VE tuning method observation

[jnorris]

When tuning the VE table while in SD mode (MAFless) using AutoVE the values in the main VE table at 2000 RPM/MAP 40 and 45 were 54.99 and 54.06.

When tuning the VE table using the PID VE% (with MAF)method the values in the main VE table at 2000 RPM/MAP 40 and 45 were 52.21 and 54.66.

When tuning the VE table using the LTFT method (with MAF) the values in the main VE table at 2000 RPM/MAP 40 and 45 were 63.33 and 63.41.


The SD mode AutoVE values and the calculated values with the VE % PID were really close to each other but the VE values using the LTFT average/factor method were very much different.
Why is there such a big difference?

John

[Black02SS]

When tuning the VE table while in SD mode (MAFless) using AutoVE the values in the main VE table at 2000 RPM/MAP 40 and 45 were 54.99 and 54.06.

When tuning the VE table using the PID VE% (with MAF)method the values in the main VE table at 2000 RPM/MAP 40 and 45 were 52.21 and 54.66.

When tuning the VE table using the LTFT method (with MAF) the values in the main VE table at 2000 RPM/MAP 40 and 45 were 63.33 and 63.41.


The SD mode AutoVE values and the calculated values with the VE % PID were really close to each other but the VE values using the LTFT average/factor method were very much different.
Why is there such a big difference?

John How did you tune using the LTFT's and VE% PID with the MAF connected? I would think the MAF being connected caused you problems when trying to get them inline when only adjusting them by the VE table. What was the commanded and acutal AFR for those values after you tuned them? I'd like to see if there is any variance. Also, was the same MAF calibration (B5001) used for all the tests?

PS - I called and left a message on your VM.

[jnorris]

I will flash the PCM with the PID values and see how it looks.