Smoothing the VE Table?

[Rich Z]

OK guys, I'm a really wet behind the ears newb, but I figure the best way for me to learn is to look over the tune that was done on my car and try to figure out WHY I am seeing what I am seeing.

I've been reading what I can here, and when provided, I will look at tables and graphs that people have provided of their own tunes.

So when I looked at the VE Table (B0101) for my tune, I dunno, but I seem to recall that most other graphs just looked SMOOTH rather than having all the jagged edges I see in this one.

http://www.corvetteflorida.com/pics/B0101_VE_table_01.jpg

http://www.corvetteflorida.com/pics/B0101_VE_table_02.jpg

http://www.corvetteflorida.com/pics/B0101_VE_table_03.jpg

So is marking all the rough edges and merely smoothing them as a group the way to do this, or is there a reason for the jaggedness that I should just leave as is?

I guess my question boils down to "Is smoothing a magic trick that just makes things better, or do I need to learn much more about this before doing any sort of automated feature?"

Thanks.

[ScarabEpic22]

Wow. Smoothing usually makes it better, but that looks like a hack job. No offense, but thats really bad. Get your WBO2 installed and log it, its going to be all sorts of messed up until 4400rpms.

Id smooth it by hand, then log it. Might be close, might be way off.

[Rich Z]

Yeah, I'm just a newb, but that didn't look all that good to me. This isn't a slap at the tuner who worked on the car for me. He told me that he was just going to get a preliminary tune done, and honestly, I was more interested to see if the car could be tuned and there wasn't something fundamentally wrong going on. After another guy had my car a year before and was pretty much claiming that it could not be tuned, well, I was apprehensive, to say the least.

The most recent tuner told me he would support the car and tune basically for life, but since that time I have had more mechanical issues to deal with and tuning had to take a back seat. Two bolts missing from the bellhousing, another one loose by a quarter inch, and then Pfadt sending the wrong carbon fiber driveshaft that was too long really did a number on my drivetrain.

Quite honestly the car actually feels very strong, as is, so I'm curious now to see how much better it will be with the tuning honed a bit.

I might get the WB hooked up by tomorrow sometime, but with rain in the forecast for the next couple of days, not sure when I'll be able to get it out on the road. Besides, I've still got a heck of a lot to learn, so the time can be put to good use. When you say "smooth it by hand", I don't have a clue about how to do that. Nor do I have any idea about what exactly to log to compare to this table. But I do feel I know a little bit more today than I did yesterday, so it will just take some time to get to where I have an idea about what you guys are talking about. :) This IS a lot to learn, and I just can't go any faster than I am.

Thanks.

[joecar]

Hi Rich,

Yes, by all means, do get all the physical aspects sorted out first.

If you have a manifold referenced FPR, get your tuner to fix the IFR table and to tune VE/MAF from there (make sure he understands the difference in IFR)

[ make sure that the FPR is in fact connected to manifold vacuum, otherwise if not, then the IFR is correct in being sloped ]


To make things easier (and since the IFR will be greatly changed (from sqrt slope to flat)) you may just simply smooth the choppy part of the VE table as Erik said (maybe try to keep the edges the same).


[ Edit: I already know that Rich has a MAP-referenced FPR, but his IFR table is sloped ]

[Rich Z]

Joe, yeah I can watch the fuel pressure change with engine loading, so that should be a good indication that the vacuum line to the FPR is working.

I'm hoping that when my tuner addresses this that I can sort of watch over his shoulder (figuratively speaking) and learn a bit from him.

It's kind of nice that this program shows what tables had changes made to them in the tune but too bad it doesn't tell exactly WHAT was changed in the table. Or does it, and I just haven't figured out how to access that info? Is there anyway to run a comparision between two tunes and itemize the differences? I used to use something like that in my PC programming comparing source code versions.

[Rich Z]

Oh yeah, as for the mechanical issues, I think I've found everything that needs to be done (knock on wood). I've only got some minor things to do, like replace the rubber lined SS braided hose with PTFE lined hose, and do some heat wrapping on the exhaust. I may want to pressure test the plumbing on the turbos just to make sure there aren't any leaks anywhere that I can't inspect visually. It's been a long rocky road, but I think (hope!) I've found everything mechanically that needs to be fixed. After having the destroyed clutch replaced, I've been taking it pretty easy to break the new clutch in properly.

