Help give input to my tune/scans- OL AutoVE/AutoMAF

[ddnspider]

So I just completed some AutoVE/AutoMAF rounds. Attached are the tunes in open loop as well as the latest round of logs. The biggest thing I noticed is that the VE table is rough, and there appears to be a hole where the car goes lean or really rich when I go to start rolling from a stop. I am almost wondering if I'm being fooled by the wideband showing the lean spots and its actually rich but the unburnt fuel makes it look lean. Comments suggestions welcome. After these are cleaned up I will be scaling the tune so I dont max out the max Hz/airflow.

Short list of mods:
1998 TA
V2 using serial wideband
Heads/cam/forged 383
T76 Turbo kit
T56/Ford 9"
60# injectors with dual walbro's and boost referenced FPR
Just installed an LS7 maf in a 4" tube for these tunes/logs.
15485154861548715488

[ddnspider]

Bump!

[joecar]

I was looking at your files but I ran of of time, sorry... I'll continue looking today.


I take it the MAF log is from the MAF tune, and the SD log is form the SD tune...?

[ddnspider]

I was looking at your files but I ran of of time, sorry... I'll continue looking today.


I take it the MAF log is from the MAF tune, and the SD log is form the SD tune...?

Yes sir, I tried to make them easy to follow :)

[BLK02WS6]

Sorry I haven't had time to look at these - I'll try tonight...

[ddnspider]

Thanks for taking the time Bret/Joe, always appreciate someone more experienced giving their input.

[joecar]

The PCM is pegging the MAF (i.e. airflow is hitting the 512 g/s limit).

MAP is only reaching up to 103-104 kPa, is this correct...?

WO2EQR1 shows you're still richer than EQIVRATIO throughout... and so much so at load that it looks like you're getting rich knock...

I think you're burning the mixture (and it's overly rich)... what you said about the wideband showing lean happens during a misfire where the mixture does not get burned at all (a non-burn is different than a rich burn).

[ddnspider]

The PCM is pegging the MAF (i.e. airflow is hitting the 512 g/s limit).

MAP is only reaching up to 103-104 kPa, is this correct...?

WO2EQR1 shows you're still richer than EQIVRATIO throughout... and so much so at load that it looks like you're getting rich knock...

I think you're burning the mixture (and it's overly rich)... what you said about the wideband showing lean happens during a misfire where the mixture does not get burned at all (a non-burn is different than a rich burn).correct, the maf is pegged. Once I get everything dialed in I will the scale the tune to avoid maxing it and continue with the upper rpm tuning with the maf.

It is a single bar stock map since its a 98 PCM. Again, will be setting the airflow threshold to something low like 2500rpms and let the maf do the work.

Good to know about being rich, well not good, but you know ;) do you think that's the case with the VE table in the 30kpa column? It seems like the VE is rather high in just a couple cells compared with everywhere else.

Does it seem like I'm on the right track and just need to keep dialing in the VE and maf tables?

[joecar]

Are you pasting/multiplying the WO2BEN map into the Backup VE table...?

[ddnspider]

Are you pasting/multiplying the WO2BEN map into the Backup VE table...?

My understanding was that the BEN's are percentages so I was manually going into the VE and maf tables and manually adding/subtracting the percentages based on the BENs.

[BLK02WS6]

You probably don't want to hear my thoughts - I would convert it to a newer PCM so I could use a COS instead of scaling... I am not a fan of scaling...

But, if you are going to go that route - why not scale it now? I would do it now so you can roll right on into the boost instead of having to change everything later. Do you have a good grip on how much has to be done to scale the tune?

[joecar]

My understanding was that the BEN's are percentages so I was manually going into the VE and maf tables and manually adding/subtracting the percentages based on the BENs.WO2BEN is directly a multiplier...

e.g. when BEN says 1.02, you directly multiply that into the referenced cell in table that you're correcting (VE or MAF).

[joecar]

BLK02WS6 has a good point... the newer PCM has so many more tables available, not to mention COS which really is needed if you want to run boost.

Without a COS you have to scale IFR, VE, MAF, and you have to shift every table that references airflow or airmass.

[ddnspider]

You probably don't want to hear my thoughts - I would convert it to a newer PCM so I could use a COS instead of scaling... I am not a fan of scaling...

But, if you are going to go that route - why not scale it now? I would do it now so you can roll right on into the boost instead of having to change everything later. Do you have a good grip on how much has to be done to scale the tune?

