LBZ equivalent of B0751/B0752?

[JoshH]

I recently put 40 over injectors in my truck, and since then I have been having a slight issue with my truck smoking more than I would like. I was wondering if the LBZ ECM has a table that will limit fuel quantity based on MAF values at a certain RPM, like the LB7s do with tables B0751 and B0752? If you they were available, I feel like it would help me tune the smoke out of the truck. Thanks.

[GMPX]

Not quite, but there is a table like B0796 in the LMM that is in the LBZ. But if I recall it was calibrated out from factory as it is more used for smoke control with the DPF.

[JoshH]

You mean B0795? It has Air/cyl and RPM as it's axes, but the units entered in the table are lambda. I have no idea what that is. I know there is something that limits fuel against air flow because I can mess with the MAF calibration table (B0201) and it will limit fuel until the MAF values get up to a certain point. The only problem is at cruising speeds the MAF is usually high enough that it will get full fuel, but off idle it won't. If I change it so that it doesn't smoke at cruising speeds, it will have no throttle response off idle.

[Sparky8370]

Any update on this? There has to be a maf table in there somewhere, right? Otherwise what's the point of having one, if there is nothing for it to alter?

[Sparky8370]

Can a cax file be written to show these tables?

[Sparky8370]

And also an expected airflow table?

[bballer182]

Not quite, but there is a table like B0796 in the LMM that is in the LBZ. But if I recall it was calibrated out from factory as it is more used for smoke control with the DPF.

Any chance those tables could be "activated"? Been playing with smoke control and mileage since the DSP release makes it easier to do. rather than flashing a new tune every time you wan to make a change just load up 5 instead.

[GMPX]

Sure I can look in to it after SEMA, too much to get done before then.

[bballer182]

Sure I can look in to it after SEMA, too much to get done before then.

Cool. right after the 6 speed alli's:grin:

[GMPX]

Yeah that too :Eyecrazy:

[bballer182]

Yeah that too :Eyecrazy:

hahaha:cheers::cucumber:

[LBZ]

Any chance those tables could be "activated"? Been playing with smoke control and mileage since the DSP release makes it easier to do. rather than flashing a new tune every time you wan to make a change just load up 5 instead.


Sure I can look in to it after SEMA, too much to get done before then.

Have you guys had a chance to look into this?

[JoshH]

Hey Ross, any update on this? If I can help in any way, please let me know what I can do. Thanks.

[killerbee]

smoke control with dpf deletes continues to be a huge issue. Would really like to find out how GM does it, the answer must exist.

[JoshH]

The LMMs have a table that is supposed to be for smoke control. I posted the table number in this thread; it uses lambda. I don't have trouble with smoke except for with bigger injectors. I could probably fix it in the pulse table, but that would screw up a lot more than it would fix. I'd really like to limit mm3 with MAF and RPM. There has to be a table in there somewhere.

[killerbee]

Thanks Josh.

Joel, have you (or anyone else) used B0795 to effect maf fuel limiting? Did it work as desired?

IIRC, I was not able to accomplish anything with it.

[JoshH]

I've never tried it myself. Like I said, I haven't had any problems with excess smoke on an LMM. Here's an LMM on a dyno that put down almost 480 HP. The smoke you see is because of the right outer dual rubbing on the guard at the edge of the roller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIMjrsuDDWU

[killerbee]

bet a bag of donuts that is dpf equipped. It works great to reduce, eliminate, smoke.

[GMPX]

The LMMs have a table that is supposed to be for smoke control. I posted the table number in this thread; it uses lambda. That would be B0795.

[bballer182]

Any chance those tables could be "activated"? Been playing with smoke control and mileage since the DSP release makes it easier to do. rather than flashing a new tune every time you wan to make a change just load up 5 instead.


Sure I can look in to it after SEMA, too much to get done before then.

So, haven't heard anything yet. Any chance it might happen?

[vortecfcar]

The table can be activated on an LMM, I've verified it. You have to activate the table in the parameters section of the tune and then adjust lambda. Warning: the table allows full fueling past it's RPM axis limit. I haven't tried it on the LBZ.

