E38 VVE Dial In Guide Guidance Needed

[spedracr93]

================================================== ==========
21397
21398

================================================== ==========
I am looking for help with my first E38 VVE Tune.

Vehicle is a portly, 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche with the L76 6.0, 4L70E & 4.10 diff. Originally equipped with VVT & AFM, I have removed all of that with a recent engine rebuild for a GM LS3 cam (after the second AFM lifter failed in 5,000 miles, mind you). To tune the computer, I removed the AFM and VVT and copied the stock 2008 Corvette B8101 table and inserted it into the original L76 tune (same cam & heads but different intake and ever so slightly less displacement). Everything is as it should be, no codes but relatively poor performance in a few areas other than light load cruise.

This is my first attempt at tuning the E38 and I feel like I have followed every point and verified by taking notes of every single stock parameter that will be changed back after tuning.

I think that I do not have my BEN MAP properly established, but I would like a second opinion. If I were to give any feedback on Swingtan's guide, it would be that this is a seemingly critical data point and for a tutorial, it should probably be well defined instead of non-existent (Not to say that I'm not grateful for the guide or the subsequent help I'm seeking here, just merely pointing out a shortcoming of that tutorial).

Attached is the tune and my PIDs. Any advice to upload a log that is 2.48 MB??? Also, I was going to upload my BEN MAP for reference but that is an invalid file type for this forum...

I am using an AEM 30-0334 UEGO through Analog's AD1 port on the V2 for reference.

I'm open to ideas and comments.... any help/discussion would be beneficial.

[joecar]

Please attach your most recent log file, and your calc_pids.txt file.

[joecar]

Can you zip the log file (create compressed folder out of it ** see below), post the .zip file.

To upload your BEN map, zip it also, post the .zip.



** to zip a file, on the file's icon go rightclick->Send To->Compressed (zipped) Folder and you will see a .zip file with the same name appear on your desktop.

[spedracr93]

Thanks, Joe. I didn't think about zipping.
Here are the 4 files (1. BEN MAP, 2. TUNE, 3. LOG, 4. PID .TXT)

21402

21403

21404

21405

[spedracr93]

To further describe what is happening... I am removing low cell counts and applying my filter before performing a "Copy with Labels" in the Scan Log, then performing a "Paste and Multiply with Labels" in the Tune's B8101 table.

Here is my Graph Before the Paste:

21406

And here is the Graph After the Paste:

21407

[joecar]

edit your calc_pids.txt to read as follows (add the red part):


*CLC-00-110
factor 0.5 1.5 .4 "{CALC.AFR_AEM.lambda}/{SAE.LAMBDA}"


( use an editor like Notepad, i.e. not Word )

[joecar]

Do you have the pdf for your AEM wideband, I want to check the V->AFR/lambda equation.

[statesman]

How are you doing your calc.dat without logging ECT?

[joecar]

For E38/E67/E92 we take a shortcut, we use SAE.IAT for CALC.DAT (since I could not see any IAT/ECT blending tables).

[spedracr93]

Thanks, Joe. I'll update that reference in the PID file.



Do you have the pdf for your AEM wideband, I want to check the V->AFR/lambda equation.


Here's the page showing equation and table:

21408

Or PDF:
21409

[statesman]

For E38/E67/E92 we take a shortcut, we use SAE.IAT for CALC.DAT (since I could not see any IAT/ECT blending tables).

{B0179}... it's a bit more complex than the gen3's table as this table blends IAT/ECT based on vehicle speed as well as airflow.

[joecar]

{B0179}... it's a bit more complex than the gen3's table as this table blends IAT/ECT based on vehicle speed as well as airflow.
There seems to be no E38/E67/E92 DAT, so I'll have to make a lookup pid with this data in it.