Yea I know the best option would be to repin the harness and go with a 411 pcm I believe it is, call me chicken, but I just don't feel like tackling that right now.

As far as rescaling the tune, my understanding is that when you scale the tune you lose resolution, so any error in the current VE/MAF tables would be magnified when I scale it. So I thought I would get the bulk of it as close as possible now, and then rescale it once I'm ready to do full pulls in boost.

[ddnspider]

WO2BEN is directly a multiplier...

e.g. when BEN says 1.02, you directly multiply that into the referenced cell in table that you're correcting (VE or MAF).

If its a direct multiplier, wouldn't that be the same thing as add/sub by the same percentage? I.E. if the VE is set to 50 and you multiply it by 1.02, you get 51.....or if you take 50 and add 2%, you get 51. I guess I just look at 1.02 and see that I am 2% lean.

I am just struggling to understand at what point do you smooth and by how much. I.E. if I took the MAP of the BEN's and did a copy/paste into the VE, it would be more jagged in some spots, so when do i smooth? Each time or after all of the rounds of BEN's are applied?

[Wheelz]

If its a direct multiplier, wouldn't that be the same thing as add/sub by the same percentage? I.E. if the VE is set to 50 and you multiply it by 1.02, you get 51.....or if you take 50 and add 2%, you get 51. I guess I just look at 1.02 and see that I am 2% lean.

You can do that but it will take longer. It's just simpler to multiply once and be done with the whole table. If you have values you know are right and don't want to change them mask them off before you paste-multiply.

[joecar]

If its a direct multiplier, wouldn't that be the same thing as add/sub by the same percentage? I.E. if the VE is set to 50 and you multiply it by 1.02, you get 51.....or if you take 50 and add 2%, you get 51. I guess I just look at 1.02 and see that I am 2% lean.

I am just struggling to understand at what point do you smooth and by how much. I.E. if I took the MAP of the BEN's and did a copy/paste into the VE, it would be more jagged in some spots, so when do i smooth? Each time or after all of the rounds of BEN's are applied?Yes, you can say it's the same thing (multiply by 1.02 <==> add 2%), but the BEN map can be multiplied into the table in one step (paste-with-multiply)... i.e. an "ergonomic" feature... see what Wheelz said about masking.


Smoothing:
- lop off spikes (positive and negative),
- extrapolate/smooth to remove sudden steps,
- leave most other jaggedness alone (it will just come back).

When logging try to keep a steady throttle, and when changing throttle change it in a slow progressive manner (use brakes to hold vehicle back).

[ddnspider]

Thanks for the input Joe, I will try some of those tips hopefully this coming weekend when I scale the tune. As far as scaling, I believe from Greg's DVD that anything with grams of air or grams/sec etc. are tables that need to be scaled. Anyone have any input as to what percentage I should scale the tune by if I'm maxing the 512g/s at ~4000 rpms? Should I go straight to 50% or choose something smaller?

[ddnspider]

UPDATE! I took my OLMAF tune scaled it to 65% of the original. I went through every table I could access in the tune and updated anything with g,mg,g/sec,g/cyl. I was shocked that after cranking it over the a/f was close to what it was before and it seemed to act close to how it did before, but now my idle airflow in lb/min was ~1.7 instead of 2.6 lb/min :)

I do have something I could use input on. After scaling the car has trouble idling and the idle drops if you snap the throttle or the fan kicks on, which is didnt have any issue with that before. As part of doing the scaling I scaled tables B4301,B4302, B4307, B4308 as well as the direct/learned airflow correction and throttle follower tables. Was I not supposed to scale all of these? I know I still need to log maf.sae from a cold start to get the desired airflow curve correct, but this was after the car was warmed up. What do I need to change?

