Show me your A0014's

[vetteboy2k]

As the title suggest, I just want to see if I am on the same track as others on here.

Heres mine :nixweiss:


http://www.angermanagementracing.com/picture_library/A0014.JPG

[oztracktuning]

Mine is the total reverse of that one. Using a Over radiator cai - i have about
0.96 at 10deg C
0.98 at 20deg C
1.00 at 30deg C
1.04 at 40deg C
1.08 at 50 deg C

It seems weird but its working!

[ringram]

Mine is same as flyer pretty much. Again, not sure why. Maybe the charge blend table is out of whack and the backwards A00014 fixes it?
Will investigate more in a few weeks when my dart heads and cam are on :)

[jsttry]

I too change like Flyer does

[vetteboy2k]

Yea, I guess i was going the wrong way. My assumtion was that I needed more fuel with lower IAT's. I guess the assumption is right, but the application is wrong.

I know EFILive is coming out with a new OS that will address this after LS2/7 support, are they having it work the opposite way like stated here, or is it going off theory, and not whats seen in the real world?

[Tordne]

I have been testing with this table a bit lately and this is what I have found works for me:

In another thread Paul (Blacky) posted a spreadsheet that attempted to calculate (I guess with scientific basis) what the values should be. It had many columns to allow you to define at which IAT temp is your 1.0 factor and then scale the rest of the table appropriately. The results seemed to be in contrast what what people (me included) are seeing.

In my previous testing I have found the same results as Flyer and ringram (where the factor increases as the IAT increases).

This last test what I decided to do is reverse the values in the spreadsheet that Paul produced. This seems to be pretty much spot on IMO.

So my table scaled so that an IAT of 30*C is 1.00 looks like:

LABELS IAT VE Multiplier (Multiplier)
IAT °C {link: SAE.IAT} Value
-40 0.911377
-30 0.922607
-20 0.934082
-10 0.946289
0 0.958984
10 0.972168
20 0.985596
30 1.000000
40 1.014892
50 1.030517
60 1.046875
70 1.063965
80 1.081787
90 1.100830
100 1.120849
110 1.141846
120 1.164307
130 1.187988
140 1.213135

Cheers,

[TAQuickness]

tordne - will you email a copy of that spreadsheet. I get an error when i try to download it

[GMPX]

As the title suggest, I just want to see if I am on the same track as others on here.

Heres mine :nixweiss:


http://www.angermanagementracing.com/picture_library/A0014.JPG (http://www.angermanagementracing.com/picture_library/A0014.JPG)

Yes, that is backwards, most have found the hotter the intake temp it leans out, esp at idle, low throttle. I found the charge table didn't seem to help the problem either.......oh, this is running full open loop, no O2 feedback at all.

Cheers,
Ross

[oztracktuning]

My table was very similar
but i have just pasted yours Tordne

Here was my one.

0.979980
0.979980
0.979980
0.979980
0.979980
0.979980
0.979980
0.989990
1.010010
1.030029
1.050049
1.070068
1.090088
1.110107
1.100098
1.100098
1.100098
1.100098
1.100098

Here is the difference between mine and yours

0.068603
0.057373
0.045898
0.033691
0.020996
0.007812
-0.005616
-0.010010
-0.004882
-0.000488
0.003174
0.006103
0.008301
0.009277
-0.020751
-0.041748
-0.064209
-0.087890
-0.113037

[Tordne]

I'll be interested to see your results (either way).

I think if I was to start all over again with the Custom OS I might actually find where my IAT is most likely to be at 1.00 and then install the appropriate table to start with. I think that a lot of my changes have been related to variances in IAT. Often times the same cells will toggle from perhaps 0.98 to 1.02 BEN, and it might be that one log was done at say 20*C IAT and another at 30*C IAT.

I am finding that my values are a lot more consistent as a result :)

[ringram]

Yep. Works nice for me as stated above. I might just need to extend the operating range for summer. Hopefully heads and cam in about a week. (Got postponed 7 days!!!!!)