[joecar]

...

It's kind of nice that this program shows what tables had changes made to them in the tune but too bad it doesn't tell exactly WHAT was changed in the table. Or does it, and I just haven't figured out how to access that info? Is there anyway to run a comparision between two tunes and itemize the differences? I used to use something like that in my PC programming comparing source code versions.Yes, if two tune files have the same OS id, then you can compare them...

in the tunetool, open the first file as usual (File->Open), then open the second file as the alternate file (File->Open Alternate or something similar)...

then click the button that has the bidir left/right red arrow, you will see a list of differences, you can click on any difference and it will take you to that table...

when you're at that table, there are buttons to view the table from file A, from file B, and the difference between A and B.

The user manual pdf (included in the V7 install) has more info.

[Rich Z]

Yes, if two tune files have the same OS id, then you can compare them...

in the tunetool, open the first file as usual (File->Open), then open the second file as the alternate file (File->Open Alternate or something similar)...

then click the button that has the bidir left/right red arrow, you will see a list of differences, you can click on any difference and it will take you to that table...

when you're at that table, there are buttons to view the table from file A, from file B, and the difference between A and B.

The user manual pdf (included in the V7 install) has more info.

Hey, now that IS pretty cool. :good:

Thanks for the tip. I'm sure that will come in REAL handy.

[ScarabEpic22]

Hey, now that IS pretty cool. :good:

Thanks for the tip. I'm sure that will come in REAL handy.

Yes it is, just wait until V8 comes out and you can compare across different OSs. :D

[Chevy366]

Once everything is working properly, trust your wideband, there should be some dips and peaks, not like in your OP, smoothing only takes away from the exacting data acquired by your wideband.

[5.7ute]

To me it looks like bad filtering of the data, or not driving to the filters. For example transient throttle data is being applied to the VE table when steady state data is what should be used.
Do a search on here in regards to filter sets & driving techniques. Once you get this down you can dial in a VE table in a couple of runs.

[Rich Z]

To me it looks like bad filtering of the data, or not driving to the filters. For example transient throttle data is being applied to the VE table when steady state data is what should be used.
Do a search on here in regards to filter sets & driving techniques. Once you get this down you can dial in a VE table in a couple of runs.

Unfortunately I'm not savvy enough with this stuff to have any idea of what you are talking about. Certainly that is my fault, not yours, so I still appreciate the offer of help that I need to stretch to be able to reach.

[5.7ute]

Unfortunately I'm not savvy enough with this stuff to have any idea of what you are talking about. Certainly that is my fault, not yours, so I still appreciate the offer of help that I need to stretch to be able to reach.

Have a read through the Autove tutorial that came with the software. If you have any questions after reading that post back & we will see how we can help.

[Rich Z]

Have a read through the Autove tutorial that came with the software. If you have any questions after reading that post back & we will see how we can help.

I'm looking at that tutorial now. Some things are opaque to me. For one thing, I'm going to be using the serial output of my LC-1 and the tutorial is saying to use an analog signal. Maybe the tutorial says something about this further on, but I'm thinking that if this is important, then I need to address it before going much further.

Also, I think my Injector Flow Rate table is definitely wrong, because it is a diagonal line of values, which should not be compatible with my mapped fuel pressure regulator. I have an Excel file that FuelInjectorConnection sent me that is for my fuel injectors, but I don't have a clue about what to do with that in relation to what EFILive needs for fuel injector info.

I'm hoping my tuner can get back online soon to give me a hand with this so I don't drive you guys all nuts with my newbie questions and stumblings.

But one good thing, so far. I've finally found out what the acronym "BEN" stands for. Base Efficiency Numerator. But of course, I don't know what it actually IS or DOES yet.

