Looking for some help on cam/headers tune LM7 5.3L (mostly spark)

[96SWB]

Hello all from Seattle WA!

I posted here many years ago but lost my login info, so I created a new profile. Please forgive the long post, and feel free to chime in anywhere--i would genuinely appreciate any and all help and tips!

Anyway, I have been helping a buddy who has a 2002 Silverado with the 5.3L LM7 truck engine and 4L60E. He recently swapped in a Texas Speed/Comp Cams "220R" camshaft, along with American Racing long tube headers (with hi-flo cats). The truck also has a nice resonance-tuned cold air intake/filter box and 3" dual Flowmaster cat-back exhaust. Otherwise, the powertrain is as-stock.

The spec's of that camshaft are: 220in/220exh duration (@.050 advertised) and .581in/.581exh lift on 112LSA.

I began tuning the truck (on the streets) using my Flashscan V2 and an Innovate LC2 wideband (serial data). The methodology I chose was CALC.VE.


I set up the initial tune by incorporating many tips I found in the "LS1 Idle Tips and Tricks" tutorial. This included warming up the ,0,400,800,1000,1200 timing a bit in {5932} and {5933}, and also tweaking cracker/follower decay rates, idle flare, overspeed and underspeed modifiers, and learning parameters a bit.
We did several data logging sessions primarily to get {B101} Main VE as close as we could on the streets. Obviously it is very difficult to get solid frame counts >50 in the high-rpm, high-load cells, but we got it to what I would consider to be about 80%. The every-day cruising (low-mid RPM, low-mid load) cells are pretty much spot-on after many revision cycles of CALC.VE.



Also, I should note that CALC.VE has consistently indicated a (1.0000) correction multiplier for every cell in the {B5001} MAF Sensor Calibration; which I assume is good, and correct, since the MAF is stock.


At this point, the truck was beginning to run much better. I thought the truck idled well, albeit slightly "lopey" in neutral as low as 625-650rpm. Now my friend liked the sound of the idle being "slightly lopey", and I thought that it sounded healthy. However, eventually the CEL would illuminate due to P0300 Misfires Detected.

After verifying that the basics---plugs, wires, and coil connections---were all good I began looking at a bunch of PIDS while cruising around, and I was noticing the total misfire counts were high just during idle and off-idle conditions. I began to think that the misfire detection regime was too "sensitive". My reasoning was, that due to the "lopey" idle characteristics of the higher-duration/lower LSA camshaft, changes in crankshaft speed were occuring much faster at low-RPM than with the stock cam, and therefore the computer was "thrown off" into thinking that uneven delay between firing events was due to misfire, when actually it was due to cam behavior. I increased values in {C5621} and {5622} by about 15-20%. The misfire counts were lower, but they were still there, and eventually P0300 would trigger. When that code would trigger, the truck would run very poorly, seemingly in limp-mode timing. So I eventually raised the idle to 700, and the P0300 went away.

But the idle doesn't "sound as nice" (sounds even-firing and high), so at that time, on my recommendation, my friend decided to take it in to have it professionally tuned at a dyno shop.

In a nutshell, I think he was totally ripped off.. He spent the whole day waiting on his truck, watching from the parking lot (unbeknownst to the tuner/shop owner) and my friend said that the truck was run on the dyno for a total of 30 minutes, and as far as he could tell, all he did was several WOT sweeps. The shop owner made a comment saying that he was "surprised at how well your friend was able to get the truck running", and that he would "love it now". My friend called me after driving it home, saying it was running worse than before, bucking off idle at stops, and pushing hard/high idle/"auto cruise".

He later showed me the print out the tuner gave him, showing two WOT sweeps on a dyno jet dyno, done 45 minutes apart, the first one with a peak of ~250hp and the second one with a peak of 295hp. Based on reading and research, both my friend and thought the truck should comfortably be making 330hp at the tires on a dynojet dyno--needless to say my friend was mad after paying $450 and wasting a day of his time.

He came over, and I pulled the tune off his truck and compared it with the tune that was on it when he went into the shop (the most recent iteration of the tune I had done). The comparison summary showed that a total of 8 parameters had been changed, and most of those changes were where he added or subtracted some small value to an entire table or a large portion of it.

Anyways, this guy's shop is basically the only name in the game within a hundred or so miles from here, and is recommended ubiquitously by high-end (Ferrari, for instance) dealerships in the area.

