LML Will not build over ~22PSI of boost

[Mitco39]

Hey guys I am posting this here to get a little more exposure to my problem,

So I have gotten quite a few LMLs done to date and have been fighting them to build boost over stock values. I have noticed that it seems tired to a maximum MAF value that the truck will allow itself to run. The boost will come up to 21psi (35MAP) and then the vains will open up to keep the boost low. I have noticed that if I do not touch the tables in the misc folder under turbo boost the ECM will open up the vains completely (right to ~0%).

Now if I go in there and max out the turbo compressor map as well as the efficiency tables I can get the vains to sit right around ~30% and build the ~21PSI again keeping the MAF below 62lbs/min. I have noticed that B0173 only goes up to 473gram/s when infact the truck can easily support higher values than this. <-- I have seen higher values than this on larger tunes, but still boost is being limited in someway.

I had a H&S programmer that I logged and it did very much the same thing on the same truck. Today I also tuned a 15' Denali that acted in 100% the same way.

17347

Here is a screenshot of the log, do not mind the TCDBPR values that are so high, I was doing some testing just trying to get the turbo to listen. You can see that the ECM is commanding a MAP of much much higher than its allowing the truck to run. All the boost tables are such that the truck is not hitting a wall (peak boost I set at 46PSI at B0734 and B0727. Either way the fact that the TCDBPR is calling this much means something else is holding back the turbo and I believe it is related to a maximum MAF value possibly.

The AIRFLOW tables have also been maxed out for these tests I been doing to ensure that they were not limiting the airflow.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

I see its a 2012 OS, that particular OS is different in some way from the 2011 and 2012-2013 OS in the way it acts.

I have tried a 2011 OS in my 2012 and a 2013-2014, the 2011 OS is fine the 2013-2014 will do some weird stuff with vane going to 0% especially on the highway but I can still make 30+ psi of boost with all the OS's

[Mitco39]

I have tried a 4094 with the same results on this truck. I also confirmed that the 2015 is doing the exact same thing. I have had issues with the cruise when running the 2011 in the 2012 so I went right back to the 12OS.

So just to confirm your seeing a MAP of 46PSI? I have not been able to come close to that. On a built truck with a big tune you might get close, but thats only because your making a bunch more heat and even at 30% Vain position its able to build that boost which is what I saw on the 2015 I did yesterday.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

From memory when I went to the track with mine about 3 weeks ago I was seeing 30-31 PSI at WOT with vane at between 0%-6% and Boost Pressure set for 48 in the boost tables and the boost limiter lifted to 50 in the limiter tables.

The only anomaly I have with the 2012 OS is that at around 150-160 degrees I lose the 20% Rumble vane position, when the engine is cold its fine and its hit or miss depending on the trucks, some guys have lost it at that temp transition while others have no issues with the target position staying at 20% at idle.

My own personal truck is set to factory target positions because it won't keep the rumble/20% in drive or park but it rumbles in reverse, quite strange for sure.

But I am making the target boost

[Mitco39]

On a truck you are pushing hard its no inconceivable that you could see that, what I am arguing is why are your vanes opening up before you reach your target? At 0 percent the truck is essentially trying to get rid of as much boost as possible for some unknown reason. The fact your seeing boost still is only because I would suspect you are generating alot of heat pre turbo and even fully open the turbo is pushing some air through. If I take what you said I would expect to see the vains riding a maximum vane table to try its best to meet your requirements (which you said is 48 to 50PSI). If the turbo cannot make that boost under conditions you set out for it it will throw a low boost code (unless its disabled of course) which would cause the truck to run exactly like it is. Technically its in a underboost condition even though you are seeing 30-31WOT.

Unless I am wrong? I am just explaining my understanding of the situation. I think there is a maximum vane position table missing, or some other hard limiter that we cannot see causing the turbo to ignore your boost tables after a certain threshold.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

You have to add atmospheric to target boost for total boost, 48psi in the table - minus 15 psi at sea level leaves 33 psi commanded, and it makes that on the CTS 30-31 at wot.

I have no doubt the charger is screaming at that psi

I make that on the street as well easily just hitting the throttle.

Also the chargers changed for all 5 years, so the target tables are different based on the difference in the chargers

[Mitco39]

Right so your quoting both Absolute and gauge pressures. But the turbo maps are based solely off absolute pressure which means thats what its going to run to. So my argument is if the absolute pressure that the truck is seeing is below what your calling for in the table (whatever that may be) the truck should try and run a more aggressive vane position to meet those conditions.

I am seeing a command of 48PSI but im only making 38PSI (Absolute) yet the turbo is anywhere from 0-30 percent. On previous generations that turbo would ride any maximum vane position table to try and meet its requirements in closed loop mode.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

We only have what we have, so if we need more then we need to ask Ross to look if you think its an issue

[Mitco39]

Thats why I am here. I dont believe it is a tune issue. I guess I was just looking for more validation to the fact, which I somewhat got through your recollection of the way your truck runs. It is the same sort of thing I have been seeing, sure your getting your 31-32 but thats just a result of running a much more aggressive tune than factory and thus your loading the turbo even at 0-10%.