[5.7ute]

That tutorial was written a while ago & there are a few things that I do differently. But the main points are still valid.
The things I do different are:
I still allow enrichment in the high map areas since we are using a calc based on commanded & actual AFR.
I log commanded EQ, not commanded AFR & EQ from the wideband. If you prefer to use lambda, log commanded lambda & wideband lambda. (you may need to make a calc.pid for commanded lambda.
The reason for this is the innovate wideband will return a value of 14.7 AFR at EQ/Lambda of 1.0. The pcm sees an EQ/lambda of 1.0 as 14.63 or 14.68.(depending on your setting in B3601)(I think, it has been a while since I looked at a tune file) While only a small discrepency it can have you chasing your tail when trying to fine tune.
Yes, your IFR should be a single value for a map referenced regulator & this needs to be addressed.
As for the fuel injector data. Without knocking certain companies since I have no firsthand experience, I would be very wary of the info you have been given as to its validity.

[Rich Z]

That tutorial was written a while ago & there are a few things that I do differently. But the main points are still valid.
The things I do different are:
I still allow enrichment in the high map areas since we are using a calc based on commanded & actual AFR.
I log commanded EQ, not commanded AFR & EQ from the wideband. If you prefer to use lambda, log commanded lambda & wideband lambda. (you may need to make a calc.pid for commanded lambda.
The reason for this is the innovate wideband will return a value of 14.7 AFR at EQ/Lambda of 1.0. The pcm sees an EQ/lambda of 1.0 as 14.63 or 14.68.(depending on your setting in B3601)(I think, it has been a while since I looked at a tune file) While only a small discrepency it can have you chasing your tail when trying to fine tune.
Yes, your IFR should be a single value for a map referenced regulator & this needs to be addressed.
As for the fuel injector data. Without knocking certain companies since I have no firsthand experience, I would be very wary of the info you have been given as to its validity.

Yeah, I've noticed that nearly all of the tutorials are pretty ancient. I wish someone would do some YouTube videos (with VOICE!) of some of this stuff so I could follow along in a step by step.

So will I be able to use the serial interface of the LC-1 with this procedure?

As for the fuel injector data, if the data is possibly suspect from the people who made or reworked these injectors, where and how would one get actual valid data for them?

Let me see if I can find that file and attach it here..... Yeah, OK, should be uploaded here. How can I tell if the injector data is valid or not? I'm assuming that this base info is crucial in getting the tune set up correctly.

I finished reading through the AutoVE Tutorial and I think I get the gist of it. Basically pasting in the data from actual scans into the tune's working VE table. But I've still got to get through the basic scan and tune manuals before some of the steps will make sense to me. I'm pretty sure this is what the tuner did when he was tuning my car, because some of the steps sound familiar when he was doing the tuning. I got to be passenger and laptop holder during that process. :) I remember that he commented that he couldn't get much cell mapping done under boost because the rear tires just broke loose too quickly when boost kicked in.

Well, another day passed that I feel like I know more today than I did yesterday. Woo hoo!

Thanks for your help.

[joecar]

The most recent tutorial is Calc.VET, have a read thru that thread.

Try not to blindly follow the tutorial(s) say... have a think about what is going on (this is how the Calc.VET tries to steer you).

More info:
A-New-Twist-on-CALC-VE-Table-Computing-the-Entire-VE-Table (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?15236-A-New-Twist-on-CALC-VE-Table-Computing-the-Entire-VE-Table)
CALC-VET-Summary-Notes (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?16280-CALC-VET-Summary-Notes)
Summary-Notes (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?14188-Summary-Notes) <-- see post #29

[joecar]

Ok, now after reading the AutoVE tutorial, read the Calc.VET tutorial.

[Rich Z]

The most recent tutorial is Calc.VET, have a read thru that thread.

Try not to blindly follow the tutorial(s) say... have a think about what is going on (this is how the Calc.VET tries to steer you).

More info:
A-New-Twist-on-CALC-VE-Table-Computing-the-Entire-VE-Table (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?15236-A-New-Twist-on-CALC-VE-Table-Computing-the-Entire-VE-Table)
CALC-VET-Summary-Notes (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?16280-CALC-VET-Summary-Notes)
Summary-Notes (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?14188-Summary-Notes) <-- see post #29

Ah, thank you. Answers my question about the serial WB. But honestly all the acronyms are spinning the clutch between my eyes and my brain, and I'm afraid my brain has glazed over a bit.