[joecar]

UPDATE! I took my OLMAF tune scaled it to 65% of the original. I went through every table I could access in the tune and updated anything with g,mg,g/sec,g/cyl. I was shocked that after cranking it over the a/f was close to what it was before and it seemed to act close to how it did before, but now my idle airflow in lb/min was ~1.7 instead of 2.6 lb/min :)

I do have something I could use input on. After scaling the car has trouble idling and the idle drops if you snap the throttle or the fan kicks on, which is didnt have any issue with that before. As part of doing the scaling I scaled tables B4301,B4302, B4307, B4308 as well as the direct/learned airflow correction and throttle follower tables. Was I not supposed to scale all of these? I know I still need to log maf.sae from a cold start to get the desired airflow curve correct, but this was after the car was warmed up. What do I need to change?( Sanity check: you scaled VE B0101 and IFR B4001 by 65% also...? )

[ try to use Metric units for things like flow and mass, it will make things easier, if you can ]


Look at the pids DYNCYLAIR and DYNCYLAIR_DMA, they would also now be 65% of their previous values (post some logs so we can compare them to previous)...

look at any tables that have airflow or airmass on their axis's... these tables need their contents shifted (toward the smaller end of the axis)

( i.e. you might be commanding the wrong spark timing because the airmass reference is now 65% of its previous value...

e.g. what was previously 1.00 g/s is now 0.65 g/s, so you have to shift left the spark tables until the 1.00 g/s column content comes to rest in the 0.65 g/s column )

[ddnspider]

I did not scale the VE table since this is OLMAF and the airflow threshold is set to 400rpms, but i did scale the MAF calibration and the IFR tables.

Based on what you said about any tables that have airflow or airmass on their axis, would B4901 be an example of this since the X access is in grams/sec? If so, how do I scale that if the g/sec is fixed per the table and the data being changed is a "factor"? Do I create a table in excel for example and see what the scaled g/sec would be and then slide the values toward to cells that are 65% smaller than the original? For example in B4901, 65% of 100g/s is 65, so I would take the value in the 100g/s and put it into the 60 and 70 g/s cells?

I only did a quick scan at idle just to see if I was in the ballpark and my g/cyl was in the .15 range where it was .24 before so I believe I did copy the spark tables over correctly. Believe it or not I was trying to decypher from Greg's DVD on scaling if it was any table that had the grams of air in the variable units or if I had to scale ANY table that had ANY reference to grams of air.

[joecar]

I did not scale the VE table since this is OLMAF and the airflow threshold is set to 400rpms, but i did scale the MAF calibration and the IFR tables.

...


Ah, ok, I see, OLMAF.

[ddnspider]

Here is a list of the tables I scaled:
Comparison summary: 08:25:09 pm, Tuesday Jul 16, 2013

Calibration comparison between 7-2-13 open loop MAF__SCALED 65PERCENT.tun and 7-2-13 open loop MAF_.tun.
*Values that differ by more than 0.000100% are considered different.


B0104 "Cylinder Volume" 27.475395 "CAL: 510 <-> ALT: 785"
B0503 "Purge Canister Min Air Flow" 0.820935 "CAL: 7.797 <-> ALT: 12.000"
B0506 "Purge Canister vs Vac" 0.083925 "Different from row 1 to row 16 inclusive."
B3201 "Initial Fuel Prime" 1.179522 "Different from row 0 to row 15 inclusive."
B3204 "Non Sequential First Fuel Pulse" 1.481651 "Different from row 0 to row 15 inclusive."
B3206 "Non Sequential Second Fuel Pulse" 1.481651 "Different from row 0 to row 15 inclusive."
B4001 "Injector Flow Rate" 0.692760 "Different from row 0 to row 16 inclusive."
B4301 "Fan #1 IAC Correction" 0.140625 "CAL: 0.06 <-> ALT: 0.10"
B4302 "Fan #2 IAC Correction" 0.281250 "CAL: 0.13 <-> ALT: 0.20"
B4307 "Desired Airflow" 15.881590 "Different from cell: 0,0 to cell: 0,9 inclusive."
B4308 "Airflow Parked" 18.046845 "Different from row 0 to row 9 inclusive."
B4354 "A/C Airflow Ramp In" 0.273136 "CAL: 0.32520 <-> ALT: 0.50000"
B4355 "A/C Airflow Ramp Out" 0.546273 "CAL: 0.65039 <-> ALT: 1.00000"
B4356 "A/C Torque Loss" 0.566110 "Different from row 0 to row 10 inclusive."
B4303 "Startup Airflow Correction" 1.094072 "Different from cell: 0,0 to cell: 0,5 inclusive."
B4305 "Startup Airflow Decay in Drive" 1.121094 "CAL: 0.52 <-> ALT: 0.80"
B4343 "Startup Friction Airflow Correction" 4.647898 "Different from row 0 to row 9 inclusive."
B4344 "Startup Friction Airflow Decay" 0.044251 "Different from row 0 to row 9 inclusive."
B4324 "Idle Learn Drive Limit High" 1.640345 "CAL: 1.95 <-> ALT: 3.00"
B4325 "Idle Learn Drive Limit Low" -1.640345 "CAL: -1.95 <-> ALT: -3.00"
B4512 "Filtered RPM Airflow Correction" 0.343137 "Different from cell: 0,3 to cell: 0,14 inclusive."
B4514 "Learned Airflow Correction" 0.076295 "Different from cell: 0,1 to cell: 1,16 inclusive."
B4515 "Direct Airflow Correction" 0.033701 "Different from cell: 0,4 to cell: 3,16 inclusive."
B4309 "Throttle Cracker Airflow in Gear" 1.203937 "Different from cell: 0,0 to cell: 16,11 inclusive."
B4315 "Throttle Follower Airflow" 1.367208 "Different from row 4 to row 16 inclusive."
B4317 "Throttle Follower Decay Rate in Gear" 0.010681 "Different from cell: 0,0 to cell: 3,17 inclusive."
B4319 "Throttle Follower Decay Rate in P/N" 0.546273 "Different from row 0 to row 17 inclusive."
B5001 "MAF Sensor Calibration" 9.706264 "Different from row 0 to row 78 inclusive."
B5913 "Spark High-Octane Table" 15.234375 "Different from cell: 1,0 to cell: 19,24 inclusive."
B5914 "Spark Low-Octane Table" 15.234375 "Different from cell: 1,0 to cell: 19,24 inclusive."
B5910 "Spark ECT Table" -6.665039 "Different from cell: 0,0 to cell: 36,13 inclusive."
B5919 "Optimal Timing" 13.354492 "Different from cell: 0,0 to cell: 19,10 inclusive."
C6101 "ETC Predicted Airflow" 12.817578 "Different from cell: 1,0 to cell: 16,16 inclusive."