Nick

[JoshH]

The table can be activated on an LMM, I've verified it. You have to activate the table in the parameters section of the tune and then adjust lambda. Warning: the table allows full fueling past it's RPM axis limit. I haven't tried it on the LBZ.

NickDo you have something that shows that table on an LBZ? I haven't seen anything on an LBZ tune.

[bballer182]

Do you have something that shows that table on an LBZ? I haven't seen anything on an LBZ tune.

I would be inclined to say not without the help of Ross. We have no way to activate a table that we don't have access to.

[GMPX]

I'll post up a .calz file with the table in there if you want to try it. But I can't guarantee it will do anything on the LBZ, it may be calibrated out in other areas due to no DPF (I am assuming this is why the table exists).
OS 12606128 ok to try?

Cheers,
Ross

[killerbee]

The table can be activated on an LMM, I've verified it. You have to activate the table in the parameters section of the tune and then adjust lambda. Warning: the table allows full fueling past it's RPM axis limit. I haven't tried it on the LBZ.

Nick

B0797 I assume? Is there a consensus if this table, 797, is correctly described now? Does 6000 inhibit the table from limiting fuel?

[killerbee]

OS 12606128 ok to try?

Cheers,
Ross

698 request here

[bballer182]

I'll post up a .calz file with the table in there if you want to try it. But I can't guarantee it will do anything on the LBZ, it may be calibrated out in other areas due to no DPF (I am assuming this is why the table exists).
OS 12606128 ok to try?

Cheers,
Ross

Yeah 6128 is fine!

[GMPX]

I'll add it in for all OS's. Paul will be releasing an update on Monday (he's aiming for), the .calz files in that will have those tables/parameters added.

Cheers,
Ross

[bballer182]

I'll add it in for all OS's. Paul will be releasing an update on Monday (he's aiming for), the .calz files in that will have those tables/parameters added.

Cheers,
Ross

cool. including DSP OSs?

[GMPX]

cool. including DSP OSs?Yes, can't forget those.

[JoshH]

I'll add it in for all OS's. Paul will be releasing an update on Monday (he's aiming for), the .calz files in that will have those tables/parameters added.

Cheers,
Ross
Thanks Ross. I take it this is still scheduled to be released today?

[GMPX]

Paul has sent the new release to a few testers, he wants to release it before Easter.

[killerbee]

not acceptable. :)

Josh, thanks for persisting, really hope this works.

[bballer182]

Paul has sent the new release to a few testers, he wants to release it before Easter.

I don't think the new calz made it into the March 30th release?!

LBZ still have 7.23 October 03 2009 or something like that.


Sorry i was wrong the new tables are in there and the new install DOES come with the new calz. I accidentally re-installed build 104. haha whoops!

[JoshH]

I don't think the new calz made it into the March 30th release?!

LBZ still have 7.23 October 03 2009 or something like that.


Sorry i was wrong the new tables are in there and the new install DOES come with the new calz. I accidentally re-installed build 104. haha whoops!

Have you tried it yet? I PMed Paul and Ross to see if I could try it since my truck smokes like hell, but they didn't respond. I'm anxiously awaiting it to be released to us regular Joes. :help2:

[bballer182]

it has been released to the regular joe's. It's on the main download page. And no, i haven't had a chance to try it yet. I has busy last night finishing up a couple of spreadsheets i've been working on for the last week.

[killerbee]

Update when you have played with it. I will be doing so also after Easter.

[bballer182]

Update when you have played with it. I will be doing so also after Easter.

I have played with it a little and initial findings are that this table(s) do not do anything for the LBZ. I can still get it to smoke like a mother with logged eq's in the low 1.xx. I activated the table @500 rpm (B0797) and set B0795 anywhere from .9 all the way down to .3 with no affect...

[killerbee]

DAMN!

I wonder if there is an rpm enabler, like on the LMM.

This is crappy news, after 2 years of struggling.

[bballer182]

It's got the rpm enabler table B0797 that i set @ 500

[bballer182]

I just noticed that B0793's and B0794's values are swapped between the LBZ and LMM. That's kinda weird. And something else i think is weird is that on and LMM where this tables supposedly works it's tuned out from the factory with B0797??? could it be that this 0797 is the rpm disable for 0795 rather the 0797 being the enabler???

