Having some hiccups with OLMAF tuning. Help please

[RojoCamaro]

Hello I've been trying to get my OLMAF tune straightened out. The first issue I am having is that my cold starts are terrible and lean. It bounces around 600 rpm with the wideband buried into lean. Then it jumps up to where it should be and starts to rich up. Warm starts are just fine as far as rpms but are lean as well for the first few moments. I logged ect vs maf but recieved value ranging from 7 to 6 g/s from 32-80 ect. Wouldn't these significantly lower values make my situation worse?

The other issue I am experiencing is the as I am cruising it starts to lean out to about 16 afr then will jump to as low as my gauge will go which is 10 AFR. I know it isn't my gauge because I can feel it bogging down from excessive fuel.

I apologize if these are simple mistakes but I thought it would be best to reach out instead of going down the same path with these conditions. I am also aware the w02 ben data in the attached logs should make my rich lean swing better but wanted a second opinion on everything. I have attached the current tune, a log from cold start to operating temp, as well as a log from a quick drive on the highway. The car is an LS1 with prc 2.5 243s, fast 92 intake/tb combo, and a 235/240 .647/.608 111 lsa cam.

[joecar]

Post some screenshots of your MAF correcting BEN map (include the whole window).

[joecar]

What injectors do you have...?

[RojoCamaro]

1928919290

As for the injectors I'm not sure of the exact source but I did find them online with the specs.
Coil Resistance: Approx.12 Ohms / High Impedance
Static Flow Rate: 28 lb/hr = 295 cc/min @ 43.5PSI ( 300kPa )
Gain: 0.12ms/MG
Offset: 0.055ms
Turn on time @ 14VDC: 1.14ms
Turn off time: 0.85ms @ 300KPa
Amperage: 1.0 Amps
Pressure: Min 30PSIG/ Max 100PSIG
Accuracy:2%
I used those specs with the spreadsheet you posted to come up with the IFR. I also used that data for the min pulse width.

[joecar]

I can't read your screenshots, resolution is poor and looks like another language.

[ProperTuningOG]

Have you tuned the VE table already?

[joecar]

Ok, on this PC (larger 24" display) I can see your maps better...

[joecar]

Ok, on this PC (larger 24" display) I can see your maps better (hmmm, I think something is wrong with my other PC, VGA is getting blurred)...

[joecar]

BTW: I meant to post this previously...



Out of Range calibration summary: 04:45:59 pm, Wednesday Feb 24, 2016

Engine Calibration.AIR Pump
{B0203} AIR Pump Coolant Temp Disable, was out of range when loaded.

Engine Diagnostics.MAP
{C3003} Predicted MAP Max, contained one or more out of range values when loaded.

Transmission Calibration.Trans Pressures
{D0701} Base Pressure 1->2 Shift, contained one or more out of range values when loaded.
{D0702} Base Pressure 2->3 Shift, contained one or more out of range values when loaded.
{D0703} Base Pressure 3->4 Shift, contained one or more out of range values when loaded.


Fix those up as follows: set the blue dogeared/cornered cells to max-1, save file, exit tunetool (important), restart tunetool, set to max, save file.

[joecar]

Ok, in the map properties, goto the Data tab, set the Precision to 4, clock Save, click Ok.

[joecar]

Ok, I see you have the low cell count filter on, and the transient filter (I presume) on...

use LS1B_0060.efi (https://forum.efilive.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19282&d=1455759502) to populate the MAF correction map and apply it to the MAF table (paste-multiply-with-labels)...

let's see how this goes...

and where you see the MAF curve bump upat arounf 5250 Hz, push the MAF curve up (from 5250 Hz and up) to flow from that bump... and click the smoothing button a few times.

Save file, flash it, and take another log.

[RojoCamaro]

Ok, I see you have the low cell count filter on, and the transient filter (I presume) on...

use LS1B_0060.efi (https://forum.efilive.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19282&d=1455759502) to populate the MAF correction map and apply it to the MAF table (paste-multiply-with-labels)...

let's see how this goes...

and where you see the MAF curve bump upat arounf 5250 Hz, push the MAF curve up (from 5250 Hz and up) to flow from that bump... and click the smoothing button a few times.

Save file, flash it, and take another log.