Long story short, my buddy has gotten his money back, and the owner has also agreed to allow myself and my friend access to his dyno for 4-5 hours this Saturday to tune the truck. My friend is really desperate because there are seemingly no competent tuners to tune his truck and so he is counting on me. The truck is his toy, its in flawless condition with only 30k miles and he is totally torn that it "runs like a piece of s***"

Now finally on to my question:

Can someone here tell me what I should do to make best use of my time on the dyno? I know the spark tables are what need the most work, but really don't know how to remap them to make the truck run correctly, and put down the best numbers safely and reliably.

I have a feeling that I'll need to do steady-state loading on the dyno, but is there a methodology outlined in a tutorial or elsewhere that explains exactly what steps I need to follow?

Also, as soon as I get to my PC, I will upload everything for anyone kind enough to take a look: the stock tune, the tune I did, the tune the dyno shop did, the (questionable) dyno graph, and any of the old logs I have.

Thanks a million!

[joecar]

You meant Calc.VET, right...?

Leave spark tables as stock (for daily driver this gives you sufficient room to avoid knock given the variation in gasoline quality).

Before going to dyno, make sure of the following:
- cooling system is working flawlessly (clean out debris/leaves from radiator; bleed air out; install a new cap and make sure it works);
- run an extra quart of 10W-30 or 0W-30 engine oil (to improve engine oil cooling) but make sure it is not frothing;
- run an extra pint of transmission fluid (to improve ATF cooling), but make sure it is not frothing;
- make sure axle/differential gear oil is at correct level;
- make sure MAF and air filter are clean;
- set PE table B3618 to something like 1.175 EQR;
- set PE TP enable B3616 to same as 2002 Camaro.

On dyno (prepare ahead of time) do this:

1. modify Calc.VET procedure to use CALC.WO2BEN to correct MAF table (i.e. just like AutoMAF) while dyno holds engine at load; compare the resulting calculated VE table with existing VE table, if it looks reasonable use this new VE table (eyeball extrapolate to upper MAP/RPM).

2. modify Calc.MAFT procedure to use CALC.WO2BEN to correct VE table (i.e. just like AutoVE) while dyno holds engine at load (when done, extrapolate VE table to cover upper MAP/RPM); if possible compare the resulting MAF table to MAF table obtained in 1. above.

3. run the corrected MAF from 1. above and the corrected VE from 2. above to check peak HP and TQ.

[joecar]

Use the calc_pids.txt attached here (if you're not using serial comms from your WB let me know).


Also, may I remind you of this:


Serial wideband:
anywhere that a BEN is required, use this as the new BEN: WO2BEN = {GM.EQIVRATIO}*{EXT.WO2LAM1}
(i.e. change any BEN maps to use this and save with new filename).

Analog wideband:
you have to modify the WO2BEN pid to use the analog wideband lambda, e.g. WO2BEN = {GM.EQIVRATIO}*{CALC.AFR_LC11}/14.7
(i.e. change any BEN maps to use this and save with new filename).

Shawn's Calc.VET Tutorial and Calc.MAFT Tutorial contain calc_pids.txt files that define WO2BEN for serial wideband
(and they also show how to define WO2BEN if you're using analog wideband).


Explanation/comparison of various tuning procedures:

AutoVE:
- disable CL/LTFT,
- disable MAF (make sure MAF DTC is present),
- set PE safely rich to protect motor,
- capture log,
- create a WO2BEN map that matches B0101 (hint: copy the VE table, then in the map row/col properties click Paste Label),
- apply transient filter to map,
- paste-multiply map to B0101.
Note: when MAF DTC is present, spark timing defaults to LO spark table (GM OS only)(COS continues using HO/LO adaptive spark timing).

AutoMAF:
- disable CL/LTFT,
- enable MAF (make sure DTC goes away),
- set B0120 to zero to disable VE,
- set PE safely rich to protect motor,
- capture log,
- create a WO2BEN map that matches B5001 (hint: copy the MAF table, then in the map row/col properties click Paste Label),
- apply transient filter to map,
- paste-multiply map to B5001.

Calc.MAFT:
- same as AutoVE (corrects VE) but also simultaneously calculates MAF (from corrected VE),
- can be done with or without CL/LTFT,
- create a map for CALC.MAFT and paste this into B5001.

Calc.VET:
- same as AutoMAF (corrects MAF) but also simultaneously calculates VE (from corrected MAF),
- can be done with or without CL/LTFT,
- create a map for CALC.VET and paste this into B0101.

Note:
when you do Calc.VET or Calc.MAFT be aware that positive trims are added during PE,
this has the effect of making the wideband correction ineffective,
so you may want to add the trims to the table that is being corrected (only for PE)
--> I'm going to make a calc pid which will add positive trims if I can figure out how to detect PE in the log.