I am looking for recommendation from the EFILive guys as to what should be take to help remedy this situation, or perhaps if my tuning is incorrect perhaps show me a log to contradict what I am seeing. I am not naive enough to think that it couldn't possibly be an issue on my end, but to the best of my knowledge I have eliminated anything it could be within the tune.

I look forward to furthering this discussion.

[GMPX]

We only have what we have, so if we need more then we need to ask Ross to look if you think its an issue
Don't want to be rude but I am swamped with other projects that I am head deep in at the moment to have to go back to the LML way of thinking. I'll be interested to hear from other tuners if this is an issue or if there is a trick to get around the problem.

[Mitco39]

Perfectly fine, I know you guys are busy.

I would love to see a run where the truck is making its desired boost and not opening up before the targets are reached.

Dont get me wrong the trucks run great, its just when one my customers gets a edge insight or boost probe it becomes apparent. The argument against this however is that the truck is already running very clean at ~25psi, so the extra air is not required. But again if you look anywhere online guys are setting duramax's to ~28-30psi, myself included. I will continue to do more testing on my end and if I find a trick to get around the problem I will post it up.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

The only thing I can comment on is that I see the target boost, but Mitco is correct that I see very often the actual position go to 0%.

In fact the 2012 OS still has weird vane tables with all the TIS files I have been pulling they do not display correctly.

If I have time I will send you the .ctz and .bins Ross, I will do some more testing, but for now I cannot offer much else, perhaps move this to LML Beta ?

[Mitco39]

I have found that maxing out the compressor map, and the 3 efficiency tables keep the actual position from dropping down below ~27 percent. If I leave these values stock then the turbo opens right up. If you look at the axis's of these tables you can probably draw some guesses as to whats happening. I believe the ECU is monitoring turbo shaft speed and causing these issues.

I originally posted it here just to see if any other LML guys had anything to contradict what I am seeing on my end.

[Chavez91]

The only anomaly I have with the 2012 OS is that at around 150-160 degrees I lose the 20% Rumble vane position, when the engine is cold its fine and its hit or miss depending on the trucks, some guys have lost it at that temp transition while others have no issues with the target position staying at 20% at idle.

My own personal truck is set to factory target positions because it won't keep the rumble/20% in drive or park but it rumbles in reverse, quite strange for sure.

But I am making the target boost

I can agree wit this as well... We have a 2011 and it will rumble and keep the 20% vane, but once it warms up it will loose it. Reflash it and it will hold rumble, then make a few changes non turbo related and reflash and may or may not loose rumble... its hit or miss... if I make a change and i loose rumble, i usually just reflash the same tune once or twice more and Ill have rumble again. Its weird.... but I always build desired boost. I can get it to hit 35 if i ask no problems at all. So idk about that part. But its always hitting the 30-31 psi mark i have set for it no problem. Usually maintains about 22-28% vane pos.

[GMPX]

TIf I have time I will send you the .ctz and .bins Ross, I will do some more testing, but for now I cannot offer much else, perhaps move this to LML Beta ?
Please don't, I won't be looking at them Tony and I'll forget all about it.

[Mitco39]

I can agree wit this as well... We have a 2011 and it will rumble and keep the 20% vane, but once it warms up it will loose it. Reflash it and it will hold rumble, then make a few changes non turbo related and reflash and may or may not loose rumble... its hit or miss... if I make a change and i loose rumble, i usually just reflash the same tune once or twice more and Ill have rumble again. Its weird.... but I always build desired boost. I can get it to hit 35 if i ask no problems at all. So idk about that part. But its always hitting the 30-31 psi mark i have set for it no problem. Usually maintains about 22-28% vane pos.

Could I ask to see just a screenshot of a log? Maybe its just the 12+ trucks that are doing this? I havent got my hands on a 11 since I decided to dig into this more.

[Dmaxink]

I've had this issue, but only on the 15s. I have put a sledgehammer in place to "fix" it, but isn't my complete fix... Just works for now until I have a 15 in house for a few days.

I use a 11 OS (swap in other segs to make work) for all 11-14 trucks so maybe that's why I haven't had the issue before. I'm pretty certain I know what the cause is, but until I have a truck in house I can't test my theories, but I'm quite certain I'll find it.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

I just ran some test/logs.

2012 OS has similar data on logs, in park/neutral load is around 13-15%, in Drive it increases to 28%, no rumble but if you put it in Reverse load will increase to over 38% and rumble returns, same thing when coasting on the road/highway, load has to increase to over 30% only on the 2012 OS to get the vanes to go to any value other than 94%.

This is the only OS I have trouble with, I know something is missing as far as tables because I set all target vane tables in the "OPEN LOOP" to 20% and ran test and it still goes to 94% to ether a table is missing or a limiter or add-on, but for whatever the reason only the 2012 OS is being a PITA.

I am thinking a "SLEDGE HAMMER" may be needed to permanently fix the issue.

[Mitco39]

I just ran some test/logs.