It appears I will also have to scale:
B4901
B4107
B4403 says in the description that it is used to convert effective area which the PCM calculates from desired idle airflow, should this be scaled?
Did I miss any other tables that should be scaled?

[joecar]

...

Based on what you said about any tables that have airflow or airmass on their axis, would B4901 be an example of this since the X access is in grams/sec? If so, how do I scale that if the g/sec is fixed per the table and the data being changed is a "factor"? Do I create a table in excel for example and see what the scaled g/sec would be and then slide the values toward to cells that are 65% smaller than the original? For example in B4901, 65% of 100g/s is 65, so I would take the value in the 100g/s and put it into the 60 and 70 g/s cells?

...Yes, correct, you will slide the B4901 curve toward the g/s cells that are 65% of their previous value...

yes correct, cell at 100 g/s goes into 60 g/s and/or 70 g/s cells

( lol, on hindsight it would have been easier to scale by 60% )

[joecar]

...

I only did a quick scan at idle just to see if I was in the ballpark and my g/cyl was in the .15 range where it was .24 before so I believe I did copy the spark tables over correctly. Believe it or not I was trying to decypher from Greg's DVD on scaling if it was any table that had the grams of air in the variable units or if I had to scale ANY table that had ANY reference to grams of air.Ok, so you did slide/shift the spark tables.

The rule is:
- any table data/cells having units g/s or g/cyl have to be scaled (e.g. VE, MAF, IFR),
- any table whose axis has units g/s or g/cyl has to be shifted along that axis (e.g. spark tables);

i.e. anything that the PCM computes from a scaled MAF or VE is now also scaled.

[ddnspider]

Man it would be so much easier if someone compiled a list or created a tutorial on what tables and how we need to scale a given tune.....hmmmm I'd be down to help create it although some of the tables would vary based on the tune from year to year.

Based on your last post, I updated B4901 and B4107, but did not update 4403 since it is not on any axis. I am wondering if I should set B4301,B4302, and the throttle follower tables back and see if it idles better.

The other thing Im stuck on is alot of the idle IAC tables dont have grams of air in their units but they say all say they are used to convert the effective area based on desired airflow calculated by the PCM, do those tables need to get updated?

[joecar]

I think you can leave B4301, B4302, B4403 untouched.

Throttle Follower tables have g/s on their data cells, these do need to be scaled (but you can try scaled and unscaled to compare).

I think if a table's data or axis does not specifically mention g or g/s then it can be left as is.