Shortcut: while doing AutoVE, log GM.DYNAIR, and make a B5001-like map of GM.DYNAIR, multiply it by WO2BEN, apply the transient filter, paste into B5001 as an initial MAF estimate (but note that Calc.MAFT and Calc.VET will do a better job).

Relationships:
- AutoMAF is a special case of Calc.VET.
- AutoVE is a special case of Calc.MAFT.

Note: Calc.VET and Calc.MAFT can be done with CL/LTFT disabled (in which case you use strictly WO2BEN).

SELBEN:
SELBEN is a combination of LTFT and WO2BEN, but you can restrict it to only WO2BEN as long as you disable CL/LTFT.

WO2BEN:
WO2BEN is the wideband BEN, you use this with disabled CL/LTFT.

Concept/Intent (what they do):
- Calc.VET corrects MAF and calculates VE from corrected MAF (with VE disabled).
- Calc.MAFT corrects VE and calculates MAF from corrected VE (with MAF disabled).

Note:
- the thing being calculated has to be disabled,
- the thing being corrected has to be enabled.

The word "corrects" indicates "corrected by multiplying by BEN factor".
The word "calculates" indicates "calculated and pasted in".

Calc.MAFT is aka Reverse Calc.VET (you can see this when you compare the pids CALC.VEN and CALC.MAFN).

Pay careful attention to:
- is PE safely rich to protect motor,
- is PE enabled correctly to activate at significant load,
- is CL/LTFT enabled/disabled,
- is MAF enabled/disabled,
- is VE enabled/disabled,
- what pid is being used for BEN,
- do units match between scantool and tunetool,
- was the transient filter applied,
- avoid using GM.AFR for anything other than display,
- keep pid channel count at 24 or less (to maintain fastest frame sampling rate).

[96SWB]

First, big thanks to you, joecar, for taking the time to synthesize all that great info into this thread.

I wanted to post up some more info, and the tune files, so I can get into concise and specific questions; I know that first post was long, but I wanted to get the background info out of the way. I have done a ton of reading on this forum since at least 2009, and thus I have no posts to date, because I usually find what I need using search and patient reading. I say this in hopes that you won't think I am a lazy newcomer that just wants people to do their basic homework and research for them. :good:



Here is the original bone-stock 2002 factory calibration that I pulled off the truck: 18531.
Here is the most recent version of the cal I came up with using CALC.VET and a serial WO2. The truck went into a professional dyno tuning shop with this file in it: 18529.
Here is the cal that was in the truck after return from a 6 hour day spent at a dyno shop being allegedly "professionally" tuned for $450:18530.

[96SWB]

Additionally here is the dyno graph provided by the tuner/dyno shop guy, which supposedly shows what the truck did when he started (with the tune file I did---see above post), and what the truck did when he was finished (again--see above post for his file):

18532

Now, looking at this dyno graph, and looking at the tune files in my previous post, can someone explain what changes the tuner made to account for the 26hp/13tq gain shown in this graph?

These numbers seem very low for a 30,000mile LM7 with 220R cam, ARH stainless longtubes, resonance-tuned air intake, and dual 3" full catback?

[96SWB]

You meant Calc.VET, right...?

Leave spark tables as stock (for daily driver this gives you sufficient room to avoid knock given the variation in gasoline quality).




You meant Calc.VET, right...?

Leave spark tables as stock (for daily driver this gives you sufficient room to avoid knock given the variation in gasoline quality).
.

Joecar, to address your points:

Yes, sorry, typo, I meant calc.vet. I've done calc.vet several times over. MAF correction multipliers were always exactly 1.0 even on the first try.

The truck isn't a daily driver, the owner only drives it occasionally "for fun". He runs 92 octane ethanol-free fuel. With a cam swap, I thought it was pretty safe to assume that spark mapping will need pretty substantial changes due to the interrelated nature of charge density (g/cyl) and optimum advance. Aren't we leaving a lot of TQ on the table in the mid-upper RPMS by running the stock truck engine spark curves? Again his use of the truck is to play with it maybe once a month in nice weather with fresh 92oct, always from the same known source. It's not a fleet truck burning 87 pulling heavy loads all day, he wants this thing tuned for performance and fun.


Next question: Since CALC.VET has consistently demonstrated that the MAF Cal is exactly correct (no change from stock cal) is CALC.VET really the best way to go (most accurate) tool to get my {B101} Main VE dead-nuts on, or would I be better off doing something like OL/MAFless/AutoVE on the dyno on Saturday?

Furthermore, I think the fueling is pretty darn close at least at every RPM/MAP i was able to measure on the streets. I didn't do much work above 4000/low KPa, because the truck was accelerating way too fast to collect frame counts up. Hopefully getting into those cells on the dyno will increase the peak #'s?