2012 OS has similar data on logs, in park/neutral load is around 13-15%, in Drive it increases to 28%, no rumble but if you put it in Reverse load will increase to over 38% and rumble returns, same thing when coasting on the road/highway, load has to increase to over 30% only on the 2012 OS to get the vanes to go to any value other than 94%.

This is the only OS I have trouble with, I know something is missing as far as tables because I set all target vane tables in the "OPEN LOOP" to 20% and ran test and it still goes to 94% to ether a table is missing or a limiter or add-on, but for whatever the reason only the 2012 OS is being a PITA.

I am thinking a "SLEDGE HAMMER" may be needed to permanently fix the issue.

Can you confirm that under lets say 60-75 percent throttle the truck was meeting boost requirements without prematurely opening the vains? I have not played with the idle rumble much on my end yet.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

I have seen avg vane% of 74% to as low as 45% and meets target boost, but at WOT it still drops to 0% vane but does make boost.

I am not too concerned with the 0%, I am loading a new tune now for 35psi and we will see what that makes vs. vane %

[Mitco39]

I have seen avg vane% of 74% to as low as 45% and meets target boost, but at WOT it still drops to 0% vane but does make boost.

I am not too concerned with the 0%, I am loading a new tune now for 35psi and we will see what that makes vs. vane %

The 0% is exactly what you want once it has made its goal boost. No reason to increase drive pressure for nothing after the fact. I look forward to hearing what you find.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

I just tried a 2011 a 2012 and a 2013-2014 OS and they all goto 0% at WOT.

So I don't see any difference between how they run at wot.

I still think we have some tables missing for vane position control beyond what we have.

Tony

[Mitco39]

Tony,

Have you tried maxing out those efficiency tables under the misc folder in the turbo section? Doing this I was able to get up to 30% at WOT.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

Without a drive psi gauge we have no idea if that is causing excessive drive psi.

If I have time I will play around some more with it.

[RADustin]

I don't see any explicit table that is pushing the vanes to 94%.

I will keep picking through the binary though. Seems like the vane position you guys are logging is a result of a calculation that is not directly calculating position- but maybe shaft speed or EGT or something...

It makes sense that the vanes would open at WOT- to avoid high shaft speed and high egt. I would think making these tables one constant value- pick one- any one- and logging to see what's up would work. Put a low value in and see if it won't build boost anywhere- then keep upping the value and see if you can surpass your previous road block.

Just an idea.

[RADustin]

The 0% is exactly what you want once it has made its goal boost. No reason to increase drive pressure for nothing after the fact. I look forward to hearing what you find.

are you sure this is correct?

I feel like once you are at target boost you want to vary compressor flow with RPM- so even at target boost vanes(shaft speed) should still be moving to adjust for RPM changes. No?

[RADustin]

another thought- can calculated shaft speed and/or EGT be logged with desired boost and actual boost?

That would tell us quite a bit.

[Chavez91]

are you sure this is correct?

I feel like once you are at target boost you want to vary compressor flow with RPM- so even at target boost vanes(shaft speed) should still be moving to adjust for RPM changes. No?

I believe this is correct. There are alot of variables such as the compressor map and drive pressures that would need to be considered to find the ideal Vane position. 0% isnt just "what you want".... When pushing the limits of the charger, Target boost may need to actually be lowered in psi at higher rpms (As cfm demand increases) so you can keep the compressor in its map.

[RADustin]

why dont you guys change B1204 and relog.

that will show if the truck is limiting explicitly to 94% or 0% or whatever- basically show if the truck is limiting vane percent. We know 0 volts is 0%, but if you lie and say 1 volt is 0% then the truck will command ~20% in actuality when it thinks its commanding 0%. This should lock in more boost unless something else is limiting. that will at least cross off vane position being explicitly limited- I think so anyways- thoughts?


does anyone still think the truck is simply limiting mass air flow?


Also- dumb question but has anyone made sure the boost sensor can read higher than 34psi?

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

I believe there are temp ad-on tables or limiter tables, in the testing I did, at least for idle the vanes will go-to the Open Loop Targets under 155-160 degrees, at some point around 160 degrees on the 2012 OS they add vane% to target in the Open Loop tables, also in reverse when load increases the vanes will then reference target in the open loop tables.

I also used my TECH2 to do a full VVT Vane relearn and drove the truck, still saw 0% at wot.

We are missing tables, I know in BETA one of the other testers was trying to tune a twinned LML with what we have and commented that he also though we needed some more control over the vanes, but with everything else going on it was not revisited.

I am going to see if I can do some more testing by increasing the % closed in the Open Loop Tables for VVT control, but when I check with the tech2 the learned position min/max matches closely to what I see other than in idle/park or idle/neutral.

Maybe a VVT Target position in idle ???

[RADustin]

long shot-

I found these 4 tables- that are all in line with each other. Left two are definitely temp based(I am converting K to C for ease). Right two I'm not sure.

Not sure about y axis on any.

The table data I am multiplying by .01 as this is typical-ish of N75 maps and EDC ECMs.

Do any of these values look 'correct' in any way?

17361

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

Without the A2L or a Damos its all just a guess.