You also have to do B4902 (if your tune has it).

[ddnspider]

I think you can leave B4301, B4302, B4403 untouched.

Throttle Follower tables have g/s on their data cells, these do need to be scaled (but you can try scaled and unscaled to compare).

I think if a table's data or axis does not specifically mention g or g/s then it can be left as is.

You also have to do B4902 (if your tune has it).

Thanks, I will have to play with that. As far as the main, backup, and cranking VE; based on Greg's DVD, I thought I could change B0104 instead and leave the VE tables alone?

Look for a log from me Thurs evening my time as that is the next chance I will to log. Thanks for the help thus far. I'll have to get some video of the car at some point and share :)

[joecar]

The PCM does not use B0104 for anything (try setting it to 1500 cc and see how your engine runs);

the V7 tunetool uses B0104 when displaying the VE table in % units;

do this experiment (do the steps in sequence):
1- set VE units to g*K/kPa,
2- restart tunetool,
3- view the VE tables (remember their values, in g*K/kPa),
4- change B0104 by a larget amount (say go from 708 c to 1500 cc),
5- save file,
6- restart tunetool,
7- view the VE tables (what are their values, in g*K/kPa...?);

:)

[ddnspider]

Thats funny cause I watched the same steps in the DVD and he says that they won't change, but if you try it in HPT it will automatically change the values in the VE cells. I guess I will have to scale all 3 tables like you said. Hopefully I get some good logs tomorrow evening and can finish out the OLMAF and go back to working on the VE table.

[ddnspider]

Gah......my head hurts. Maxed the LS7 maf frequency in a 4" tube, but at least I didnt exceed the #/min anymore. Is it possible that because my cold side piping is 3" and I use a 3"-4" coupler to mate to the LS7 maf in the 100mm tube that I am not seeing the drop in maf frequency like I would if I had a 4" pipe prior to the LS7 maf in the 100mm hounsing?

Note that the tune is scaled to 65% of the original.

Any other comments or suggestions besides getting rid of my PCM? :)

15533

[ddnspider]

I keep blowing couplers so I had to order 4" T-bolts so now I have to wait to finish up.

[ddnspider]

Got my 4" T-bolt clamps on and had an awesome tuning session today. A/F under boost was locked in pretty good darn good after referencing my FPR to the intake manifold and making the IFR table flat (thanks Joecar!). Attached is the log. PS the 1st 2 short pulls in 3rd gear blew the drag radials off LOL. I'm going to try and dial in the A/F just a bit more, hopefully with input from you guys. Timing is set to a whopping 10 degrees and it still seems to pull some timing so Im wondering if I should richen it up just a bit and run low 11:1 and see if it stops pulling timing.
15595

[BLK02WS6]

Too rich and too little timing can cause knock... What boost are you at? I would add some timing and see if it clears up.

[ddnspider]

Honestly, I havent been monitoring boost. Based on Tial's website for my spring, I should be somewhere around 13 psi. I also haven't opened my cutout yet, which added 30rwhp on ~8psi on back to back dyno pulls. I'm a bit hesitant to add timing LOL, but I guess at least I still have the knock sensors active which could pull it back out assuming that its real. This is also on pump gas so I'm looking to give myself some cushion even though the motor is a forged 9:1 383.

What timing would you run on this setup? Note that the log values are on a 35% scaled tune.

[BLK02WS6]

You really need to know what boost you are at... Assuming your 13# is close, it will want some more timing with 9:1 compression. Add a couple degrees and see if it clears up at all. There are a whole bunch of variables when it comes to optimum timing - that is why the only way to know for sure is to put it on a load bearing dyno and find out where it wants to be. Are you sure that you have all of the burst knock out of it?

[ddnspider]

You really need to know what boost you are at... Assuming your 13# is close, it will want some more timing with 9:1 compression. Add a couple degrees and see if it clears up at all. There are a whole bunch of variables when it comes to optimum timing - that is why the only way to know for sure is to put it on a load bearing dyno and find out where it wants to be. Are you sure that you have all of the burst knock out of it?I do have the burst knock table zero'd out, which i think it is from the factory on 98's anyways. Would it make sense for me to increase the max knock retard limit when in PE from 4* to something higher incase it is real just to be safe?

On another note, I notice on the WOT pulls, my actualy EQ seems to delay my commanded right on tip in, could it be that my lower frequency airflow isn't dialed in enough?