My main problem at this point are:


the HP/Tq numbers seem low on the dyno chart I have. 295rwhp?
I'm getting some KR at low-mid RPM's under high-load/low-MAP scenarios. And the truck definitely feels sluggish going up hills under normal and heavy TP/acceleration.
Idle throws misfire code unless set way high


Sorry, tough to stay on point. Thanks though!

[joecar]

Correction to post #2:



- set PE table B3618 to something like 1.175 EQR;


( my fingers had typed ahead of my brain )

[joecar]

First, big thanks to you, joecar, for taking the time to synthesize all that great info into this thread.

I wanted to post up some more info, and the tune files, so I can get into concise and specific questions; I know that first post was long, but I wanted to get the background info out of the way. I have done a ton of reading on this forum since at least 2009, and thus I have no posts to date, because I usually find what I need using search and patient reading. I say this in hopes that you won't think I am a lazy newcomer that just wants people to do their basic homework and research for them. :good:



Here is the original bone-stock 2002 factory calibration that I pulled off the truck: 18531.
Here is the most recent version of the cal I came up with using CALC.VET and a serial WO2. The truck went into a professional dyno tuning shop with this file in it: 18529.
Here is the cal that was in the truck after return from a 6 hour day spent at a dyno shop being allegedly "professionally" tuned for $450:18530.

I don't like some of the values in the stock truck tune files, we'll have to edit some of those to be safer and/or make better sense.

[joecar]

Additionally here is the dyno graph provided by the tuner/dyno shop guy, which supposedly shows what the truck did when he started (with the tune file I did---see above post), and what the truck did when he was finished (again--see above post for his file):

18532

Now, looking at this dyno graph, and looking at the tune files in my previous post, can someone explain what changes the tuner made to account for the 26hp/13tq gain shown in this graph?

These numbers seem very low for a 30,000mile LM7 with 220R cam, ARH stainless longtubes, resonance-tuned air intake, and dual 3" full catback?Dyno graph neglects to show AFR (or Lambda).

[joecar]

I don't see how the gains were gotten... PE is very rich, which does favor TQ, altho it may be too rich for that, but timing was dropped a degree or two.


I think spark timing can be advanced, use 2002 Camaro HO/LO/Base timing tables for reference, keep an eye on knock.

[joecar]

...

Next question: Since CALC.VET has consistently demonstrated that the MAF Cal is exactly correct (no change from stock cal) is CALC.VET really the best way to go (most accurate) tool to get my {B101} Main VE dead-nuts on, or would I be better off doing something like OL/MAFless/AutoVE on the dyno on Saturday?

...Yes, I agree, if MAF is good, then concentrate on OL/MAF-less/AutoVE (but lets use thepid CALC.WO2BEN from Calc.VET to do this, if possible)... so you will have time to play with HO spark table... try running the 2002 F-car HO table, but keep an eye on knock during load... I don't think you'll have any problem.


Furthermore, I think the fueling is pretty darn close at least at every RPM/MAP i was able to measure on the streets. I didn't do much work above 4000/low KPa, because the truck was accelerating way too fast to collect frame counts up. Hopefully getting into those cells on the dyno will increase the peak #'s?

When you get those numbers right, you will see instant response when doing a throttle WOT snap open.

[ScarabEpic22]

96SWB, PM me. I'm local in Seattle and would be happy to help you. Im not able to come on Sat and help in realtime, but if you have some questions please feel free to reach out.

Joe will get you squared away, I havent done many LS1 PCMs simply as my personal and client vehicles have been P10 or E67 based.

[joecar]

Yah, with 220 cam, long tubes, and 3" catback you should see higher dyno numbers... but how does it accelerate on the street, can you fry tires...?

BTW: might need some transmission table tuning.

[joecar]

With the cam I take it you installed springs...?

[96SWB]

Cool. Thanks again joecar, all excellent points you make, and all are well received / make good sense to me.

Excuse my ignorance, but I wanted to double check when you mention "2002 F-body H.O. table", do I understand that you are referring to "{B5913} Spark High-Octane Table" in a Stock F-body Cal? Or else, could you mean H.O., as in high output, like (WS6?) or (something???) :notsure:

ScarabEpic, awesome to hear, thank you for the offer!

Joecar, in term of your last post on how its running--To me, its disappointing, i know it's not there yet. I think it sometimes pulls out advance somewhere around the 2000rpm mark, which always decays out smoothly and doesn't "ratchet" the KR. It feels like it makes too much noise and takes too much pedal to get the thing to move, like its bogged. It runs a ton better than when I first started, though, and sometimes it feels pretty promising, but other times it's just kind of "blah" and flat up to maybe 2800-3000 then it feels like its waking up a bit if the KR is decayed out by then and hasn't returned.