I use the filter setting from the calc.vet tutorials but I'm having a lot of inconsistency. The ben factor will want to pull or add a bunch of fuel then I'll flash the file and run another log and then want to add or take way more. It's a reoccurring issue across multiple corrections and logs. With the lean starts, lean driving, I think maybe it's time to go to a SD tune. I may have a maf issue. I have included a sheet that shows a glimpse of my issue to save you the time of reviewing logs. log 72 shows how terrible my cold starts are.

[joecar]

Which MAF do you have...?

Does it have the airflow straightener screen...?

Is it near any bend in the airflow plumbing...?

Good idea, try doing SD tune first.

[statesman]

The MAF sensor looks fine. The problem is either a corrupted OS or a bad PCM... GM.CYLAIR_DMA is sometimes producing crazy low numbers, but at other times the numbers are exactly what they should be.

[RojoCamaro]

Which MAF do you have...?

Does it have the airflow straightener screen...?

Is it near any bend in the airflow plumbing...?

Good idea, try doing SD tune first.

It looks like a stock sensor with aftermarket maf ends. It's a straight shot from slp lid to tb. Do you you agree with statesman? Would that parameter issue affect sd tuning? The car didn't have these issues starting out with stock tables.

[RojoCamaro]

The MAF sensor looks fine. The problem is either a corrupted OS or a bad PCM... GM.CYLAIR_DMA is sometimes producing crazy low numbers, but at other times the numbers are exactly what they should be.

Is there any way to test it or just do a full flash? And if I do a full flash, would I copy my tables to a new file or just use what I have?

[ProperTuningOG]

You really need to get the VE table tuned. In cruise area you are over 15% rich. As WOT hits its not as bad, like 7-8%. Those are still huge steps. I am basing this off an LS1 I did thats very similar, VE attached. I have experienced the same issues when I just try and tune by MAF alone.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the VE act as fuel prediction then trimmed by MAF and O2........

19304

[RojoCamaro]

You really need to get the VE table tuned. In cruise area you are over 15% rich. As WOT hits its not as bad, like 7-8%. Those are still huge steps. I am basing this off an LS1 I did thats very similar, VE attached. I have experienced the same issues when I just try and tune by MAF alone.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the VE act as fuel prediction then trimmed by MAF and O2........

19304

I thought I would avoid that by disabling lt and St fuel trims and also setting the rpm threshold to 400 instead of 4000. I appreciate all the feedback guys. I will be starting an olsd tune the next time I have a chance to drive the car. Do you have better results with just paste mult by the Ben factor or do you use the interpolation spreadsheet?

[joecar]

In some of those logs (e.g. Book1.zip -> LS1B_0073) the MAF never reads higher than 35 g.s...

looking at CYLAIR_DMA (MAF based), it sometimes reads less than half of what DYNCLYAIR_DMA (VE based) reads, and sometimes is right on it (regardless of throttle transition or not).

I would say go to SD and see what you can do with the VE table...

is your wideband showing correctly (how do you calibrate it)...?

[ProperTuningOG]

looking at CYLAIR_DMA (MAF based), it sometimes reads less than half of what DYNCLYAIR_DMA (VE based) reads, and sometimes is right on it (regardless of throttle transition or not).

This is what I mean. His VE is double in some places what it should be with this cam. Making the MAF reading seem better... LOL

[ProperTuningOG]

I thought I would avoid that by disabling lt and St fuel trims and also setting the rpm threshold to 400 instead of 4000. I appreciate all the feedback guys. I will be starting an olsd tune the next time I have a chance to drive the car. Do you have better results with just paste mult by the Ben factor or do you use the interpolation spreadsheet?


True but initial fuel calculation has to come from somewhere. I use paste and multi/correct then manually adjust the surrounding areas. Then smooth. It takes time but law of averages always wins. LOL

[joecar]

Actually, in his log 0073 log, CYLAIR_DMA (MAF based) is following either one of CALC.CYLAIR (MAF calculated) or DYNCYLAIR_DMA (VE based) at separate times...

look at DAT: there is too much variance of DAT, I don't believe DAT can vary as quickly as that...

and what statesman said about the PCM and/or calibration being corrupted is starting to make sense.


Try to see if you can get VE corrected.


edit: added phrases to clarify what I was trying to say (not enough coffee).

[ProperTuningOG]

Actually, CYLAIR_DMA (MAF based) follows either one of CALC.CYLAIR (MAF calculated) or DYNCYLAIR_DMA (VE based) at separate times...

I absolutely get that but if the VE based is wrong........ The VE side would have influence on the MAF side if it is more than X amount inaccurate. Right?