[BLK02WS6]

No, you shouldn't need more than 4*... Yes, you need to work on the frequency for tip-in - you will always get some lean tip-in, but yours is not coming down soon enough... however, I don't believe that is the cause of the knock.

[ddnspider]

Thanks Bret, I'll give it a shot tomorrow.

[ddnspider]

Sorry for the delay, got caught up with fixing the wife's car and logging some friend's cars.

I worked on leaning it out a bit and adding some timing. The 2 gear pull is 3rd/part of 4th. It seems like 4th is happy other than tip in, but I keep picking up large amounts of knock between 3200 and 4200 rpm's in 3rd. Based on an old dyno graph the car holds peak torque +/-20 from 3800-4800 just as a reference.

I also was able to watch boost in 3rd and it hits 15 psi. I am still on 93 pump also so I should probably keep some margin for safety.

What should I do with the knock in 3rd?

15611

[BLK02WS6]

It looks like false knock to me. Is this a 98 setup? forgot your details... Are you planning on running meth on this? think you said you were - I would and I would run it at all boost levels (use a progressive setup).

This is why tuning on a load dyno is so important. On the dyno, you could turn the knock off and see what the power does as you increase timing - if the torque and power are increasing when you add timing, it isn't knocking. Then, you turn the knock back on - if it shows KR, you know for sure it is false...

[ddnspider]

Here's my short list of mods:
1998 TA
V2 using serial wideband
317 Heads/ 226/222 115+3 cam/forged 383 9:1 CR
T76GTS Turbo kit
T56/Ford 9"
60# injectors with dual walbro's and boost referenced FPR to manifold
LS7 maf in a 4" tube
Somewhere around 15psi
I wasn't planning on running meth unless I absolutely have to. I am only seeing ~15* IAT rise during a 3rd/4th gear pull and this is Florida Summer.
I would think it's false also, but it always seems to be between ~3200-4200 in 3rd where boost comes on hard. Also, during the top of 3rd and 4th my EQ Ratio looks pretty close to commanded, so does that mean those airflow numbers are pretty accurate? If it's saying 60+lb/min of air and that is 35% scaled, is the car really consuming somewhere in the 90+ lb/min of airflow range? Seems like alot lol.

[BLK02WS6]

Where is your IAT sensor? before the compressor? Do you have an intercooler?

[ddnspider]

Where is your IAT sensor? before the compressor? Do you have an intercooler?My IAT is in my cold side piping about a ft. before the throttlebody. And yes I have a 24X12X4" thick FMIC that has good airflow through it considering its an Fbody. 3" inlet/outlet that goes to a 4" tube before the MAF.

Also....would messing with the stomp compensation help my tip in lean spot?

[BLK02WS6]

I have never messed with stomp compensation - do some searching on that one...

[BLK02WS6]

What spark plugs are you running?

[ddnspider]

What spark plugs are you running?non-projected tip TR7's

[ddnspider]

Here is #7 I just pulled and cleaned off.
15614

[BLK02WS6]

That's what I'd run too... hard to tell anything without a WOT pull and shutdown.

You planning to put it on a dyno?

I gotta run for tonight - I'll check back tomorrow...

[ddnspider]

I've sent emails to multiple local dyno places and have gotten zero response so I've been working with what I have until I can either get to the dyno or to the track :) I would like to get it on a dyno if for nothing else to see what type of power it's actually putting down.

I do agree, I really needed to do a WOT and shutdown to read the plugs, but I figured if there were major signs or detonation or speckling I would see it on the plug either way. I think next on the list is a leakdown since I cracked one the porcelain on the plug I pulled so might as well since I need to do plugs now anyways lol. I'll post back up when I have an update and let me know if you have any other observations or comments. Thanks!

[ddnspider]

Im still alive :) Finished the leak down test and everything looks okay. Went and took some more logs. I keep seeing knock pop up in different spots in the logs, but it seems like most of it is during a transient event, like part throttle stuff. This is separate from the WOT knock that I am seeing that definitely seems fake. It also looks like with each log, my idle and cruise A/F got leaner for some reason even though I didnt change my idle area of the MAF curve. I have no idea why that would happen in open loop. I attached a few of the logs as well as the OLMAF tune if someone wants to take a look through for anything off. I had someone get back to me about a dyno, but nothing definitive so until then I'm on my own still.

156391564015641