Haven't soldered up my LC-1 yet. Been crappy outside and didn't feel like walking over to the garage. Besides, my wife is cooking Christmas cookies and SOMEONE has to be the taste tester..... :)

[Rich Z]

Ok, now after reading the AutoVE tutorial, read the Calc.VET tutorial.

Joe, btw, I found a Calc.VE tutorial that I just printed out (hey, I'm an OLD guy and still like reading printed materials!). Is this the same thing as what you are saying (Calc.VET) here?

Thanks!

[ScarabEpic22]

NO, Calc.VET is different. Calc.VE is the first version of the method, Calc.VET lets you do BOTH the VE and MAF tables whereas IIRC Calc.VE just does the VE.

Im 23 and still prefer reading things on paper, especially technical things. Makes marking them up a LOT easier. :D

Check these threads out Rich:

http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?15236-A-New-Twist-on-CALC-VE-Table-Computing-the-Entire-VE-Table
http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?16280-CALC-VET-Summary-Notes

Shawn was a master at this, one day I hope to develop a similar procedure for the E38/E67s (if its even possible).

[Rich Z]

NO, Calc.VET is different. Calc.VE is the first version of the method, Calc.VET lets you do BOTH the VE and MAF tables whereas IIRC Calc.VE just does the VE.

Im 23 and still prefer reading things on paper, especially technical things. Makes marking them up a LOT easier. :D

Check these threads out Rich:

http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?15236-A-New-Twist-on-CALC-VE-Table-Computing-the-Entire-VE-Table
http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?16280-CALC-VET-Summary-Notes

Shawn was a master at this, one day I hope to develop a similar procedure for the E38/E67s (if its even possible).

Well, I guess I haven't found that Calc.VET tutorial yet. But since in my tune, {B0120} is set to 7000rpm, does that mean I am not using MAF at all?

[darcy]

Well, I guess I haven't found that Calc.VET tutorial yet. But since in my tune, {B0120} is set to 7000rpm, does that mean I am not using MAF at all?

Hey Rich Z,

The Calc.VET tutorial is in the 1st post of the 1st link from ScarabEpic22. LINK (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?15236-A-New-Twist-on-CALC-VE-Table-Computing-the-Entire-VE-Table&p=135867&viewfull=1#post135867)

B0120 sets at what level the MAF is used exclusively - your tune would always be using a blend of VE/MAF.

+2 on the reading paper docs. I assimilate technical content much easier with paper and a highlighter.

darcy

[joecar]

+1 on post #1 being the tutorial.

+3 on paper docs (I like adding my own notes, and bookmarking with post-it's).


This shows the relationships between the various tutorials/methods:


Summary-Notes (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?14188-Summary-Notes) <-- see post #29



If you get stuck on an acronym, post it here.

[Rich Z]

If you get stuck on an acronym, post it here.

OK, I'm reading through the tuning manual, and am stuck on this one:

Sequentially disables each injector while monitoring the associated drop in RPM. The relative strength of each cylinder is displayed. (LS1/LS6 non-ETC only)

What does "ETC" stand for?

BTW, it would be REALLY helpful if the tutorials had a glossary of terms included for cases like this. Yeah, I know you guys all know these acronyms like the back of your hand, but since these tutorials are likely for newbies like me, the acronyms really throw a monkey wrench in the learning curve. At least for me, anyway.

[darcy]

Hey Rich,

ETC is Electronic Throttle Control, sometimes also referred to DBW for Drive By Wire, as oppesed to a tradional cable operated throttle body, sometimes referred to as DBC (Drive by cable)

darcy

[Rich Z]

Hey Rich,

ETC is Electronic Throttle Control, sometimes also referred to DBW for Drive By Wire, as oppesed to a tradional cable operated throttle body, sometimes referred to as DBC (Drive by cable)

darcy

You know, I actually thought of "Electronic Throttle Control", but I figured that it COULDN'T be that in the context of that tutorial. I take it, then that there are a substantial number of factory cars running LS1 and LS6 engines with cable operated throttle bodies?

Thanks!

[ScarabEpic22]

All LS1/6 Vettes came with DBW/ETC AFAIK.

I dont know if you really need to do that test though, been ages since I read that manual so no idea what the context is.

[Rich Z]

All LS1/6 Vettes came with DBW/ETC AFAIK.

I dont know if you really need to do that test though, been ages since I read that manual so no idea what the context is.

As far as I know, yes, you are correct about the drive by wire for the C5 Corvettes. Which is why that statement threw me. But there are other vehicles out there that came with LS1 and LS6 engines, so I suppose some of them could have cable actuated throttles.

Yeah, man, I'm trying to read everything I can. But finding a surprising amount of stuff that is either obsolete or just downright confusing because I don't know the context it applies to. I sometimes feel that I'm too late coming to this party and most everyone has already gone home, or moved off to another party somewhere.

[joecar]

The LS6 came in the C5 Corvette Z06 and Cadillac CTSV, both of those had DBW.

The LS6 has been transplanted into many DBC cars like the 4th Gen Camaro/Firebird into which it is a direct bolt in (other than the DBW throttle body).

[joecar]

Lol, we're still partying, we just haven't yet realized that it's 10 years later

:cheers:

[ScarabEpic22]

I cant believe Ill have been around for 7 years in April, holy cow. Almost a third of my life!

I know the F body cars are all DBC, the trucks that used the LSx architecture were DBC until 2002. Then they were DBW. The Escalade was an exception for 2002 only, I believe it used the new 1MB LS1 PCM that had DBW stuff. There are so many combos I cant remember them all.

[Rich Z]

If you get stuck on an acronym, post it here.

OK, I can't figure out this one so far. What does "RAFIG" mean?

[darcy]

OK, I can't figure out this one so far. What does "RAFIG" mean?

RAFIG is Required Air Flow In Gear

[Rich Z]

RAFIG is Required Air Flow In Gear

Thank you. I'm compiling a list of these tuning acronyms so I can look them up as I run into them. It's helping tremendously. It's amazing how senseless some of the discussions here can be if you don't understand the terms people are referring to.

[Mr. P.]

OK some thoughts for you to consider, that worked for me:

First I would change how you look at your VE table - top axis should be MAP kPa (metric), the numbers/data should be "grams/cylinder" (aka speed-density) instead of percent VE. Once you've done that, THEN take a look at the shape of your main VE table...


... "Is smoothing a magic trick that just makes things better, or do I need to learn much more about this before doing any sort of automated feature?"

Thanks.

Lots of calibrators sell smoothed VE tables; personally I keep the peaks and valleys, WITHIN REASON. The VE table you posted is scary, and undoubtedly incorrect because no engine I can imagine would process air that way in reality; if the VE map arrived that way from the AutoVE process then I would recheck the math in your calculated PIDs, feed from your wideband, BENS PID, data filters, etc. The data filters are *critical*, you cannot get anything reasonable if you are making fueling corrections from the wrong data in the log! Likewise, you need to make doubly sure that during the AutoVE process you have disabled DFCO/PE, checked commanded fuel, disabled the MAF etc etc etc to truly put the PCM in speed-density mode before logging.

It was explained to me that the reason against a jagged VE table is because: during operation if the PCM wanders from a 'smooth' cell to a 'peaky' cell it will errantly think the motor has just swallowed a huge gulp of air when in reality it actually hasn't - the PCM "panics" because of this falsely calculated massive air change, and responds with all kinds of spark nonsense like burst knock retard, torque management, etc etc etc. I was given a specific number, my memory says it was either 3% or 5% meaning that in a 'sane' VE table one should see values in neighboring cells within 3-5% of each other. Give or take, use your judgment.

I am learning that it is more important to give the motor "what it wants" rather than a sexy, overly-smoothed mathematical model - when I had a smoothed VE table, the vehicle performed worse, got 20% worse MPG, was doggy of the line. After letting AutoVE take it's course, my VE table has prominent dips at 2000-RPM and 2800-RPM (see attached, these dips look like accordion folds in a map), these dips are not big but they're certainly present because when I try to smooth them out by hand the wideband and the truck's performance reveals them as legitimate; I explain this to myself as an effect of the headers/exhaust/intake plumbing design (resonant frequencies, helmholtz effect, airflow dynamics, blah blah blah, who knows!...) but it's obvious that this is the map of airflow in this application. With the slight peakiness present my MPG went way up, the vehicle is an animal to drive (!), it just "runs right" and does not have KR etc, the average MAP reading during cruise is lower (the motor has much more manifold vacuum at cruise) etc all signs of a happy motor.