Like I said, I've never had a MAF only tune run perfect until the VE was right. In the end we all tune differently and, hopefully, get to the same place.

[joecar]

What I meant was that he has VE disabled (B0120 set to 400 rpm) and yet CYLAIR_DMA is flip-flopping between DYNCYLAIR_DMA (VE based) and CALC.CYLAIR (calculated from MAF and RPM)...

in other words, how can the VE contribute if B0120 is not allowing it..?


something strange is going on, I think statesman may be right...

[ProperTuningOG]

What I meant was that he has VE disabled (B0120 set to 400 rpm) and yet CYLAIR_DMA is flip-flopping between DYNCYLAIR_DMA (VE based) and CALC.CYLAIR (calculated from MAF and RPM)...

in other words, how can the VE contribute if B0120 is not allowing it..?


something strange is going on, I think statesman may be right...

Agh, gotcha!

Is B0120 the sole setting though? I'm just asking because I have never had good luck that way. Is there something else that contributes to MAF only tune that's being missed? Is there a processing order of operations chart anywhere? I'd hang that on the wall! :book:

[joecar]

I think the thing to do is this:

- disable MAF (cause a MAF DTC to show up immediately),
- disable CL/LTFT/STFT,
- make sure wideband is calibrated or responding correctly,
- log (with smooth throttle, avoid jerking the throttle), may have to use brakes to increase load,
- double check the transient filter (post a screenshot of it here),
- lets see what the VE WO2BEN map shows.

[joecar]

Agh, gotcha!This is strange, usually don't see PCM's in a partly working/failing state...

they usually don't fail, and when they do fail, they don't do much.

[joecar]

Look at CA_DMA, DCA_DMA, CYLAIR in the 2nd chart:

19305

and also in the 2nd chart MAF never goes above 36 g/s.

[ProperTuningOG]

I think the thing to do is this:

- disable MAF (cause a MAF DTC to show up immediately),
- disable CL/LTFT/STFT,
- make sure wideband is calibrated or responding correctly,
- log (with smooth throttle, avoid jerking the throttle), may have to use brakes to increase load,
- double check the transient filter (post a screenshot of it here),
- lets see what the VE WO2BEN map shows.

I'll second that. Just remember to pull pin/unplug the MAF.

Its odd the MAF reads so low, thats for sure. If the FREQ following suit or is it in the conversion?

[RojoCamaro]

Alright I got a stock VE table and added 15% per the autove tutorial. My wideband is an AEM uego but I don't believe its a wideband issue because I can feel the rich and lean conditions. Especially rich. Should I be looking at a full flash and or transferring over my tables to a fresh stock file from the repo?
I have attached the base tune I will be doing SD on and a screenshot of my filter as requested. I did have the wideband filter higher before because of the lean condition but these are the usual settings used.
19306

[joecar]

Do a full flash this once, to try to eliminate a corrupted OS.

[RojoCamaro]

Do a full flash this once, to try to eliminate a corrupted OS.

If the OS is corrupt and the tune I am working with came from the pcm already modified wouldn't that make my tunes OS corrupt? I also noticed that the OS is not a 01 camaro but a 01 silverado. Could this be an issue?

[joecar]

If the OS is corrupt and the tune I am working with came from the pcm already modified wouldn't that make my tunes OS corrupt? I also noticed that the OS is not a 01 camaro but a 01 silverado. Could this be an issue?First start with a stock file (make a copy), and then use the tunetool to compare it to your edited file, and then use the tunetool to update the copied stock file.

[joecar]

The OS should not really matter (but you then have to edit the system settings to match the vehicle)...

but I like to match the OS to the vehicle (so I can leave the system settings as is).


( also, for 1999-2002 F-car I like using OS 12212156 )

[RojoCamaro]

The OS should not really matter (but you then have to edit the system settings to match the vehicle)...

but I like to match the OS to the vehicle (so I can leave the system settings as is).


( also, for 1999-2002 F-car I like using OS 12212156 )

Just an update. I was able to play with the car today, which went well. I successfully updated to 12212156 and after about 3 20 minute logs everything is slowly falling into place. I also found some post by joecar about 4l60e tuning which worked great. Thanks for the help everyone .

[statesman]

Just an update. I was able to play with the car today, which went well. I successfully updated to 12212156 and after about 3 20 minute logs everything is slowly falling into place. I also found some post by joecar about 4l60e tuning which worked great. Thanks for the help everyone .

Enjoy! :cheers: