioning. There is also wiring into the harness/PCM that is way over my head.

I do know we need them switching properly to continue with closed-loop..

[joecar]

Long tube headers:
steel loses more heat than stainless;
no ceramic coating loses more heat than ceramic coated.

The NBO2's require to be kept heated up from the exhaust gas heat.

[spx-7]

Long tube headers:
steel loses more heat than stainless;
no ceramic coating loses more heat than ceramic coated.

The NBO2's require to be kept heated up from the exhaust gas heat.

Joecar,

I have uncoated 304SS longtube headers. The front NBO2's are heated. Is there any type of test that i could perform that you may know of or a certain type of NBO2's to use? I just replaced the front factory ones with 2002 Corvette secondary in the primary position. I have no problem getting what i need for testing or modifying. I am just as curious to what is going on.

On my ride home tonight it is running lean, I didn't scan just watched the WBO2's. When come to a stop at traffic light it is running 20-25 to 1 at idle very lean.

I really appreciate what you and Shawn are doing to help me on this crazy truck.

Paul

[joecar]

Is there any airleak at the collector...?

[spx-7]

Not that I know of, I will put on lift and check.

Paul

[LSRacing]

I have seen a similar problem like this. the problem in our case was that the NB Front 02 sensor connectors were switched from the correct side. IE: The drivers side harness was plugged into the passengers side 02 and vise versa. This gave us the same issues you are dealing with. We swithced them and presto, everything was great. Hope this helps.

[WeathermanShawn]

Paul, any update on your vehicle?

[spx-7]

Paul, any update on your vehicle?

Shawn, yes here is my latest tune and scan from yesterday. I have finally got the truck running without any O2 errors so far.

I tuned the MAF in OL with no LTFT and then turned on CL and have the following results.

I also setup a map to track WB at each hz Freq of the MAF to track it as well as a map to track MAF g/s at each Freq. and then calculate changes needed to MAF this worked great in OL. I have the Commanded AFR and the WB's with in 2% of each other, then turned on CL and all hell breaks loose.

I did notice that I ran out of MAF and the truck runs much better in OL (but ran out of MAF) than CL, I need some help with CL in that MAF is demanding 507g/s at 10625hz this was only a very short 64mph burst in the log, when i ran it before it was displaying 589g/s at 11000hz 80mph run up. I have done a little mod to my VE.

My question is this:

If the truck is displaying 9.5afr on WB in higher freq. and i look at my calc-ve log and it is asking for more VE (159 - 178%) in higher rpm, how do i get the truck to run proper AFR at part throttle? not 9.5 to 1? Truck is very sluggish in CL, very crisp and responsive in OL.

Any suggestions?

Paul

[WeathermanShawn]

Some of what you saying does not make total sense. If your AFR's in OLMAF were good, then going back to CL would have zero effect in PE Mode. So there should have been no change in AFR at WOT.

What I am seeing is that you are incredibly rich in your entire Tune. It is throwing off your CALC VE Table to a great degree.

Have you thought of doing the CALC.VET instead..http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?15236-A-New-Twist-on-CALC.-VE-Table..Computing-the-Entire-VE-Table.

Even if you go back to OLMAF you will incredibly rich at WOT..Not sure what happened, but it has nothing to do with closed-loop at WOT..:confused:

[spx-7]

Some of what you saying does not make total sense. If your AFR's in OLMAF were good, then going back to CL would have zero effect in PE Mode. So there should have been no change in AFR at WOT.

What I am seeing is that you are incredibly rich in your entire Tune. It is throwing off your CALC VE Table to a great degree.

Have you thought of doing the CALC.VET instead..http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?15236-A-New-Twist-on-CALC.-VE-Table..Computing-the-Entire-VE-Table.

Even if you go back to OLMAF you will incredibly rich at WOT..Not sure what happened, but it has nothing to do with closed-loop at WOT..:confused:

Shawn,

I agree with you analysis that is why i was baffeled. ?I am going to do a calc.vet and let you know.

PAul

[joecar]

I have seen a similar problem like this. the problem in our case was that the NB Front 02 sensor connectors were switched from the correct side. IE: The drivers side harness was plugged into the passengers side 02 and vise versa. This gave us the same issues you are dealing with. We swithced them and presto, everything was great. Hope this helps.LSR, good call...

spx-7, take a close look to see if left/right NBO2 sub-harnesses are swapped (what are the wire colors, including stripes).