I would double-check your tuning setup, and then go ahead and somewhat smooth the VE table (or start from your stock one) and begin the AutoVE process. It will take a few repeats of the AutoVE process with you smoothing on each iteration; after the map is within +- 4% of it's final shape, you will discover that smoothing is probably not necessary anymore, and you can let nature take it's course as the map settles into its final shape. The point is not to arrive at a sexy smoothed formulaic 3D graph - rather the point is to accurately map the airflow consumption through the engine!

14337

Since I've gone this far, a couple more things I've discovered: the AutoVE tutorial recommends that once you get fueling to within 1-2% of ideal you're done; I've been able to achieve fueling to within +- 0.15% (it took many iterations of AutoVE and a great wideband), and the result was a major increase in MPG, and substantial reduction in part-throttle KR. I've seen KR eliminated by correcting a slight rich condition (-0.5 AFR) and did not have to touch the spart tables. Running a little rich will induce KR! Last discovery I've made, when you modify timing the motor will respond by running rich or lean - when you change timing, you will find your fueling is off 1-2% again in the affected cells, necessitating follow-up correction (AutoVE). Changes in spark timing affects fueling, so my best practice is a sequence of AutoVE first, then once the main VE table is pretty "solid" I will start shaping timing, then go back and do a follow-up round of AutoVE again. In my case I bought a "Starter Tune" from a reputable guy in the EFILive community, and was able to massage it from there.

A lot to digest, hope this experience helps.

- Steve :)

PS - sorry to read that you have had so much trouble, that is what takes the fun out of a project like this. And whoever told you "it's not tunable" was speaking soley for himself. :ermm:

[Rich Z]

OK some thoughts for you to consider, that worked for me:

First I would change how you look at your VE table - top axis should be MAP kPa (metric), the numbers/data should be "grams/cylinder" (aka speed-density) instead of percent VE. Once you've done that, THEN take a look at the shape of your main VE table...



Lots of calibrators sell smoothed VE tables; personally I keep the peaks and valleys, WITHIN REASON. The VE table you posted is scary, and undoubtedly incorrect because no engine I can imagine would process air that way in reality; if the VE map arrived that way from the AutoVE process then I would recheck the math in your calculated PIDs, feed from your wideband, BENS PID, data filters, etc. The data filters are *critical*, you cannot get anything reasonable if you are making fueling corrections from the wrong data in the log! Likewise, you need to make doubly sure that during the AutoVE process you have disabled DFCO/PE, checked commanded fuel, disabled the MAF etc etc etc to truly put the PCM in speed-density mode before logging.

It was explained to me that the reason against a jagged VE table is because: during operation if the PCM wanders from a 'smooth' cell to a 'peaky' cell it will errantly think the motor has just swallowed a huge gulp of air when in reality it actually hasn't - the PCM "panics" because of this falsely calculated massive air change, and responds with all kinds of spark nonsense like burst knock retard, torque management, etc etc etc. I was given a specific number, my memory says it was either 3% or 5% meaning that in a 'sane' VE table one should see values in neighboring cells within 3-5% of each other. Give or take, use your judgment.

I am learning that it is more important to give the motor "what it wants" rather than a sexy, overly-smoothed mathematical model - when I had a smoothed VE table, the vehicle performed worse, got 20% worse MPG, was doggy of the line. After letting AutoVE take it's course, my VE table has prominent dips at 2000-RPM and 2800-RPM (see attached, these dips look like accordion folds in a map), these dips are not big but they're certainly present because when I try to smooth them out by hand the wideband and the truck's performance reveals them as legitimate; I explain this to myself as an effect of the headers/exhaust/intake plumbing design (resonant frequencies, helmholtz effect, airflow dynamics, blah blah blah, who knows!...) but it's obvious that this is the map of airflow in this application. With the slight peakiness present my MPG went way up, the vehicle is an animal to drive (!), it just "runs right" and does not have KR etc, the average MAP reading during cruise is lower (the motor has much more manifold vacuum at cruise) etc all signs of a happy motor.