[killerbee]

did you also try rpm setting up high?

[bballer182]

did you also try rpm setting up high?

not yet. But the stock setting was 6000rpm so if it (b0797) was the disabler the table (b0795) would have already be activated.

I'l play with it some more.

[bballer182]

Back from playing with good news for Josh and Michael!!!

In a laps of divine wisdom that had been bestowed upon me from generation upon generations of performance diesel tuning i had forgot that lambda was the inverse of EQ. So in my earlier post i had stated that setting B0795 to anywhere between .9 and .3 was not doing anything, but was in fact loosening up the fueling without being able to tell. So, when i went to play again i change the max rich mixture (B0794) to 2.0 (.5 EQ) the smoke magically disappeared and when i set it back to .1 lambda (10 EQ) (way extreme btw, i know just proving a point) the smoke magically reappeared!!!

However, the "rpm enabler" seems to have no affect on the B0793-B0795. With it set @500 or 6000 the tables still were affecting the smoke level.

AND, with the max mixture set .2 the truck shifted way funny. It wasn't downshifting like it should have.

I logged a few runs and it seems the way it is controlling smoke is with the mm3 reference not PW (or i guess it would be PW indirectly) So i suppose this is why it was messing with the trans shift patterns.

Sorry to make you day dream about playing with an LBZ Michael... lol:grin::hihi:

[bballer182]

Oh, i forgot to say "hats off to Ross for bringing us an early Christmas present!" Much appreciated!!!

[killerbee]

Sounds good!


I logged a few runs and it seems the way it is controlling smoke is with the mm3 reference not PW (or i guess it would be PW indirectly) So i suppose this is why it was messing with the trans shift patterns.




In logging past, I had noticed strange PW reductions that did not correlate to mm3, what amounted to unexplained, inconsistent anomolies.

Does it appear that mm3 is being limited, AND that PW is tracking mm3?

[bballer182]

Sounds good!




In logging past, I had noticed strange PW reductions that did not correlate to mm3, what amounted to unexplained, inconsistent anomolies.

Does it appear that mm3 is being limited, AND that PW is tracking mm3?

yes, it appears to me that the PW is following what the commanded reduction of the mm3 reference is. I don't think that this is a TQ reduction, but rather just a mm3 reduction.

Which, brings me naturally to more questions; how does the ECM calculate the mass of air in the cylinder? Is it boost based or is it based on what the MAF has to say? And is there a pid which displays for us the lambda reference it is using? And is there a pid which will tell us how much air the ECM thinks is in each cylinder?

[killerbee]

Did a few logs, with different combinations.

I loaded all 2.0's and still have eq going over 1.1 (with significant smoke) on spool up. It is better than the 1.3-1.4 eq I was getting. I loaded all 0.2's and got 1.9 eq, so there appears to be a help for sure.

I am confused a bit. If higher values limit smoke (lean), then the desriptions in the limit tables are confusing. The lean limit would be the higher number, yes? Here are the stock numbers.

{B0793} Main Injection Lean Mixture Limit 0.92 lambda
{B0794} Main Injection Rich Mixture Limit 1.40 lambda

[bballer182]

yeah see! thats what im talking about?!?!? these tables don't make much sense...

[JoshH]

This is awesome. I've been so busy I keep forgetting to check this when I'm at home. I'm going to download this first thing when I get back to the house! Thanks everyone!

[killerbee]

So far, have only been successful at bringing EQ down to 1.1 on that tip-in spike, low rpm around 1600 or so. This is with using all 2.0's. That is still a significant smoke trail.

I am interested in what others have found. Also interested in hearing if 0793 and 0794 have been helpful to anyone, and what relationships you see.

[JoshH]

So far, have only been successful at bringing EQ down to 1.1 on that tip-in spike, low rpm around 1600 or so. This is with using all 2.0's. That is still a significant smoke trail.

I am interested in what others have found. Also interested in hearing if 0793 and 0794 have been helpful to anyone, and what relationships you see.I have been able to kill the smoke. I changed 793 and 794 as well as 795. I'm just trying to get it dialed in so I have some pedal response. If you get too crazy with the lambda values, it will not do anything when you hit the accelerator pedal. I did find that when the grams/cyl gets to about 3.0, the table basically doesn't do anything anymore.

[killerbee]

I have significantly modified pulse and pressure tables. So not sure if I am interfering with something inadvertently as lambda is an unknown definition, and there is no pid to see it.

what values did you use for 793 and 794, Josh?

Again, it is only the initial tip-in where I see the rich issue. Smoke is mostly fully contained otherwise.

[JoshH]

I have significantly modified pulse and pressure tables. So not sure if I am interfering with something inadvertently as lambda is an unknown definition, and there is no pid to see it.

what values did you use for 793 and 794, Josh?

Again, it is only the initial tip-in where I see the rich issue. Smoke is mostly fully contained otherwise.
For 793, I used the lowest value from 795, and for 794, I used the highest value from 795. I have a set of 80% over injectors and my truck would have billows of smoke rolling from the exhaust if I wasn't careful. I have fine tuned it to a haze that quickly dissipates, but I can easily make it completely disappear but drivablilty suffers if I do that.

[killerbee]

Good to know, and thanks.

[GMPX]

Have you tried it yet? I PMed Paul and Ross to see if I could try it since my truck smokes like hell, but they didn't respond. I'm anxiously awaiting it to be released to us regular Joes. :help2:
Send $50, that helps :sly: , but seriously, we (both Paul and I) were away over the Easter break, the software was released the day we left on a break, figuring anyone who wanted things prior to release would download that version anyway.


And is there a pid which displays for us the lambda reference it is using? And is there a pid which will tell us how much air the ECM thinks is in each cylinder?Short answer is probably no, I don't know off the top of my head what PID's the Bosch ECM supports, to add in DMA PID's is a major deal I can tell you. Otherwise there would be lots of them.



{B0793} Main Injection Lean Mixture Limit 0.92 lambda
{B0794} Main Injection Rich Mixture Limit 1.40 lambda
Yep, that is backwards, I'll fix up the descriptions.
Rich mixtures are less than 1.0, and lean mixtures are greater than 1.0. I think I've been dealing with gasser ECM's too long where GM use EQ Ratio's where lean is less, rich is more.

Cheers,
Ross

[bballer182]

Send $50, that helps :sly: , but seriously, we (both Paul and I) were away over the Easter break, the software was released the day we left on a break, figuring anyone who wanted things prior to release would download that version anyway.

Short answer is probably no, I don't know off the top of my head what PID's the Bosch ECM supports, to add in DMA PID's is a major deal I can tell you. Otherwise there would be lots of them.

Yeah, figures they would have to be a DMA pids.:confused: It would be interesting to know how the ECM calculates those two...


Yep, that is backwards, I'll fix up the descriptions.
Rich mixtures are less than 1.0, and lean mixtures are greater than 1.0. I think I've been dealing with gasser ECM's too long where GM use EQ Ratio's where lean is less, rich is more.

Kinda figured they were. It didn't make sense looking at the LMM and then the LBZ...

Cheers,
Ross


Thanx for the work though!!!

[killerbee]

Yep, that is backwards, I'll fix up the descriptions.
Rich mixtures are less than 1.0, and lean mixtures are greater than 1.0. I think I've been dealing with gasser ECM's too long where GM use EQ Ratio's where lean is less, rich is more.

Cheers,
Ross

Is there any possible way that the 2.0 limit can be expanded?

[JoshH]

Send $50, that helps :sly: , but seriously, we (both Paul and I) were away over the Easter break, the software was released the day we left on a break, figuring anyone who wanted things prior to release would download that version anyway.I'll paypal you right away... :hihi:

I was trying to keep an eye open for the release post, but I must have overlooked it. Sorry for pestering so much, but that table is exactly what I needed! You guys are the best :rockon:

[GMPX]

Killerbee, Yes they can be, if I recall the maths allows it to go from -32 to 32 (it's a signed value).
What do you need, 4 or 5? I just like to keep things sensible for other users, putting in 32 would be ridiculous.

Cheers,
Ross

[bballer182]

Killerbee, Yes they can be, if I recall the maths allows it to go from -32 to 32 (it's a signed value).
What do you need, 4 or 5? I just like to keep things sensible for other users, putting in 32 would be ridiculous.

Cheers,
Ross

I was wondering the same thing. 2.0 lambda = .5 EQ

So 4.0 lambda = .25 EQ

I can't possible see anyone tuning below that. It would be completely pointless to do so. And correct be if i'm wrong but there is no possible way to tune for negative lambda so zero would be the minimum. And even zero would produce a "divide by zero error" wouldn't it? So something like .001 should be the minimum, right?

[GMPX]

I know, minus Lambda seems odd, but they are signed numbers.
Probably more like 0.5 should be the minimum. Div by zero, the famous ECM killer, they may have a trap for that, I'm not sure.
I'm happy to put the limits at whatever, but I just try to keep in mind that someone might have a play and set it to something very silly just to see what happens. Granted unlike a gasser where allowing people to enter in 60 degrees of timing would be fatal, probably this is not so bad for the Diesel.
I'll just keep an eye on the discussion and decide from there.
It is however good news that it appears to do something positive.

Cheers,
Ross

[killerbee]

So 4.0 lambda = .25 EQ



It's not working that way. I use 2.0 and can get 1.1 EQ (calc_pid). My pulse and pressure tables may be why this is happening. Lambda could be based on assumptions we are not able to determine.


Ross, I think 4 would be enough.

[JoshH]

It's not working that way. I use 2.0 and can get 1.1 EQ (calc_pid). My pulse and pressure tables may be why this is happening. Lambda could be based on assumptions we are not able to determine.


Ross, I think 4 would be enough.
Your EQ pid will be all but useless for tuning with the lambda. What have you changed that is making it smoke so much? I've never had an LBZ or LMM that had smoke problems unless they had enlarged injectors. Did you add a bunch of PW to the lower fuel quantities or something?

[killerbee]

It would be easier to describe what has not changed.

It is a ground level-up project.

FWIW, the pressure table has no resemblance to stock, as an example.

[bballer182]

It's not working that way. I use 2.0 and can get 1.1 EQ (calc_pid). My pulse and pressure tables may be why this is happening. Lambda could be based on assumptions we are not able to determine.


Ross, I think 4 would be enough.

Correct, I too believe that the lambda table is based on stock tune assumptions, much like the DIC mpg calculation.

[bballer182]

Your EQ pid will be all but useless for tuning with the lambda. What have you changed that is making it smoke so much? I've never had an LBZ or LMM that had smoke problems unless they had enlarged injectors. Did you add a bunch of PW to the lower fuel quantities or something?

Calc_pid or not you can look at the tail pipe and tell it's obviously over .9 EQ... Anything over .9 EQ (actual, not calculated) will be smoky.

[bballer182]

I know, minus Lambda seems odd, but they are signed numbers.
Probably more like 0.5 should be the minimum. Div by zero, the famous ECM killer, they may have a trap for that, I'm not sure.
I'm happy to put the limits at whatever, but I just try to keep in mind that someone might have a play and set it to something very silly just to see what happens. Granted unlike a gasser where allowing people to enter in 60 degrees of timing would be fatal, probably this is not so bad for the Diesel.
I'll just keep an eye on the discussion and decide from there.
It is however good news that it appears to do something positive.

Cheers,
Ross

Yeah that sounds good. I think it might even be pretty close to impossible to fuel to a 2.0EQ unless there is a huge replacement non-VGT single turbo in the works.

[JoshH]

It would be easier to describe what has not changed.

It is a ground level-up project.

FWIW, the pressure table has no resemblance to stock, as an example.I don't think the pressure table will create excess smoke unless you are dropping a significant amount of rail pressure causing the fuel not to atomize correctly. The only thing I can think of that would cause large amounts of smoke at tip in would be if you made significant increases to the pulse width in the fuel quantity range of 50 mm3 and below or if you have larger injectors installed. Perhaps I'm way off, but that's my thinking regardless. I'll just say this, I never touch pulse widths at 50 mm3 and below, and I never have smoking problems on stock injector LBZ and LMM trucks.


Calc_pid or not you can look at the tail pipe and tell it's obviously over .9 EQ... Anything over .9 EQ (actual, not calculated) will be smoky.
I realize that, but the ECM can't see the smoke. It only goes off of what it thinks is the fuel quantity it is getting and the air quantity it is getting. If you fool the computer so that the fuel quantity it is using is actually more than what it thinks, your lambda values will be off. On the flip side, if you make it think it is getting less air, by rescaling the MAF sensor or putting a larger diameter intake pipe on, your values will skew back the other direction and vice versa. That is what I had been experimenting with before this table was released, but it is quite sensitive and much harder to get dialed in properly I believe because there was a lack of RPM control. I was trying to avoid playing with the pulse width table because I didn't want to affect the shift defuels at part throttle.

[killerbee]

much like the DIC mpg calculation.

that's what came to mind for me also as I try to evaluate.

[killerbee]

Ross, would it be possible to get the calz expanded to a 4.0 limit? I have another day or 2 to test this out. Email sent

[GMPX]

Michael,

Sorry for my non response, I've had no internet access for a few days (well, apart from the McDonald's car park). We changed ISP's and of course it never goes to plan, disconnected from one, two days later we finally get connected :mad:
What OS are you working with?

[killerbee]

12616698 is my test vehicle. Thanks. :)

[bballer182]

Michael, did you ever get a chance to play with my spreadsheet?

[killerbee]

No, sorry. I have been trying to grab air above the surface of the ocean, with feet stuck in concrete. Life today is what you might call, a 25 year flood.

[bballer182]

ouch! sorry to hear that...

[killerbee]

The 4.0 limit was more than enough. I used up to 2.5. Thank You Ross.

[bballer182]

The 4.0 limit was more than enough. I used up to 2.5. Thank You Ross.

I'm assuming that was a personal update for Michael? And not released in the April 09 update?

[killerbee]

Yes. Ross mentioned perhaps an automatic update soon.

[JoshH]

Glad you got it working, Michael. That new table works pretty slick, huh?

[bballer182]

Glad you got it working, Michael. That new table works pretty slick, huh?

I wouldn't go that far...

There are too many unknowns to make consistent and accurate changes to the table. I think I'm just goin to open the table up as to not be a limiting table and dial the boost to the fuel

[JoshH]

I wouldn't go that far...

There are too many unknowns to make consistent and accurate changes to the table. I think I'm just goin to open the table up as to not be a limiting table and dial the boost to the fuelGood luck with that. Wouldn't work for me as I have fixed geometry turbos, but this table kept me from blowing smoke all over the place. I think it works just fine with a little trial and error.

[bballer182]

Good luck with that. Wouldn't work for me as I have fixed geometry turbos, but this table kept me from blowing smoke all over the place. I think it works just fine with a little trial and error.

well that's the beauty of a VGT:thumb_yello:

[killerbee]

It does seem to have some effectiveness, but predictability has proven difficult.

It is clear that the table works. But using it as we are accustomed to, with assurance that we are adjusting correct cells, is a question in my mind.

[GMPX]

I'm assuming that was a personal update for Michael? And not released in the April 09 update?
Michael Emailed me on the weekend saying he had a small time window to be able to test the table on a truck.
Now that the full release of EFILive is out we can do auto updates via the internet much easier so that is how the update will be deployed.
I don't really like sending out zips via Email or posting zips on the forum because inevitably it gets people out of sync from 'official' releases, which then means I get more Emails :doh2:

Cheers,
Ross

[bballer182]

Michael Emailed me on the weekend saying he had a small time window to be able to test the table on a truck.
Now that the full release of EFILive is out we can do auto updates via the internet much easier so that is how the update will be deployed.
I don't really like sending out zips via Email or posting zips on the forum because inevitably it gets people out of sync from 'official' releases, which then means I get more Emails :doh2:

Cheers,
Ross

:blahblah::blahblah::blahblah:


:hihi::hihi:

J/K. Not like i needed it anyways.