[vetteboy2k]

What I am thinking might be a valuable addition to the next custom OS is to have the A0014 Open Loop IAT VE Multiplier Table have a range more closely related to real world temps. My IAT's generally are around 10°F above ambient and I am never near -20,30,40°C nor near 100,110,120,130,140°C. If we could have more values near 20-30°C I think that will help most of us be more spot on during those normal operating IAT area's.

I see through my logs in Open loop, the closer I am to colder IAT's the ritcher the A/F but then as the IAT's rise (in the same 20°C row) the mixture gets leaner. If there were more values for this table I could really hone A0014 in.

Something like below for example.

LABELS IAT VE Multiplier (Multiplier)
IAT °C {link: SAE.IAT} Value
-10
0
8
11
14
17
20
23
26
29
32
35
38
42
45
50
60
70
80

[ringram]

It will automatically interpolate dude.

So if its 1.0 at 20 and 1.1 at 30 it will be 1.05 at 25.

So Id not worry too much about the resolution myself.

[vetteboy2k]

Gotya, I will then just create a filter on the logs to filter out the inbetween temps to get the 100% correction factor for that temp and let the interpolation do its job.

[jsttry]

has anyone setup a MAP to make this easier?

It would be similar to RAF maps but I cannot see what the column should be (Data = BEN, Row = IAT, Column = ??)

[vetteboy2k]

This is what I did, not saying its 100% right.
Anyone else feel free to correct.

[Delco]

What I am thinking might be a valuable addition to the next custom OS is to have the A0014 Open Loop IAT VE Multiplier Table have a range more closely related to real world temps. My IAT's generally are around 10°F above ambient and I am never near -20,30,40°C nor near 100,110,120,130,140°C. If we could have more values near 20-30°C I think that will help most of us be more spot on during those normal operating IAT area's.

I see through my logs in Open loop, the closer I am to colder IAT's the ritcher the A/F but then as the IAT's rise (in the same 20°C row) the mixture gets leaner. If there were more values for this table I could really hone A0014 in.

Something like below for example.

LABELS IAT VE Multiplier (Multiplier)
IAT °C {link: SAE.IAT} Value
-10
0
8
11
14
17
20
23
26
29
32
35
38
42
45
50
60
70
80

It is a lot harder to change table axis in code than it is to add a table in to the code .

The interpolation that the PCM does makes the table axis scaling not a issue in our case , the biggest issue is getting your VE right at a fixed temp then once the VE table is 100% correct you can then start tuning A0014 Open Loop IAT VE Multiplier Table,

Set up a ben factor and IAT map and use that to correct the A0014 Open Loop IAT VE Multiplier Table.

[oztracktuning]

My table is
0.911377
0.922607
0.934082
0.946289
0.958984
0.972168
0.985596
1.000000
1.014892
1.030517
1.046875
1.063965
1.081787
1.100830
1.120849
1.141846
1.164307
1.187988
1.213135

Its pretty close

[jsttry]

Your attachment isn't opening vette, says the zip file is corrupt

[vetteboy2k]

The original .zip I made opens fine, I downloaded the one that was uploaded to the forum saved to a new name and it didn't open.

I will upload again. Must be something with the upload to the forum or something. Too bad we can't just upload .maps

Ok that still didn't work,

Here you go a link to it hosted on my buddies website.

http://www.angermanagementracing.com/efilive/maps/A0014.zip

[jsttry]

thanks mate, that download worked

That's exactly how I had my map setup :)

[vetteboy2k]

Welcome, I think we should have an area to share maps created to help others with certain tasks.

[BowlingSS]

Welcome, I think we should have an area to share maps created to help others with certain tasks.

That is a great idea.....

Bill
:beer: :notacrook:

[mistermike]

the biggest issue is getting your VE right at a fixed temp then once the VE table is 100% correct you can then start tuning A0014 Open Loop IAT VE Multiplier Table,


Any suggestion for those of us with manifold mounted blowers? We experience very wide IAT swings, and it seems that a certain amount of compensation is "built in" to our VE tables due to the nature of the beast. Since my new setup isn't really tuned yet, I'm wondering if it might not be a good idea to start out with something like Oztrack's or Tordne's tables and work around that?

[hquick]

Hmmm....I'm going through this at the moment.
My A0014 as of this morning is below....

1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
0.959961
0.953125
0.961182
0.979492
0.986084
0.984375
0.985107
0.985107
0.985107
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000

[ringram]

crazy stuff mate. Might suggest that your ve is a bit skew whif..?
Is your ve dead on at a certain temp, (eg) 30* IAT at all load points?

[hquick]

Well...that's where I'm having trouble.
I've taken around 200 logs and am still working on the VE!
Here's a log from a couple of days ago.

[onfire]

My table is
0.911377
0.922607
0.934082
0.946289
0.958984
0.972168
0.985596
1.000000
1.014892
1.030517
1.046875
1.063965
1.081787
1.100830
1.120849
1.141846
1.164307
1.187988
1.213135

Its pretty close


Does this table effect wot commanded af?

[Delco]

Yes it affects everywhere the VE table is used.

There are some funny tables there guys , normally you need to add enrichment at high and low temps to correct the std VE table compensations , and flatter in the middle at the normal 20-30 deg region where the original tuning was done

[stigmundfreud]

Currently on base setup running the 04 HSV Clubsport tune in semi-open loop I set as standard to 1 over the full range.

Still no widebands so hoping the stft will cover things?

[BowlingSS]

I have the Map setup but the IAT is soo hot right now it will take a few months to get a complete table. Should I just start with 1.00 in this table before before starting to log? I think I should.

Bill

[ringram]

Yeah I think so. Then try and log at constant IAT and shape your VE on that. Then you can have that as your stake in the ground. Then you can do some logs with average BEN vs IAT and make your A00014 from that.
At least thats what I tried to do. Seems ok. Still a little tail chasing though.

[mistermike]

Talk about chasing your tail. Try using a blower that "modulates" your IAT with every stomp of the pedal. LOL. Constant IAT? I've heard of it.

This whole thing has me a bit flummoxed. In general people comment that things go lean at low IAT's. Fair enough. However the A0014 tables people are coming up with indicate the opposite. OK, maybe something got reversed along the way. Then to add to the fun, DELCO comments that the tables being posted up are inconsistant with his experience, and that VE needs a push at both ends of the temperature range. Well, Dan has tuned more cars than any 10 of us put together, so I take what he says seriously.

It would seem to me, that for a given ECM type, the A0014 table required to get stable VE's over a wide temperature range wouldn't vary much from car to car. If that assumption is correct, then a "canned" setting should get us pretty close to the truth. Perhaps I'm full of hot air. (pun intended)

With my setup, the only hope for a useful temperature compensation would be to use someone elses A0014 table and remap my VE based on that, or plot BEN against temperature at the AIR INLET, because of the wild temperature swings caused by the blower and aluminum manifold, even with a constant ambient temperature.

[stigmundfreud]

prior to running a custom OS I see there was no A0014 style table. Ignoring my ignorance for a second is this just a fine tuning table to improve over stock calculations? If so, leaving at 1 should have a similar result to as if I was still using the factory OS?

[Doc]

Very good observation. {Just a little push} The stock OS Fuel Commanded in Open loop is based on ECT and MAP, since the COS goes off of RPM vs. MAP A0014 becomes the ECT mitigating factor.

This is the beauty of the COS...generally speaking once you have gotten up to full operating temp you will stay there and, gain further useful resolution based on RPM vs. MAP commanded fueling.

[ringram]

.. Also stock is closed loop :) Most guys with COS run open loop.

I also suspect the charge blending tables might need a touchup, the A00014 is somewhat easier to massage as its 1 dimensional, anyone had a go at fixing the VE vs IAT issue by messing with charge blending?

[redhardsupra]

ringram, i've got a method where I optimize VE and charge bias at the same time, to yield the smallest errors across the board. it works--the AFR scatter is smaller, idle is smoother, yada yada yada. that's all on stock e40, no COS tricks. it's not perfect, as i'm suspecting the imperfect data for injectors dump different amount of fuel than they need, which makes some errors persist. tuning charge air bias is not the 'end all' solution, but it's a step in a right direction.