I would double-check your tuning setup, and then go ahead and somewhat smooth the VE table (or start from your stock one) and begin the AutoVE process. It will take a few repeats of the AutoVE process with you smoothing on each iteration; after the map is within +- 4% of it's final shape, you will discover that smoothing is probably not necessary anymore, and you can let nature take it's course as the map settles into its final shape. The point is not to arrive at a sexy smoothed formulaic 3D graph - rather the point is to accurately map the airflow consumption through the engine!

14337

Since I've gone this far, a couple more things I've discovered: the AutoVE tutorial recommends that once you get fueling to within 1-2% of ideal you're done; I've been able to achieve fueling to within +- 0.15% (it took many iterations of AutoVE and a great wideband), and the result was a major increase in MPG, and substantial reduction in part-throttle KR. I've seen KR eliminated by correcting a slight rich condition (-0.5 AFR) and did not have to touch the spart tables. Running a little rich will induce KR! Last discovery I've made, when you modify timing the motor will respond by running rich or lean - when you change timing, you will find your fueling is off 1-2% again in the affected cells, necessitating follow-up correction (AutoVE). Changes in spark timing affects fueling, so my best practice is a sequence of AutoVE first, then once the main VE table is pretty "solid" I will start shaping timing, then go back and do a follow-up round of AutoVE again. In my case I bought a "Starter Tune" from a reputable guy in the EFILive community, and was able to massage it from there.

A lot to digest, hope this experience helps.

- Steve :)

PS - sorry to read that you have had so much trouble, that is what takes the fun out of a project like this. And whoever told you "it's not tunable" was speaking soley for himself. :ermm:

Surprisingly enough, what you are saying actually makes some sense to me. So maybe some of this stuff is sinking in.

I've been thumbing through the CALC.VET tutorial lately, so what relationship does CALC.VET have with AutoVE? Should one be done before the other?

Sorry if I sometimes repeat myself. This is all new, and it appears that the funnel for pouring new knowledge into my brain has gotten much smaller and slower the older I get.

As for using my "stock VE" there is no such thing. Nothing that counts on that engine is stock.

And yeah, this has been quite a nightmare with this car. I've actually put the tuning study on hold as I have my car up on the lift and torn apart somewhat replacing the rubber lined SS fuel lines with PTFE lines. I'm still waiting on a couple of parts to show up. Plus the weather has been rather crappy, so this probably was a good time to do this.

Thank you for your insight.

[joecar]

Relationships: see post #29 here: Summary-Notes (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?14188-Summary-Notes)


Calc.VET is the easiest to do since it requires almost no setup.

[joecar]

Typically: do AutoVE first followed by AutoMAF (these can be tedious on the street).

Shortcut: do Calc.VET first (very easy to do on the street), and then if necessary do AutoVE and AutoMAF.

Properly: do AutoVE and AutoMAF on loadable dyno, cross check with Calc.VET and/or Calc.MAFT (Calc.MAFT is not possible on all OS's).

[joecar]

Take note that Calc.VET and Calc.MAFT can be done with CL/trims disabled (in which case you use only strictly WO2BEN).


Note the following:
- AutoVE is a special case of Calc.MAFT,
- AutoMAF is a special case of Calc.VET.

[Rich Z]

OK, thanks. I think I'll fiddle with CALC.VET first. Right now, "very easy" is what I am looking for. :)

[Mr. P.]

Not a bad strategy, that should get the car running at least reasonable enough to get it to the dyno.

- Steve :)

[Boost]

Yes it is, just wait until V8 comes out and you can compare across different OSs. :D

Babe baaaybe! :D

[Chevy366]

Smooth VE is not the thing to do, figured that out back in 2006.
Why mess up what highly accurate devices calibrate?

[joecar]

Smooth VE is not the thing to do, figured that out back in 2006.
Why mess up what highly accurate devices calibrate?+1.