I think I am going to seriously look at conservatively blending the LS1 spark tables with the my stock truck table so I can get a read on what that "feels" like.

[96SWB]

With the cam I take it you installed springs...?

Yeah Comp 918's i think or whatever they were supposed to be. It was a Texas speed deal with chomoly rods and springs. I am glad you concur that 295hp/282tq is soggy at best and total BS at worst. Because I did a lot of research and had heard of guys making up to 345hp with that cam on ~similar~ setups.

Edit: To be clear, my estimate or expectation has always been 325-330rwhp on a Dynojet, I know 345 is a stretch.

And yeah I am really confused about how that dyno chart was obtained. Notice it was only 45 minutes between runs, too. He had the car all day, but my friend was hiding out watching, unbeknown to the shop owner, and my friend said that he did a pull, waited like half an hour and did another pull, and that was all the time it had on the dyno total. The tuner/owner, said he was supposedly (supposed-to-be) working on his truck all day, because thats how long it "took". Anyways pretty clear that the guy was clueless or indifferent and ripped him off and didn't care. The truck runs worse on his tune than on the one it went there with, and the Calibration Difference Summary does all the talking. Still its like WTF did the HP come from though?

Thanks all; I'm lots of things, but ungrateful has never been one. I'm just trying to help a friend out here.

[LastCall]

If it is a load bearing dyno, I would ask the shop owner how to apply load so you can work the tune sections at a time.

[ScarabEpic22]

I was thinking about this last night and again this morning, Im frankly surprised your MAF correction was 1 across the board. IMHO, it shouldnt be unless you're running SD... Per Joe's description, Calc.VET calculates the VE and corrects MAF. How your MAF is the same as a stock tune when you used that data to calculate a correct VE...something's not adding up. It would explain the bog you get as well (experienced it on my own vehicles).

Maybe as a test, disable the MAF and run SD. With the VE table corrected, fueling should be spot on or very close. See if it bogs or anything like this, if it doesnt and pulls harder then the PCM might be trying to do something/blending of the MAF and VE tables.

Let me do a quick trans tune for you as well, should firm the shifts a bit and make them crisper without hurting trans life. In my experience, a tuned trans lasts longer than a stock one because with stock tune the clutches burn out due to slow shifts.

[LastCall]

Calc.vet calculates the VE and corrects the maf. You had those two switched. I would verify you your selben is getting correction values.

[96SWB]

I was thinking about this last night and again this morning, Im frankly surprised your MAF correction was 1 across the board. IMHO, it shouldnt be unless you're running SD... Per Joe's description, Calc.VET calculates the MAF and corrects VE. How your MAF is the same as a stock tune when you used that data to calculate a correct VE...something's not adding up. It would explain the bog you get as well (experienced it on my own vehicles).

Maybe as a test, disable the MAF and run SD. With the VE table corrected, fueling should be spot on or very close. See if it bogs or anything like this, if it doesnt and pulls harder then the PCM might be trying to do something/blending of the MAF and VE tables.

Let me do a quick trans tune for you as well, should firm the shifts a bit and make them crisper without hurting trans life. In my experience, a tuned trans lasts longer than a stock one because with stock tune the clutches burn out due to slow shifts.


ScarabEpic22,

Yeah I was always a bit confused at how values derived from instrument measurement could work out to be exactly 100.00% correct on the first time. I kind of poked around to see what might have been wrong, but I eventually dismissed it, figuring that, "Well, the MAF is stock, so who am I to argue with the GM calibration engineers?"

As an aside, last night I decided to completely start over with a clean sheet on Spark segment. Starting with {B5913} H. Oct. Spark, I actually printed out the tables from a factory 2002 LS1 calibrations, the factory 2002 Silverado LM7, and from a couple of other forum member's custom tunes who had camshafts. I did that because I'm a Mac guy, so I only have a little netbook to run EfiLive on, and its tough to look at multiple data sets on this 11 or-whatever-inch screen.

So, I spent a lot of time carefully making a "hybrid" of the different maps, probably giving the factory F-body tune the greatest weight, but also narrowing the band of "heat"
down a good little bit, and just generally doing my best to reconcile my common sense and grasp of the 220R cam vs the LS1 cam, and looking at other tables in the tune.