[SSpdDmon]

ringram, i've got a method where I optimize VE and charge bias at the same time, to yield the smallest errors across the board. it works--the AFR scatter is smaller, idle is smoother, yada yada yada. that's all on stock e40, no COS tricks. it's not perfect, as i'm suspecting the imperfect data for injectors dump different amount of fuel than they need, which makes some errors persist. tuning charge air bias is not the 'end all' solution, but it's a step in a right direction.
Just curious, what does your blend look like?

Mine is about 50~80% below stock:

LABELS Charge Temperature Blending (Factor)
Grams/Second {link: SAE.MAF} Value
0.00 0.145000
10.00 0.126000
20.00 0.112000
30.00 0.102000
40.00 0.095000
50.00 0.090000
60.00 0.086000
70.00 0.082000
80.00 0.078000
90.00 0.074000
100.00 0.070000
110.00 0.066000
120.00 0.062000
130.00 0.058000
140.00 0.054000
150.00 0.050000

This seems to work fairly well with the IAT relocated to capture true initial IAT temps prior to progressing through the intake tract and into the cylinders.

[ringram]

ringram, i've got a method where I optimize VE and charge bias at the same time, to yield the smallest errors across the board. it works--the AFR scatter is smaller, idle is smoother, yada yada yada. that's all on stock e40, no COS tricks. it's not perfect, as i'm suspecting the imperfect data for injectors dump different amount of fuel than they need, which makes some errors persist. tuning charge air bias is not the 'end all' solution, but it's a step in a right direction.

Kewl, do you have a script kiddie spread sheet or something Sir?

[redhardsupra]

no not really, i've barely coming to grips with all the new math and ways of thinking about how to approach such problems. right now i have some rough 'engineering samples' with a lot of manual steps (aka hundred ways to do it wrong).

if you want a spreadsheet with just the bias optimization, i can probably do that. send me an email or something i'll send you a sample so you'll see what data you need to gather and how to go about the process.

[2002_z28_six_speed]

Just curious, what does your blend look like?

Mine is about 60% below stock:

LABELS Charge Temperature Blending (Factor)
Grams/Second {link: SAE.MAF} Value
0.00 0.320000
10.00 0.167500
20.00 0.112500
30.00 0.097500
40.00 0.087500
50.00 0.081250
60.00 0.075000
70.00 0.070000
80.00 0.066250
90.00 0.061250
100.00 0.057500
110.00 0.053750
120.00 0.050000
130.00 0.046250
140.00 0.042500
150.00 0.035000

This seems to work fairly well with the IAT relocated to capture true initial IAT temps prior to progressing through the intake tract and into the cylinders.

How does this table work if you run SD? The table values are ran off SAE.MAF

Thank you.

[SSpdDmon]

GM.DYNAIR reports grams/second.

[SSpdDmon]

How does this table work if you run SD? The table values are ran off SAE.MAF

Thank you.
Updated...


Just curious, what does your blend look like?

Mine is about 50~80% below stock:

LABELS Charge Temperature Blending (Factor)
Grams/Second {link: SAE.MAF} Value
0.00 0.145000
10.00 0.126000
20.00 0.112000
30.00 0.102000
40.00 0.095000
50.00 0.090000
60.00 0.086000
70.00 0.082000
80.00 0.078000
90.00 0.074000
100.00 0.070000
110.00 0.066000
120.00 0.062000
130.00 0.058000
140.00 0.054000
150.00 0.050000

This seems to work fairly well with the IAT relocated to capture true initial IAT temps prior to progressing through the intake tract and into the cylinders.

[zapp168]

How does A0014 (IAT VE) interact with A0008 (ECT Commanded fuel) do they multiply on top of one another?

[SSpdDmon]

How does A0014 (IAT VE) interact with A0008 (ECT Commanded fuel) do they multiply on top of one another?

The air mass per cylinder can be determined from the VE table using the following formula:
g/cyl = VE*MAP/charge temperature
Ve is in g*K/kPa,
MAP is in kPa,
charge temperature is in degrees Kelvin.

That's how the air mass is calculated. Then based on the commanded fuel, current RPM, and other constants in the tune, an IPW is determined based on what the PCM knows to be true about the injectors.

A0008, IIRC, simply multiplies the VE by the appropriate value to inflate or deflate the air mass calculation.

[joecar]

A0014 mulitplies the VE table(s) B0101/A0007.

A0008 multiplies the Commanded Fuel table B3647.

[joecar]

Links to other discussion on A0014:
showthread.php?t=5563 (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=5563)
showthread.php?t=7132 (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=7132)

[BLK02WS6]

Anyone ever figure out why this table runs opposite to what one would think... i.e. needs richening up when hotter IAT and leaned out when cold IAT? Exactly opposite of what my logic says - need more fuel when IAT is colder...

[joecar]

Hi BLK, it seems nobody has figured it out, yet.

[BLK02WS6]

Hey! Thanks Joe! I've never had time with a car to log it under many IATs and figure out what these guys have - I've been using it backwards...

[5.7ute]

From what I can figure out, if the table is running opposite it means either your IAT sensor is either suffering from heatsoak, or your charge temp blending is in error. Personally I leave this table set to 1 in the cells the IAT normally will run in during the year. Then just change the extreme areas where you know it is a heatsoak condition causing an incorrect AFR.

[redhardsupra]

I personally dislike this table, because it gives people the wrong idea of what it's for. It should be an aide to deal with situations where the regular bias and lag filter tables aren't enough. But since these two are hard to deal with, people just misuse or ignore them, and use the A0014 as a replacement for the temperature estimator. So you end up with 3 tables fighting each other, trying to arrive at the 'correct' temperature. How about just using what we already have properly instead?

This reminds of a Woody Allen line: "Two wrongs don't make a right. But nobody said anything about three wrongs!"

[5.7ute]

This reminds of a Woody Allen line: "Two wrongs don't make a right. But nobody said anything about three wrongs!"
Ha Ha Ha.
Going from the 2000+ tables in the ls1 pcm just for the engine there is a lot of potential for wrongs to try get things right.

[BLK02WS6]

I'm just looking to ensure that the SD cars that I tune using COS 3 or 5 are going to be at their best over various conditions... it is impossible to have a customers car long enough to check the AFR in varying weather/temperature conditions. SOL takes care of part throttle, but I get concerned about WOT variences...

[5.7ute]

Problem is BLK that a change in the charge temp factor value changes the actual error percentage.
With some quick calculations, a misreported IAT of 10 degC with a factor of 0.15 will give an error of just under 2.8%. Where the same 10 degree error with a factor of 0.25 is now a 2.4% error. Increase the reported IAT error to 20 deg & the same factors then the errors run to 5.7% & 4.9%.
Since the higher the airflow, the lower the factor. Under WOT conditions the correction will need to be set at it's highest. Over 3% per 10 degrees in IAT error.(based on a standard calibration factor of 0.09 at 150 G/SEC.)
So IMHO, all we can do is position the IAT where errors from heatsoak are minimised. Tune the charge temp tables as best we can, & use A00014 to counteract the extreme cases of a heatsoaked sensor.

[izaks]

Old thread, but can anyone assist

Running 01290003, I battled with A0014 for a long time, as it does not work. Logging VE shows no change whether you set A0014 to max (1.3) or min (.8) with no changing in fueling.
Upgraded to a 1mb pcm running 04110003, and A0014 works perfectly - increase/decrease the vaue, and VE increases/decreases accordingly with the desired effect on fueling.
Have had to revert back to 512mb pcm running 0129003, as I could not get traction control to work with the 1mb pcm
Is there any other 512mb COS3 that would work with cable throttle body (other than 01290003)
I tried 0202003, but even changing all the tables affecting ETC/Cable the car will not run (VX cable auto)

[izaks]

Got 12212156 / 02020003 to work
A0014 does not work at all in 0129003.

[joecar]

Got 12212156 / 02020003 to work
A0014 does not work at all in 0129003.Thanks for the feedback.

[izaks]

Back to square one.
A0014 works, but many other problems due to different platform in base calibration
.
How can I get A0014 fixed in 0129003, or and other calibration that will work in VX platform

[darcy]

What about trying 0129005, the COS5 version?
See if A0014 works properly in that?

[izaks]

12202088 / 01250003 seems to be working