Commanded AFR not equal to WBo2 AFR at idle.

[macca33]

G'day all, I think this is my very first post on this forum, having been a long time lurker and reader.

I own a 2001 HSV Senator 300 M6, which has an LS1 engine - ETP215 heads, Comp 215/223 @111lsa camshaft and all the rest of the good gear.

I recently purchased EFIlive - after doing the spannerwork on my engine mods and have enjoyed an immense amount of assistance from forum regulars here - JezzaB, macca_779 and Swingtan.

I'm running MAFless - OLSD - as the car came stock with this configuration and I'm using EFIlive COS3. I updated to the latest drivers / Firmware, etc yesterday.

JezzaB provided me with a good base tune and the other two have assisted with tweaks to dial it right in for me.

I've reached a point where it is running extremely well - great manners and the driveability is excellent. It is making around 395rwhp at the top and around 411lb/ft torque.

Anyway, I've been playing around with my idle settings lately - going through the tutorials written by Weatherman Shawn and others (thanks lads), but have come to a point where I am a little perplexed.

At idle my commanded AFRs are not corresponding to the WBo2 readings. I know the gearis dialled in correctly, because the AFR readings match when off-idle and throughout the rev-range - well, within a couple of percent anyway.

I've attached a copy of my latest iteration of a tune and the accompanying idle log.

What do you think? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

cheers

[swingtan]

I can't remember if you said that you'd adjusted the VE table, but it looks likes it's just a bit high in the idle cells. The VE is very "smooth" for an LS1 so I'd do a couple of auto VE passes over it to clean it up. If you really don't want to touch the VE table in other areas because you like the way it runs, you can manually adjust the VE just in the idle cells. Just take about 7% out of the idles cells.

Simon.

[macca33]

Thanks mate - I did go a tad strong with the smoothing after I did an AutoVE (I like smooth!), so I may do as you say and see how it goes from there.

cheers

[vxchev8]

map your BEN and make adjustments from your idle log. What thermo stat are u running? . If it's a 160f then change to 71c (currently at 60C / 140f).

[macca33]

Just running the standard thermostat - as far as I am aware.

I've done another autoVE, so I'll do a couple of logs and see where we end up - the new idle log is fairly close now.

[macca33]

Just a bit of an update - I've completed a few SDautoVE logging sessions and have managed to cover the 800-6800rpm range between 15-55kpa fairly well. I also did an idle specific one, which for my car is 800rpm / ~45kpa and then did a RAFIG to clean it all up. All is going nicely at present and the AFRs vs Commanded are very close - still some discrepancy throughout the rev range, but closing in fast.

Thanks for your help lads.

[joecar]

Post new files :)

[mr.prick]

What is the AFR value for EQ 1.00?
The stoich AFR value for your WBO2 most likely does not match the value of {B3601} exactly.
I have seen {GM.AFR} out of sync with {B3601} and {GM.EQIVRATIO}.

Use {EXT.WO2EQR1} and/or {EXT.WO2LAM1} with {GM.EQIVRATIO} for Gen III PCM & serial WBO2.
You will need a new BEN factor pid(s) for this.
({GM.EQIVRATIO}/{EXT.WO2EQR1})
({GM.EQIVRATIO}*{EXT.WO2LAM1})

[macca33]

Joecar - I'll post some once I've done more logging.

Mr Prick - I'm not 100% certain as to what you're telling me, but I'll try to digest your advice and change the PID to the calculation you are suggesting, then report back.

Thanks

[macca33]

Mr Prick, I've just taken a look at your calculator and also the literature that comes with the Techedge and note that the Techedge calls AFR Stoichmetric 14.7 for the fuel I am using. Should I simply be altering my B3601 to read 13.7 or is there something I am missing?

[mr.prick]

13.7? :sly:
{B3601} should be set to the fuel type you are using.
{B3647} has some strange values IMO they are a bit lean.

Use serial EQ/Lambda and whatever {B3601} is for a multiplier (BEN)
and use that value with serial EQ/Lambda for AFR.

Here's some calc_pids for this. :grin:
10235

For {CALC.AFR} & {CALC.WBO2} replace 14.628573 with your stoich AFR value.

[Sid447]

Hello macca33,

First question I'd like to ask is whether you still have your original factory tune file?
(I've been hunting for a 100% stock GTS tune file for some time).

As to your questions; it may be better to ensure your IFR tables are set up correctly as you appear to be running bigger injectors but only your Injector Flow Rate has been changed.
As I understand it there may be other changes required in B3701 and B4005 to suit.
This, if it is a definate requirement, should be done before looking at any adjustment to AFR from other parts of the tune. :)

[macca33]

Cheers Sid - I'll take a look at those tables.

I do have the original C4B tune from my PCM - PM me your email address and I'll forward it to you.

cheers

[gmperformancecentre]

Hello macca33,

First question I'd like to ask is whether you still have your original factory tune file?
(I've been hunting for a 100% stock GTS tune file for some time).