I found over 1000 tables with Winols and I know that many of them are tables that I could probably use, they are all grouped in sections in the code, but without a way to follow the routines for lookup adresses within the code its not easy.

I need a treasure map and all I have is a puzzle with no picture on the box.

I have been looking for an A2L or Damos for over a year for this EDC17 ECM.

Tony

[RADustin]

I can understand that. Context clues can typically narrow things down quite a bit in a hurry so its not always a complete guess. Just tossing it out there.

I still have yet to get this stuff to load correctly in IDA. Frustrates me.

[Chavez91]

I still have yet to get this stuff to load correctly in IDA. Frustrates me.

Working on this also. Its a PITA

[Dmaxink]

You guys seeing a consistent grams/sec it's happening at or a specific boost number? If someone can get me a trend I will try digging hard into the code. Need some type of number to go off if though that would seem somewhat constant.

Thanks
Kory

[Mitco39]

Kory,

At a specific power level it seems directly tied to the MAF. However when you turn up the power it seems to start sucking more air and allowing for more boost (all the while the turbo sits in its open position). However my thought is on it that the ECM is trying to limit air (or maybe its a simple as just limiting boost) by opening the vanes to stop itself as much as possible. I have noticed like I mentioned that maxing out the efficiency and compressor map tables will allow the turbo to close up to about 30% under load. Still not where it should be IMO but its much better.

[DURAtotheMAX]

Is calculated turbine shaft speed a valid PID in the ECM?

What is the most boost that someone is running on a fixed-geometry LML? What about on a twinned LML? Does the ECM try to limit boost by fueling in those cases? (where it doesnt have any/much control over vane position)

Just for grins...has anyone tried setting B1205 to "disable"? Like, even if you're still running a VGT on there, see what happens when you turn "off" the VGT controls?

Try messing around with the MAF sensor scaling and/or VGT solenoid scaling?

Is it RPM related? IE, if you command the TCM to hold a lower gear and roll into it without downshifting, does it still limit boost?

It would be interesting to build a little MAF fooler with a knob on it, and then do a WOT run, and as soon as the vanes drop to 0%, dial back the "MAF reading" a bit and see what the vanes do.

Or build a MAP sensor fooler, and see if that has any effect on vanes...

[Mitco39]

-I believe the most is Tony in this thread, he said hes making 32#s but that is still at or around 0% Vane POS. I have seen upwards of 28#s sitting at 30% vane. However this is on a full out tune with using as much fuel as the CP4 will supply.

-I have turned B1205 to disabled and the vanes will sit at 50% which yes allows for more boost up top but it also affects your spooling and no more turbo brake. Not really a fix at all.

-I have messed with the airflow tables, but not the raw MAF scaling tables. Never touched the VGT solenoid. I believe these might switch it up but it would just be masking the actual issue.

-It seems to limit boost no matter what the rpms in my experience.


Easier than making a maf fooler is just unplug it and remove the codes. See how the truck responds. I have not tried that myself yet. One could also try the MAP sensor fooler, that might put you in the right direction as to what is limiting the turbo.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

I did a fully deleted, fixed vane, not vvt twinned with a exergy CP3 conversion and it fuels just fine.

I have a 750 mile drive home tomorrow, I will try to pay attention but even on a stock tune in my truck at WOT/25 PSI BOOST it will go to 0% for actual vane position.

[Dmaxink]

-I believe the most is Tony in this thread, he said hes making 32#s but that is still at or around 0% Vane POS. I have seen upwards of 28#s sitting at 30% vane. However this is on a full out tune with using as much fuel as the CP4 will supply.

-I have turned B1205 to disabled and the vanes will sit at 50% which yes allows for more boost up top but it also affects your spooling and no more turbo brake. Not really a fix at all.

-I have messed with the airflow tables, but not the raw MAF scaling tables. Never touched the VGT solenoid. I believe these might switch it up but it would just be masking the actual issue.

-It seems to limit boost no matter what the rpms in my experience.


Easier than making a maf fooler is just unplug it and remove the codes. See how the truck responds. I have not tried that myself yet. One could also try the MAP sensor fooler, that might put you in the right direction as to what is limiting the turbo.

Unplugging the MAF resorts in a 50% vane default.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

I am curious if a MAF limiting table might force vane position open more or close vanes down.

I will have to look at maf closely vs vane %.

[Mitco39]

Ive tried maxxing out all the maf tables with no luck. The only bit of response I had were the efficiency table and flow tables.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

In all of the ealier LLY, LBZ and LMM tune files we have a min and max vvt % table. In the LML we only have open loop based off mode and with the mode assignments locked out there is no way fo verify mode vs vane %.

Also temp multiplier tables are missing.

Rescaling Maf might trick the vane % to close down more.

Hmmmmm

[DURAtotheMAX]

Does modifying the EGR tables have any effect?? In a stock configuration, vane position obviously has a huge effect on how much EGR goes back into the engine. So what if you try maxing out the EGR base flow tables?

What conditions determine whether the ECM is in "closed loop" or not? Is it basically a coolant temperature/run-time thing like on gas engines?