LABELS MPH
Grams 0 12 25 37 50 62 75 87 99
0 0.262894 0.262894 0.262894 0.262894 0.262894 0.262894 0.262894 0.262894 0.262894
4 0.256455 0.256455 0.256455 0.256455 0.256455 0.256455 0.256455 0.256455 0.256455
8 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000
12 0.243546 0.243546 0.243546 0.243546 0.243546 0.243546 0.243546 0.243546 0.243546
16 0.237091 0.237091 0.237091 0.237091 0.237091 0.237091 0.237091 0.237091 0.237091
20 0.230652 0.230652 0.230652 0.230652 0.230652 0.230652 0.230652 0.230652 0.230652
24 0.224198 0.224198 0.224198 0.224198 0.224198 0.224198 0.224198 0.224198 0.224198
28 0.217743 0.217743 0.217743 0.217743 0.217743 0.217743 0.217743 0.217743 0.217743
32 0.211273 0.211273 0.211273 0.211273 0.211273 0.211273 0.211273 0.211273 0.211273
36 0.204834 0.204834 0.204834 0.204834 0.204834 0.204834 0.204834 0.204834 0.204834
40 0.198364 0.198364 0.198364 0.198364 0.198364 0.198364 0.198364 0.198364 0.198364
44 0.191940 0.191940 0.191940 0.191940 0.191940 0.191940 0.191940 0.191940 0.191940
48 0.185486 0.185486 0.185486 0.185486 0.185486 0.185486 0.185486 0.185486 0.185486
52 0.179032 0.179032 0.179032 0.179032 0.179032 0.179032 0.179032 0.179032 0.179032
56 0.172577 0.172577 0.172577 0.172577 0.172577 0.172577 0.172577 0.172577 0.172577
60 0.166123 0.166123 0.166123 0.166123 0.166123 0.166123 0.166123 0.166123 0.166123
64 0.159683 0.159683 0.159683 0.159683 0.159683 0.159683 0.159683 0.159683 0.159683
68 0.153214 0.153214 0.153214 0.153214 0.153214 0.153214 0.153214 0.153214 0.153214
72 0.146774 0.146774 0.146774 0.146774 0.146774 0.146774 0.146774 0.146774 0.146774
76 0.140305 0.140305 0.140305 0.140305 0.140305 0.140305 0.140305 0.140305 0.140305
80 0.133865 0.133865 0.133865 0.133865 0.133865 0.133865 0.133865 0.133865 0.133865
84 0.127426 0.127426 0.127426 0.127426 0.127426 0.127426 0.127426 0.127426 0.127426
88 0.120972 0.120972 0.120972 0.120972 0.120972 0.120972 0.120972 0.120972 0.120972
92 0.114517 0.114517 0.114517 0.114517 0.114517 0.114517 0.114517 0.114517 0.114517
96 0.108063 0.108063 0.108063 0.108063 0.108063 0.108063 0.108063 0.108063 0.108063
100 0.101593 0.101593 0.101593 0.101593 0.101593 0.101593 0.101593 0.101593 0.101593
104 0.095154 0.095154 0.095154 0.095154 0.095154 0.095154 0.095154 0.095154 0.095154
108 0.088715 0.088715 0.088715 0.088715 0.088715 0.088715 0.088715 0.088715 0.088715
112 0.082260 0.082260 0.082260 0.082260 0.082260 0.082260 0.082260 0.082260 0.082260
116 0.075806 0.075806 0.075806 0.075806 0.075806 0.075806 0.075806 0.075806 0.075806
120 0.069351 0.069351 0.069351 0.069351 0.069351 0.069351 0.069351 0.069351 0.069351
124 0.062897 0.062897 0.062897 0.062897 0.062897 0.062897 0.062897 0.062897 0.062897
128 0.056458 0.056458 0.056458 0.056458 0.056458 0.056458 0.056458 0.056458 0.056458


Uggh... 2-dimensional nested lookup() calls...

[joecar]

The vertical axis on B0179 is in grams...!? That does not make sense, it must be in g/s.

[joecar]

...
Uggh... 2-dimensional nested lookup() calls...All the columns being identical does make the lookup simpler.

[joecar]

Here's the calc_pids.txt for E92 using lookup() of B0179's values to calculate DAT...

I haven't tested it yet, please post some logs (use attached .pids file)... E38/E67 will be similar, I'll edit these shortly.



( I really wish V7 had the ability to allow user to specify filename of calc pids... in the meantime I'm using symbolic links )

[joecar]

We still need to figure out if this is correct, or if it needs to be multiplied by 0.96 (or was that 1/0.96...?):



*CLC-00-290
VE 0.0 4.0 .4 "{E92.SCALEDUNVE_DMA}/1000"

[joecar]

I need to see how much variance B0179 has among E92 files.

Same for E67.

Same for E38.

[joecar]

( it would also be handy if the scantool could directly look up a cell value in the tunetool...

for example, lookat(B0179, row, col, units) or lookat(B0179, row, col, units).units

or something similar (lookup is already taken)...

examples, something like the following:
lookat(B0101, 4000.RPM, 50.kPa).VE
lookat(B3605, 176.degF, 80.kPa).EQR

[statesman]

The limitations of the scantool are the very reason that I've hit a brick wall with trying to create a Calc.VET for the E38. I'm not knocking the scantool, just saying that there's only so much you can do with it.

[statesman]

We still need to figure out if this is correct, or if it needs to be multiplied by 0.96 (or was that 1/0.96...?):

It was a long time ago that I worked on the E92, so I'm having trouble remembering exactly what it was.... but from what I do remember, it was a somewhat dynamic error with a correction factor (possibly around 0.96) giving the best outcome. I'll try to find that old spreadsheet and let you know.