The result? Unbelievable! A short drive late last night blew me away. There are 2 little spots where the table is still too hot (around at 2600rpm/.44g/cyl), and I saw that I got into a little KR, but it always was brief and decayed out quick. So I have to touch that up here and there. But even with some KR the truck is pulling SO much harder at any RPM and just generally feels and sounds SO much healthier it was shocking. I also undid every single thing the dyno shop did to it, because none of them made any sense and the truck ran like absolutely turd on that guy's tune.

Additionally, I extrapolated/guesstimated some more air into {B101} Base VE above 4400.

I'm not exaggerating when I say it felt like I downloaded another 50hp into it with that one tune. I had it up in the mountains last night on the highway and did a 3rd gear roll starting at about 60, and it was up to 115 just about as fast as a pickup needs to do.

I have a couple more questions to ask in a bit I got to run 4 a minute..

[96SWB]

Calc.vet calculates the VE and corrects the maf. You had those two switched. I would verify you your selben is getting correction values.

LastCall, what would I need to do to verify that my selben is getting correction?

[96SWB]

I was thinking about this last night and again this morning, Im frankly surprised your MAF correction was 1 across the board. IMHO, it shouldnt be unless you're running SD... Per Joe's description, Calc.VET calculates the MAF and corrects VE. How your MAF is the same as a stock tune when you used that data to calculate a correct VE...something's not adding up. It would explain the bog you get as well (experienced it on my own vehicles).
...
...Let me do a quick trans tune for you as well, should firm the shifts a bit and make them crisper without hurting trans life. In my experience, a tuned trans lasts longer than a stock one because with stock tune the clutches burn out due to slow shifts.

Well, i'm getting close to the final hour....Will be on the dyno tomorrow from 11am to 3-4pm. Odd circumstances, but it's a pretty cool opportunity to get total access to a dyno for 4-5 hours free of charge. I just hope I'm prepared to make good use of it, but I am feeling a ton better with how the truck is running right now.

1. Joecar and scarabepic22, you both mentioned transmission tuning. What are the goals/aims you had in mind, or what parameters/tables should I be concerned with? Are there any tutorials, references, or stickies you know off the top of your head that would bring me up to speed before tomorrow?

2. Also, as far as I know, the long term fuel trims are at 0.0 in my logging. At this point I am planning on setting up an AutoVE tune to double/cross check the fueling, but yeah I am really confused about the 1.00 MAF multipliers resulting from CALC.VET.

3. What should (how do I figure out) my PE commanded EQR be? i.e. How rich is too rich? / Do I just need to guess and check with the dyno until I find peak tq?

4. Is it possible to use DVT controls WHILE logging data? For instance, I'm guessing I am going to want to activate DVT so I can enable 3rd Gear Hold. But it seems like every time I have every tried activating the DVT in the Scan Tool during logging, it comes back with "No Response" . Also, when I am on the dyno, I should be in 3rd gear (auto) with TCC locked, correct?

5. Again, with the DVT, I was hoping to be able to hold the engine steady at various loads and speeds, and use DVT to make adjustments to find optimum/max advance without KR. Is this a good or bad idea?

If anyone has time to look over my latest (short) log, maybe you'd be able to see what's going on with CALC.VET and anything else I may be missing. I can post it in like 30 mins.

[joecar]

Transmission tune:
1. increase shift pressure tables (reach 96 psi at around 300 ftlb, linearize from zero).
2. set shift desired time table to 0.2 to 0.3 s.
3. reduce shift torque reduction tables some.
4. set throttle kickdown tables to 100% TP (allows PT upshift/downshift tables to work properly).
5. make sure WOT downshift MPH's are below their corresponding WOT upshift MPH's (at least 5 mph difference).
6. make sure the PT upshift/down shift curves do not cross each other anywhere (dump them all into the same xls spreadsheet).

[joecar]

If MAF/VE are correct, then PE set to EQR 1.175 is just right for NA... this can be fine tuned (a little richer at peak TQ, a little leaner at peak HP).

[joecar]

Connect scantool to vehicle, then goto DVT tab and activate the control you need, then start logging.

Yes, 3rd gear, TCC locked.

[joecar]

Where is your short log...?

[96SWB]

Joecar et. al.,

Thanks for the tips. Sorry I didn't get back sooner, I left the charger to my Windows laptop in my buddy's truck on Saturday at the dyno shop, so I can't post the logs or tune until I get it back from him tomorrow.

However, the dyno experience went well, I think. I did figure out that enabling 3rd gear lock PRIOR to logging was the trick. The truck made 317hp on the initial baseline pull! Not bad for a tune made from only a few hours of street logging. And the shop owner pretty much came clean and apologized and basically admitted he just didn't put any time into tuning it, and also said that he sort of misunderstood the situation. Okay, yeah right, whatever... He did make it right though, all money was refunded AND he gave me 3-4 hours access to the dyno.

On the last pull, the truck put down 323hp and 319tq at about .82EQR PE. Much much better than the 295hp and 284tq it put down after his "tune".

I will post up tomorrow AM with all the current stuff and the dyno graphs as well. I still need to take care of the transmission stuff and back the timing off a bit in few places.

Thanks as always.

***EDIT: I think I meant to say .82λ, not .82EQR (I mean to say richer than stoich)

[joecar]

Good job :cheers:

[ScarabEpic22]

Calc.vet calculates the VE and corrects the maf. You had those two switched. I would verify you your selben is getting correction values.

Doh, updated my last post. Thanks for sanity checking me! :D


ScarabEpic22,

Yeah I was always a bit confused at how values derived from instrument measurement could work out to be exactly 100.00% correct on the first time. I kind of poked around to see what might have been wrong, but I eventually dismissed it, figuring that, "Well, the MAF is stock, so who am I to argue with the GM calibration engineers?"

As an aside, last night I decided to completely start over with a clean sheet on Spark segment. Starting with {B5913} H. Oct. Spark, I actually printed out the tables from a factory 2002 LS1 calibrations, the factory 2002 Silverado LM7, and from a couple of other forum member's custom tunes who had camshafts. I did that because I'm a Mac guy, so I only have a little netbook to run EfiLive on, and its tough to look at multiple data sets on this 11 or-whatever-inch screen.

So, I spent a lot of time carefully making a "hybrid" of the different maps, probably giving the factory F-body tune the greatest weight, but also narrowing the band of "heat"
down a good little bit, and just generally doing my best to reconcile my common sense and grasp of the 220R cam vs the LS1 cam, and looking at other tables in the tune.

The result? Unbelievable! A short drive late last night blew me away. There are 2 little spots where the table is still too hot (around at 2600rpm/.44g/cyl), and I saw that I got into a little KR, but it always was brief and decayed out quick. So I have to touch that up here and there. But even with some KR the truck is pulling SO much harder at any RPM and just generally feels and sounds SO much healthier it was shocking. I also undid every single thing the dyno shop did to it, because none of them made any sense and the truck ran like absolutely turd on that guy's tune.

Additionally, I extrapolated/guesstimated some more air into {B101} Base VE above 4400.

I'm not exaggerating when I say it felt like I downloaded another 50hp into it with that one tune. I had it up in the mountains last night on the highway and did a 3rd gear roll starting at about 60, and it was up to 115 just about as fast as a pickup needs to do.

I have a couple more questions to ask in a bit I got to run 4 a minute..

Your LTFTs should never be 0.0...I think LastCall has it right, you're not getting the proper data to have the MAF calculated in your SELBEN.

Glad to hear it pulls harder, sometimes it's just going back to square one and starting with a blank slate and it clicks.

Start with Joe's advice on trans tuning and put your shift points into the shift point calculator on here, that's really what Ive found "cleans" up shift feel and times.

[96SWB]

I just wanted to follow up with you guys

So as it turns out, the issue with the MAF corrections coming out as 0.000'ed (and also the LTFT's being 0.0'ed) was that there was only one front narrowband O2 sensor connected the whole time I was tuning it. The truck's owner removed one of the front NBO2's and put the WBO2 in it's place. The whole time I had assumed that he had welded up a third bung in front of the cats and installed the WBO2 there; not so.

More-or-less satisfied with how the truck running/performing, he has since removed the WBO2 altogether, and put the NBO2 back in place. He said that he didn't notice a change in how the truck runs since he hooked it back in, but I'm curious what it means that I did all the VE mapping (using calc.vet) with only one factory narrowband? Does it just mean that the {B5001} table is wrong and needs correction (obviously still factory-tune values since they were only ever *'d by 0.00); OR, does it mean that the entire {B0101} VE table is also somehow wrong or skewed?

[96SWB]

BTW, here was the results from the dyno. Again, it's a 2002 5.3L, Texas Speed 220R 220/220 .581 lift 112LSA camshaft, American Racing stainless longtube headers with high-flow cats, and 3in dual cat-back with 2x Flowmaster Super 40's, Outlaw Racing cold air cleaner / intake setup, 30ish thousand miles.

18602

[statesman]

The AFR's on that dyno sheet don't look very good.

[joecar]

On NBO2 only (i.e. no wideband) you can't easy correct during OL (non-stoich) conditions.

[96SWB]

Hmm...statesman,

The red line was the last pass. Is that still too lean? What should my AFR's be looking like? I know they need to be richer, but should they flat across the power band or should it vary, i.e. rich, but a richer toward peak tq, and a bit leaner towards peak hp?

Joecar, not sure what you mean there exactly. I know he needs to get the wideband back in there, but is there a way to do calc.vet correctly with only one NBO2? Otherwise, pretty much waiting he can get a third pre-cat bung installed, right?

[96SWB]

So basically where I am at is this: The whole time I was tuning the truck, using calc.vet, there was one narrowband (on bank 1 I think) and there was the wideband where the other NB should be. I was thinking both NB's were still installed in addition to the WB. I did calc.vet and it spit out the values for the VE table, but only 0's for MAF correction. I don't fully understand how it works, but obviously calc.vet looks at both bank 1 and bank 2 NB's.

Is there a way to fix this using old logs using data from the one NB that was there? i.e. is there a way to fix this without having to start over? I burned up my "free day at the dyno" card here. Starting to be pretty concerned, I could sure use some help here.

Does this make sense? I feel like I'm not explaining the problem well.

[96SWB]

Calc.vet only uses the NB's to correct MAF, right? So doing calc.vet with one NB missing would still generate correct VE values, just no MAF table correction, so do I just need to correct the MAF tables ?

[statesman]

Hmm...statesman,

The red line was the last pass. Is that still too lean? What should my AFR's be looking like? I know they need to be richer, but should they flat across the power band or should it vary, i.e. rich, but a richer toward peak tq, and a bit leaner towards peak hp?

I think that it should be somewhere in the 12's. It's personal choice whether you run it flat or vary it. I choose to vary mine. How you set it and what you set it at is entirely your choice but 12.8 in the lower rpms varying to 12.2 in the higher rpms is usually considered safe. I certainly wouldn't want my AFR in the 13's at full noise.

[statesman]

Is there a way to fix this using old logs using data from the one NB that was there? i.e. is there a way to fix this without having to start over? I burned up my "free day at the dyno" card here. Starting to be pretty concerned, I could sure use some help here.

Does this make sense? I feel like I'm not explaining the problem well.

I don't know what you did with your free dyno time, but it looks like you were not very well prepared for it. You really need to sort the fueling out first, then use the dyno to dial in the spark.

[joecar]

...

Joecar, not sure what you mean there exactly. I know he needs to get the wideband back in there, but is there a way to do calc.vet correctly with only one NBO2? Otherwise, pretty much waiting he can get a third pre-cat bung installed, right?Yes, you can use only one NBO2, you have to edit CALC.LTFTBEN's CLC to use only one NBO2...



So basically where I am at is this: The whole time I was tuning the truck, using calc.vet, there was one narrowband (on bank 1 I think) and there was the wideband where the other NB should be.
...

I did calc.vet and it spit out the values for the VE table, but only 0's for MAF correction. I don't fully understand how it works, but obviously calc.vet looks at both bank 1 and bank 2 NB's.

Is there a way to fix this using old logs using data from the one NB that was there? i.e. is there a way to fix this without having to start over? I burned up my "free day at the dyno" card here. Starting to be pretty concerned, I could sure use some help here.



Ok, I see, the wideband was being used...?

Yes, edit calc_pids.txt and revisit the log files...

[joecar]

Calc.vet only uses the NB's to correct MAF, right? So doing calc.vet with one NB missing would still generate correct VE values, just no MAF table correction, so do I just need to correct the MAF tables ?Calc.VET uses NBO2 and WB to correct the MAF table and to generate the new VE table...


in the calc_pids.txt file edit CLC-00-120 as follows:



*CLC-00-120
factor 0.5 1.5 .4 "{SAE.LONGFT1}/100+1"

[joecar]

Post the tune file and log files from the dyno session, and post your current calc_pids.txt.

[96SWB]

You the man! Will do. I'll keep you posted on the results when I get around to revisiting the logs. Busy completing a complete teardown/rebuild of a motorcycle in my free time at the moment. Should be done this weekend.

[96SWB]

18724
18723
18722
18721


Above is a tune and short log files. joecar or anyone, can you tell me where the KR is coming from and how to fix it?

[joecar]

I'm looking at it...

some of it might have been burst knock, but the throttle is increasing too slowly for this;

some of it is real knock (some of the spikes are actually 2 saw-teeth), these coincide with HO2S21 going low (lean);

( your other NBO2 is flatlining, but that's beside the point, you're in OL )

[96SWB]

hey joecar, I just changed that post to include 3 different logfiles which might have more useful PIDS

THANK YOU for looking!

[96SWB]

remember one NBO2 is flatlined because the WBO2 is installed there