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

Once MAF reaches 420+ g/s vanes goto 0%

[RADustin]

so maybe it's more than that temp?

maxing out EGR base flow works? more base flow = less EGR correct?

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

My 2012 is deleted and blocked, so I cannot tell you how EGR flow effects it at this point because its all non-functional

[Mitco39]

I dont think RADustin is concerned about the actual flow, its the flow the ECM thinks its commanding. As long as you block the MAF errors this should trick the computer into commanding and expecting a EGR flow and thus running the tables associated with it.

[Mitco39]

I had a customer insist on going to H&S after all the issues I been having with the delete and these boosting issues. He confirmed that the H&S is only sitting around 25#s as well. So this is not a specific issue to EFILive, seems to affect all the LMLs. I have heard from a Dmax guy that they were infact using PPEs vane controller to override its control and this is how they have been getting around this issue. I was told that the controller that works on the older ones also works fine on these LMLS.

[THEFERMANATOR]

Sounds to me like the ECM has a turbo overspeed table that hasn't been found. If at a certain point of flow it keeps going open on the vanes, then the ECM is obviously trying to protect the turbo and over riding the boost tables. Has anybody tried raising the maximum allowable airflow tables yet? From what your seeing, it sounds like it is going 0% right around the point it reaches the peak of the airflow tables from what I can see. I need to get one of these to mess around with now. Looks like I've got the bug to try something new.

[Mitco39]

Yes I have maxxed out anything related to air flow and turbo control with only a bit of luck. Maxing out the egt and compressor maps I was able to keep the VVT at ~30% and get a bit more response out of it, but nothing like I would like to have.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

Try rescaling the MAF sensor, lie to the ecm, If I have time I might try that later, it is definitely tied to either MAF or turbine shaft speed as not matter what the power levels are at when the ecm sees 420+ g/s MAF Flow it goes to 0% vane position.

[Chavez91]

25#s still seems low..... does the truck have a EGR blocker/delete? Cause can't the EGRs still blow open on the LML?

[RADustin]

I just sent mitco39 more maps.

We'll see what we can do with them- if anything. They are definitely vane related and one is temp based. OS50 and 44 are nightmares- complete different from each other and OS 94 and 49. Might be time to start building tunes for all year trucks on the engine parameters of OS94 or 49.


If you rescale the MAF at higher RPMs and play with the smoke tables you should be alright. I think only the smoke tables use the MAF values off idle...can anyone verify?

I think it'd be easier to play around and fool the ecu first- then when we have an idea of what we need we can hit the binary.

[Mitco39]

I will get logs as soon as possible. Thanks Dustin, you know your stuff!

[Dmaxink]

Working on it. Lmao http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/03/4497ccbbd320b993d0145ce9b2dcb3b8.jpg

[Mitco39]

AKA SMOKE SWITCH!!!! Awww yeah. lol


Ugh....

[Dmaxink]

AKA SMOKE SWITCH!!!! Awww yeah. lol


Ugh....

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/03/b25d5e48b206e686bfa407991d68f6f7.jpg

Nah, that's this one! Haha

[Mitco39]

This thread is about to get a million views very quickly. :wallbash:

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

Kory is quite skilled in finding those 4 leaf clovers in a field of 3 leaf clovers.

LOL

[Dmaxink]

Looks to have worked... making 37+lbs, vane not falling. Able to lug it and keep vane up. Running test now for trying to set a underboost. I have asked for 30lbs from 35mm3-120mm3. This should keep vane % way up until rpm hits.... If it works, vane will stay up and wont drop to zero. Will post results.

[Dmaxink]

Null-posted twice. sorry

[Mitco39]

Thats awesome Kory.

[Dmaxink]

mitco... do you have your truck on hand you are dealing with? If you dont mind sending me your unlocked file or a stock file you are using... i will make the behind the scenes changes to it and then you can try it.

[Mitco39]

I will send you the file right now. I very much appreciate all the work you are doing. I am going to be with the truck later this evening.

[Dmaxink]

cool deal.. kory@LAtuning.com

[DURAtotheMAX]

awesome work you nutcase! :cheers: :mrgreen:

[RADustin]

goodjob Kory.

Keeping us at your heels!

[Dmaxink]

Messed up pid list... but on the right track!

[RADustin]

seems so strange this is all controlled by a switch.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

...........

[RADustin]

this seems to have hit a brick wall...

[GMPX]

I had stated elsewhere that I cannot multi-task between LML and Cummins and right now Cummins is the #1 focus for me, we will get back to this, in the mean time all the new LML hacking experts out there should surely be able to .cax a solution.

[Dmaxink]

I had stated elsewhere that I cannot multi-task between LML and Cummins and right now Cummins is the #1 focus for me, we will get back to this, in the mean time all the new LML hacking experts out there should surely be able to .cax a solution.

I'm offended, you didn't spell cumminGs with a G.

Lol.... Do what you do!

[GMPX]

Why do people spell it with a 'G'?

[Chavez91]

Why do people spell it with a 'G'?

:muahaha: :jump:

[RADustin]

My comment was not aimed at efilive at all!

Just this discussion hit a brick wall.

I want to know it's figured out!