As to your questions; it may be better to ensure your IFR tables are set up correctly as you appear to be running bigger injectors but only your Injector Flow Rate has been changed.
As I understand it there may be other changes required in B3701 and B4005 to suit.
This, if it is a definate requirement, should be done before looking at any adjustment to AFR from other parts of the tune. :)

I have stock tunes for 2002 HSV GTS Manual , 2003 HSV GTS Auto and 2004 HSV GTS Manual if you need them
post if you want me to post them up

[nevinsb]

You can also send them to www.holdencrazy.com

[macca33]

What is the AFR value for EQ 1.00?
The stoich AFR value for your WBO2 most likely does not match the value of {B3601} exactly.
I have seen {GM.AFR} out of sync with {B3601} and {GM.EQIVRATIO}.

Use {EXT.WO2EQR1} and/or {EXT.WO2LAM1} with {GM.EQIVRATIO} for Gen III PCM & serial WBO2.
You will need a new BEN factor pid(s) for this.
({GM.EQIVRATIO}/{EXT.WO2EQR1})
({GM.EQIVRATIO}*{EXT.WO2LAM1})



I hve been very busy lately and haven't had a lot of tiime to devote to the tuning of the car. I did, however, finally work out what you were asking here.

As per the TechEdge documentation, the unit is set up to read stoichiometric as 14.70:1, thus, it appears it has that error margin, compared to actual air/fuel ratio.

I checked a log and at EQ1.00, the GM.AFR PID reads as 14.70.

I have read your other posts in this thread, as well as your thread on getting the WBo2 to match Commanded AFR readings (incorporating your Excel spreadsheet), however, I am buggered if I know how to make the alterations to my EFIlive settings to make it correspond, nor do I have any idea how to create a PID.

I must say, the currrent tune is running well and is doing almost all that I want, but I have a very annoying light surge issue - I believe it may be a lean-out - at the 1600-1700rpm / 35-40kpa cells, thus, I'd like to get the WBo2 / AFR readings dialled-in as close as humanly possible, which may allow me to solve this surge issue.

Can anybody assist here please?

[mr.prick]

In the .tun you have {B3601} Ratio of Air to Fuel for Stoichiometry = 14.628573 AFR
There is a bit of error there if serial AFR = 14.7

10495
Use {GM.EQIVRATIO} instead of {GM.AFR} and define Commanded/actual AFR with serial EQ/Lambda & {B3601}

[joecar]

macca33, post your calc_pids.txt file (found in the folder My Documents\EFILive\V7.5\User Configuration).

[joecar]

macca,

mr.prick is saying to do two things:
1. set B3601 to stoich AFR, which yours already is (14.63) [unless your petrol contains alcohol which lowers the stoich AFR).
2. use wideband Lambda rather than AFR for BEN corrections (since Lambda is independent of stoich AFR).

Do you have a V1 or V2...?

If you have a V2, then is your TechEdge connected to the V2 via the serial comms interface (the answer should be "yes").

[macca33]

Cheers Joe.

I am using 14.63 in B3601.

I do have a serial connnection b/w V2 and TechEdge.

I am posting my calc_pids.txt - it appears to be empty, so to speak??? Am I suppposed to replace my calc_pids.txt with the one that Mr.Prick posted?

I have selected the 'GM.EQUIVRATIO' PID to do the SDautoVE logging now. Is this what you (and Mr.Prick) are instructing? BTW - I have my logging set so that all of the WBo2 info is logged, ie AFR, EQ & Lambda.

Once again, thanks all for your help..

[joecar]

macca,

(I wanted to make sure we weren't losing anything it previously contained)

Yes, you can replace it with mr.prick's file...

use the pid CALC.LAMBDA_BEN for SDAutoVE (i.e. use CALC.LAMBDA_BEN as the data pid in your BEN map).

[macca33]

Cheers mate - that makes it clear to me now. I'll do another SDautoVE and report back.

Thanks.

[macca33]

Well, it seems to have come a fair way since the last time - I've done some more SDautoVE logging and have adjusted the VE table to suit. It appears to be fairly good at this stage - undoubtedly, people have achieved better, however, I'm almost satisfied with how it is - I'd only do more fine-tuning if I had the benefit of the use of a dyno at this stage and then, I'd only be looking at the 70kpa+ 1200-6800tables and the 5600+25kpa-65kpa tables. I reckon the rest is dialled-in fairly well....I think! :confused:

I'm posting the current tune and two short logs that I took of this current tune, with a couple of short WOT bursts. Interestingly, this engine combo is taking quite a lot of fuel - certainly a lot more than the old engine which was a similar combo, although the camshaft was different. The DCR of this camshaft is up at 9.2:1, compared to the other cam which was at about 8.7:1.

Importantly, with the tune as it currently is, the car is driving smoother than ever and feels VERY strong from off-idle right up to the shift-point, set at 6450rpm.

If anyone has any comments / suggestions, please contribute.

cheers

[joecar]

Hi macca,

Looks good... you might try to get the WOT area of the VE table upped a little, see pic.

[macca33]

Thanks Joe - I am probably still about 3-5% or so out at WOT, but am concerned, as it is taking so much fuel up there. I'll try a couple more WOT passes - if the clutch holds out and get it closer.

In you opinion, does the amount of fuel it is taking up around 85kpa+ seem over the top, or are they sane values???

Thanks for your help.

cheers

[joecar]

Could make the 95kPa and 100kPa columns of B3647 both EQR 1.14 (AFR 12.8)... this is good for WOT...

you can experiment, set it to EQR 1.16 (AFR 12.6) and see if you get any improvement in ET/TS.


When you increase the high area of the VE table by 3-5%, subsequent log should show wideband EQR (WO2EQR) convergent on commanded EQR (EQIVRATIO)...

if not, then something else is wrong... but hopefully it will converge.

[macca33]

Thannks for that advice. I had added some fuel to the 95-100kpa cells previously, as it was running at about 13.7:1AFR at WOT and is now closer at around 13.2:1, so it is working. Unfortunately, I'm a bit hesitant to test it now, as the clutch is almost ready to die - have to put a new one in. The oem clutch doesn't like the WOT pulls at all!

Thanks for your advice - it has been very helpful.


cheers

cheers

[macca33]

Well, I've been away from this thread for a little while, as I figured that my tune was dialled-in rather nicely - the car is making 410rwhp peak power, a bucket load of torque and is driving very nicely.

But, ever the interfering type, I decided to actually insert the proper injector tables into the tune. I'm using Bosch 36lb/hr injectors and have used the Corvette ASA injector tables, as recommended by several people.

I have done a couple of SD auto VE logs over the past two days and do still have a fair bit to go on the current tune, but the similarities between the VE tables obviously mean that the new injector tables were not that far off the old ones. I 'spose that in my case, it hasn't made a lot of difference, but it is best to be 100%, so I'll stick to the ASA injector specs. I'll do some more AutoVE work and see how we end up.

I've posted the two different tunes, to show the difference in VE tables. I have improved my smoothing technique lately, so the ASA tune is a tad smoother, although not yet completed. Once complete, I'll do a couple of logs and post them.

cheers

[macca33]

I have had a bit of a surge issue b/w 1000-1700rpm - due to my lack of tuning expertise, without doubt!

I'd left it for a while, but grew sick of it so decided to give it a crack tonight. What I ended up doing, was logging the problem and isolating the cells where the surging was occurring, then adjusting the timing - upwards - to see whether it would make a difference. Well, I had success and it all came down to looking at what timing I was commanding and realising that it was clearly insufficient. Before, I had really bad off-idle to 1400rpm surge and a bad surge also, at around 1600rpm. Now, I can take off on a level surface - clutch-only (remembering it is a brass button clutch) - and the car is VERY smooth. The other trouble area was 50kph in 4th in urban streets (~1600rpm) and it is now solved also.

I know that it isn't rocket science to most, but I'm fairly happy with the outcome.


cheers

[joecar]

macca, good job :cheers: thanks for sharing.

[maudyZ28]

thanks for this update, just read the thread good work,

i've been having some surging about the same RPMs but running a modified Z06 spark table rather than my stock camaro 99 one. Might edit a few low MAP low rpm cells to see if spark advance helps.

[macca33]

Thanks lads.

Maudy - I simply recreated the issue in a couple of logs, then when I reviewed the logs and located the offending cells, had a play with the timing. I referenced the oem tune for that given point and it showed that my timing was a bit low in comparison to oem tunes that I had. My timing had also been blended in the original tune, so the timing figures were slightly different across the load points in question. I simply raised the timing by a degree in one rpm row and a few degrees in another row - then made the timing figure consistent across a few load points and the improvement was immediately apparent.

I'll try to upload both tunes later today.

cheers

[macca33]

G'day again all and Happy Easter.

A while back, I became concerned that the TE 2J9 may have been faulty, as the recorded AFRs on a dyno contrasted to those detected by the 2J9. I was commanding 12.87:1 - confirmed by the dyno WBo2, but the 2J9 kept telling me I was lean - out to 13.5:1. I tried the same comparison test on another dyno and the same error - with the same differential - resulted. I also checked my WBo2 and spark plugs and noticed evidence of richness.

I contacted TechEdge and discussed my issue, resulting in a new 2J9 being sent out to me. I've conducted some SDautoVE work and can happily say that the new unit is reading accurately - so it is full steam ahead once again. Naturally, it is a pain to have to re-do the entire VE table (I would guesstimate that it was approximately 4-5% out across the entire table), but it will be good to have it all running properly - finally!!!

cheers

[joecar]

Hi macca,

Was this with serial comms or analog connection between the 2J9 and V2...?

Glad they have you a new one :cheers: that's good customer support.

Let us know how your tuning goes.

Happy Easter.

[macca33]

G'day Joe. Serial connection mate - via one of TAQ's cables. I was always suspicious that the car was running rich - exhaust pipe (and sparkplugs moreso) don't lie. I, however, placed my faith in the 2J9, until the dyno runs confirmed it was very rich at WOT, thus leading to the conclusion that it would be rich throughout - which I have now proven to be the case.

TE were very good - as you'd expect - and I'll be getting the VE Table up and running again soon.

cheers