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

this seems to have hit a brick wall...

I knocked that wall down.

Muuuhhahahahahaaaaaaa

[RADustin]

Also- I haven't driven my truck other than city for a bit and it seems like it's suck in some kind of regen or something. Anyways- it's running louder like the vanes are more open than normal.

So maybe there is a minimum vane position vs mode chart somewhere?

Also- the vgt tables are labeled open loop. Wouldn't we need closed loop tables?

[RADustin]

I knocked that wall down.

Muuuhhahahahahaaaaaaa
Care to elaborate?

[GMPX]

My comment was not aimed at efilive at all!
Just this discussion hit a brick wall.
Oh ok, sorry :redface:

[DURAtotheMAX]

Care to elaborate?

Probably not.

Nowadays it seems like everyone is all up for discussion and fishing until they find the solution, then its all "oh go fly a kite and find it yourself". I remember when we were ALL new at this stuff in late 2005 early 2006 (contrary to popular belief or what people would like us to believe, they, and myself, and everyone else in the world werent born with all this amazing knowledge of tuning)....no one was afraid to bounce ideas around and share things. What happened?

Honestly, IMO its not even worth anyone's time asking for diesel tuning help online anymore........:ermm:

[cindy@efilive]

Probably not.

Nowadays it seems like everyone is all up for discussion and fishing until they find the solution, then its all "oh go fly a kite and find it yourself". I remember when we were ALL new at this stuff in late 2005 early 2006 (contrary to popular belief or what people would like us to believe, they, and myself, and everyone else in the world werent born with all this amazing knowledge of tuning)....no one was afraid to bounce ideas around and share things. What happened?

Honestly, IMO its not even worth anyone's time asking for diesel tuning help online anymore........:ermm:

You also need to consider that back in the "good old days" there were only a small number of combinations to be tested to get that pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow....now those combinations increase 10 fold or further due to the complexity and number of tables.

Is the change really a lack of sharing, or is it that not enough people have tried the possible combinations to figure out the result? Human nature is to try a few times, then as results come back negative people get disgruntled and stop. The more knock backs, the fewer people looking.....and the bigger the reward for those who do continue...

Cheers
Cindy

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

You also need to consider that back in the "good old days" there were only a small number of combinations to be tested to get that pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow....now those combinations increase 10 fold or further due to the complexity and number of tables.

Is the change really a lack of sharing, or is it that not enough people have tried the possible combinations to figure out the result? Human nature is to try a few times, then as results come back negative people get disgruntled and stop. The more knock backs, the fewer people looking.....and the bigger the reward for those who do continue...

Cheers
Cindy

I will say this, I did not need anything in hex that was not yet mapped in efi live. As was stated it was not what was changed but what needed to be left alone.

I spent over 60 hours trying a ton of changes until I found what I needed to alter and what I needed to leave alone.

Think of the speed limiter, leaving certain things alone was necessary to keep the exhaust brake and or cruise control working while only having to alter certain tables.

This was by far the most frustrating thing to figure out.

Tony

[Chavez91]

I will say this, I did not need anything in hex that was not yet mapped in efi live. As was stated it was not what was changed but what needed to be left alone.

I spent over 60 hours trying a ton of changes until I found what I needed to alter and what I needed to leave alone.

Think of the speed limiter, leaving certain things alone was necessary to keep the exhaust brake and or cruise control working while only having to alter certain tables.

This was by far the most frustrating thing to figure out.

Tony

Gonna have to agree with Tony on this....

These things like the minimum amount of changes possible. The more you change, the higher chance that you are gonna have problems of some sorts. Simple is better with these things.

Everything needed to do deletes is in EFI, as it turns out. But finding that correct combination is the key and the most frustrating thing. But once you figure it out, you end up kicking yourself because of how simple it is and how much you were over thinking it. The LML truely is one of those, make one SMALL change and then another small one. If those don't work, try a different approach to it. As tony said, the speed limiter is a perfect example of this kind of LML mentality.

But as it stands, the people that have had questions, I don't mind answering or helping them out, if you ask. To return the favor that was given to me.

[Mitco39]

I will say this, I did not need anything in hex that was not yet mapped in efi live. As was stated it was not what was changed but what needed to be left alone.

I spent over 60 hours trying a ton of changes until I found what I needed to alter and what I needed to leave alone.

Think of the speed limiter, leaving certain things alone was necessary to keep the exhaust brake and or cruise control working while only having to alter certain tables.

This was by far the most frustrating thing to figure out.

Tony


Good to know Tony,

So your building your commanded boost now (whatever it is you set it to)? You also have the vanes staying open at idle with no funny business going on? Good to know its in the software currently.

Thanks

Mitch

[RADustin]

Gonna have to agree with Tony on this....

These things like the minimum amount of changes possible. The more you change, the higher chance that you are gonna have problems of some sorts. Simple is better with these things.

Everything needed to do deletes is in EFI, as it turns out. But finding that correct combination is the key and the most frustrating thing. But once you figure it out, you end up kicking yourself because of how simple it is and how much you were over thinking it. The LML truely is one of those, make one SMALL change and then another small one. If those don't work, try a different approach to it. As tony said, the speed limiter is a perfect example of this kind of LML mentality.

But as it stands, the people that have had questions, I don't mind answering or helping them out, if you ask. To return the favor that was given to me.



...so what's the answer then.

[Dmaxink]

Cool to see you guys can do it in the software... I got it to work, but i was playing in the matrix to make it work... Now (one day) i will have to go try and make it work without the matrix tricks. Good work tony!

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

Cool to see you guys can do it in the software... I got it to work, but i was playing in the matrix to make it work... Now (one day) i will have to go try and make it work without the matrix tricks. Good work tony!

Keep your sledgehammer close by, never know when you need to swing it at a fly to kill it.

I'll post a screen shot of a log, raining here now and I don't need the traction control having fits at 525 RWHP and 35psi of boost...........LOL

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

Good to know Tony,

So your building your commanded boost now (whatever it is you set it to)? You also have the vanes staying open at idle with no funny business going on? Good to know its in the software currently.

Thanks

Mitch

Yes, so far so good, no issues with anything at cold or full op/temps, set it for 10, 20, 50 doesn't matter, stays where I put.

Now redoing 2011, 2013-2014 base files and cross testing, that sucked.....but its done.

Plus the extra boost makes for better use of the traction control, that light is getting annoying fast.

[GMPX]

You know I go on about Bosch and how much I loathe their logic of operation, I shouldn't really because Bosch Diesel ECM's have been good for EFILive, but when I think back to the simpler operation of the LB7 and LLY (Delphi/Isuzu designed ECM) compared to what we are dealing with on the LML it is no wonder we all struggle. On the LML we are talking about nearly 1Mb on just calibrations alone, the LB7 had the OS and calibrations in 512K of memory!
The absolute worst part of Bosch ECM's is the logic that sits behind the diagnostics, perhaps if all you did all day every day was Bosch tuning then you could get a pretty good grip on it, but for many of us (including me) that isn't the case. I just finished adding in the DTC table for some 2015 Gas ECM's, there was over 1000 DTC codes in that ECM, but they are stored numerically with simple bit flags to control them, it was done in 10 mins. To do a similar thing with the Bosch ECM might take a whole day, maybe longer because nothing is stored in order, there is multiple tables that reference the same DTC, so who knows what ones are actually active!, as Kory's sig says, "when in doubt, 0xFFFF it out!" That is the sort of logic that needs to be applied for the EDC17's. I think Kory would agree that you see some settings in the diagnostics that might indicate that sometimes even the GM calibrators are flying a little blind on this ECM.

[Dmaxink]

You know I go on about Bosch and how much I loathe their logic of operation, I shouldn't really because Bosch Diesel ECM's have been good for EFILive, but when I think back to the simpler operation of the LB7 and LLY (Delphi/Isuzu designed ECM) compared to what we are dealing with on the LML it is no wonder we all struggle. On the LML we are talking about nearly 1Mb on just calibrations alone, the LB7 had the OS and calibrations in 512K of memory!
The absolute worst part of Bosch ECM's is the logic that sits behind the diagnostics, perhaps if all you did all day every day was Bosch tuning then you could get a pretty good grip on it, but for many of us (including me) that isn't the case. I just finished adding in the DTC table for some 2015 Gas ECM's, there was over 1000 DTC codes in that ECM, but they are stored numerically with simple bit flags to control them, it was done in 10 mins. To do a similar thing with the Bosch ECM might take a whole day, maybe longer because nothing is stored in order, there is multiple tables that reference the same DTC, so who knows what ones are actually active!, as Kory's sig says, "when in doubt, 0xFFFF it out!" That is the sort of logic that needs to be applied for the EDC17's. I think Kory would agree that you see some settings in the diagnostics that might indicate that sometimes even the GM calibrators are flying a little blind on this ECM.

I'm 100% with ya on that one. Some of the stuff gm does simply doesn't make sense. Edc17 I live in that logic. Haha

[RADustin]

Yes, so far so good, no issues with anything at cold or full op/temps, set it for 10, 20, 50 doesn't matter, stays where I put.

Now redoing 2011, 2013-2014 base files and cross testing, that sucked.....but its done.

Plus the extra boost makes for better use of the traction control, that light is getting annoying fast.

If it's in efilive, cant script it over?

[Chavez91]

If it's in efilive, cant script it over?
Nope. If its defined in efi, your CAX cant overlap.

[GMPX]

I'm not sure why that is a problem though? If the table is there, it is there, defining it twice won't do much.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

I really would like to help, but I have been fighting this issue on this OS for a while. So if I didn't spend so much time and effort to figure it out I might be inclined to share it.

But I had much better things to do then try all of the combinations I needed to try to fix it.

If it was a simple thing to fix then it would be easy, but given what I went thru I'll be happy when someone else wastes that much time and effort and is willing to just give it away.

Tony

[RADustin]

So y'all are modifying a variable that is currently mapped but not editable by efilive?

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

No .cax was needed. Even though I know we could utilize much more that is in there I only used what is available in efi live currently

[Dmaxink]

I'm not sure why that is a problem though? If the table is there, it is there, defining it twice won't do much.

Agreed

[Dmaxink]

So y'all are modifying a variable that is currently mapped but not editable by efilive?

Tony is doing it different than me... But more than one way to skin a cat as long as you get your desired results!

[Chavez91]

Yeah. Tony is doing good figuring all this stuff out and only using what efi has to offer. I haven't quite perfected the rumble. But I'll get back to it as soon as I get the motor in my LLY back in 1 piece. Shiny engine parts from the machine shop can get a little distracting [emoji5]

[Mitco39]

I got the truck that started this post to build over 22psi of boost. And the fix was somewhat obvious after you stumbled onto it. The issue and the reason it took so long is that the description for the table needed to be modified is misleading and to anyone taking it at face value would skip right over the table. If I can offer some advice its don't necessarily trust the descriptions of the tables, be suspicious of them all. If you think logically through what the truck may be doing and why it may be limiting.

I now have the truck riding what I would assume is a upper vane position table (sits around 50% now under load instead of opening right up). Boost I believe at this point is limited to actual heat being generated from the burn as adding more fuel increases the boost as you would expect.

I have not had much success with the rumble yet as when I finally got the turbo to push some air it was getting pretty late. Although I bet knowing what I know now it should be possible to take control of it a bit more than I previously thought.

Not saying I have it solved for every truck, but for the 11's we managed to get a pretty good grasp on it.


More than willing to help out anyone who has helped me over the past summer. Many of you have been great and helpful! :thumb_yello:

[cindy@efilive]

The issue and the reason it took so long is that the description for the table needed to be modified is misleading and to anyone taking it at face value would skip right over the table. If I can offer some advice its don't necessarily trust the descriptions of the tables, be suspicious of them all. If you think logically through what the truck may be doing and why it may be limiting.
Will you be posting your findings in the beta forum, or emailing them directly to me Mitch?

Cheers
Cindy

[GMPX]

And the fix was somewhat obvious after you stumbled onto it. The issue and the reason it took so long is that the description for the table needed to be modified is misleading and to anyone taking it at face value would skip right over the table. If I can offer some advice its don't necessarily trust the descriptions of the tables, be suspicious of them all.
I would agree Mitch, until someone offers EFILive a one month training course at Bosch with official documentation on how this ECM works then I am not sure what else I can offer apart from what we think the table does.
I will happily change the description for whatever table it was to suit what it actually does, it is not the first time such things have been discovered and it won't be the last, such is the world of what we do, nothing is a guarantee unless you work at GM and you have a direct line to Germany for help.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

We need a Bosch Mole............to get us the "PAPERS" we need.

LOL

[Chavez91]

LOL ^^^ Aint that the truth!

[Dmaxink]

We need a Bosch Mole............to get us the "PAPERS" we need.

LOL

Try reading the papers.... When terms such as tbchErrPos_div-threshold of error position during mode of TbcherrNeg1


Those types of terms leave me VERY thankful for efilive making my life easier in many places. Ross interprets the data better than anyone I know. I helped a lot in the MCC stuff and the terms in there... Well, not quite as descriptive as Ross! Haha

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

My sons got a girl that is very fluent in German.........she can read it and write it, what she can do with the manual, well..........ACHTUNG BABY

LOL

[RADustin]

Kory, so you have some sort of manual on this ecu?

[Dmaxink]

Kory, so you have some sort of manual on this ecu?

Tons and tons of time, broken ecus, parts, and wanting to shoot myself in the face.

[GMC-2002-Dmax]

Tons and tons of time, broken ecus, parts, and wanting to shoot myself in the face.

LOL...........never wanted to shoot myself in the face, shot myself in the foot many times.

[RADustin]

Try reading the papers.... When terms such as tbchErrPos_div-threshold of error position during mode of TbcherrNeg1


Those types of terms leave me VERY thankful for efilive making my life easier in many places. Ross interprets the data better than anyone I know. I helped a lot in the MCC stuff and the terms in there... Well, not quite as descriptive as Ross! Haha

Where are you finding this data? Is it some sort of assembly ? From Ida or similar? But then you mention papers...what papers?

[z71ecb]

What was the fix for this problem? Currently fighting a 15 6193 is truck that is having the same issue

[Mitco39]

What was the fix for this problem? Currently fighting a 15 6193 is truck that is having the same issue


Its been a very long time but if I recall it was related to the desired vs actual torque not playing together.

[Kalen_]

Its been a very long time but if I recall it was related to the desired vs actual torque not playing together.

I know its been even longer since your last message haha, but im having what seems to be a very similar problem with my '15, but, I bought it deleted 60k ago, and its been perfect, until thursday, and now its acting like whats described in the forum, desired and actual boost and vane pos are the same, so it leads me to believe its electrical, its like it was flashed back to a stock file but without emissions, im only working off a cts3, no hardware from whoever tuned it, is it possible something happened in the ecu? No codes either, at least what the cts can pull

[dan_verbruggen@live.com]

my turbo vanes were sticking split turbo and cleaned works great now