Printable View
I made the suggested changes Joecar. My "units" look off by quite a bit. The VE table values are very low; seeing 55 should be 125. Also, the MAF table has some larger than anticipated adjustments at 2750Mhz. I do have B0120 set around 3500RPM and my B3616 and B3618 are still in street trim. WO2LAM1 is also invalid. How do I get around this with my setup? THANKS for all the help guys!!
Hi Josh,Quote:
Originally Posted by TunasTwins
Since you don't have a wideband, you will need to use LTFTBEN for correcting the MAF table and calculating the VE table...
use the attached calc_pids.txt file...
( you will only be able to tune Closed Loop, you will then have to extrapolate the delta to the other regions of MAF and VE until you get a wideband )
Make sure your OS supports the pid GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA... if not, let me know and I'll modify your calc_pid.txt.
WO2LAM1 is only valid if you have a wideband connected to FlashScan V2 using a serial comms cable.
Set B3618 to something like EQR 1.175 all across, and set B3616 to something like 2002 Camaro (65% TP below 3200 rpm, 35% TP above 3200 rpm).
You can leave B0120 as is (because with the Calc.VET procedure, the transient filter happens to filter out VE contribution).
Giving it a shot now. Thanks Joecar! If I go the Ac pressure route, I'll take the help on setting it up.
Should I have the SELBEN in the new calc.pid without the
*CLC-00-220 factor 0.5 1.5 .4 "iff({CALC.CL}, {CALC.LTFTBEN}, ""{CALC.WO2BEN})""
CALC.WO2BEN entry? If not, just use the BEN from LTFT for my MAF table?
Using the BEN from LTFT for the MAF gives sane values. I hooked up my LM-1 again! I am currently messing with the NB simulation output. I have a harness in the car that I ran a couple years ago. The car runs fine (CL) with my current settings and shows .85-.87 lambda when in PE. I need to run the 5v signal to the AC or EGR now.
Use the calc_pid.txt file from post #484 (it replaces SELBEN with LTFTBEN)(and it deletes CLC-00-220 and CLC-00-110).Quote:
Originally Posted by TunasTwins
Wwhen you're able to get a wideband signal from your LM-1 into your AC pressure sensor signal, we'll edit the calc_pids.txt to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TunasTwins
Im ready now.
Can you test the ACP signal by connecting 1 or 2 AA batteries to it, and see if the scantool logs the correct voltage for the pid GM.ACP.
Is your LM-1 programmed to default AFR:V function, or did you program it the same as the LC-1 (use LM Programmer to view the AFR:V function graph)...?
If you can read GM.ACP.V and your LM-1 is programmed to default, here is the calc_pids.txt to read your LM-1 analog voltage thru the ACP input (air conditioner pressure)...
this calc_pids.txt uses your LM-1 wideband analog output (read into the AC pressure sensor circuit) to calculate wideband lambda and WO2BEN...
so it uses both WO2BEN and LTFTBEN (i.e. SELBEN selects whichever one is appropriate based on CL or not CL).
You will have to select the pids CALC.WIDEBAND and GM.ACP.
My work week starts today. I will do the testing next Wednesday. I got the green light to purchase a V2 but would still like to see this to the end. My next project will be to make a harness to quickly replace a nbo2 with the wbo2 and keep closed loop functionality. I see a trip to the junk yard in my near future. Also, my lm1 works great yet I am looking into the 14.7 pure plus. Ground offset will be the decid8ng factor. Im trying to create a system that will aloow me to quickly hook up to to various vehicles f9r street tuning.
I wired my LC-1 to an NBO2 plug that I cut off an old NBO2 (so that the LC-1 gets power/ground from harness, provides NB signal to harness, provides WB analog and serial signals on loose wire that is feed thru transmission lever grommet into passenger compartment)...
you have to be careful: some vehicles switch the NBO2 power/ground on/off while driving (for example GTO does this)... you have to check a wiring diagram for your year/model/vehicle (make sure that NBO2 power and ground do not go thru PCM).
When you do get your V2, you can use the calc_pids.txt that is provided in post #1 of the Calc.VET thread.
Josh,
Check that you can log the pid GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA...
if you can't (your OS does not support it) then we can edit your calc_pids.txt to use table B4901 from your tune to calculate dynamic air temperature (CALC.DAT).
[ when using V2, there is a B4901 modified calc_pids.txt in post #1 of the Calc.VET thread ]
:doh: lol, that would be post #1 of this thread.
Thanks for the details about the harness. Im at a crossroads between buying the V2 or upgrading to the tunercats CAN device. Either way, I will have to make the harness for nbo2 simulation. It's a question of how easy or how inexpensive I want to make this on myself. Ultimately, I'd like both. The tunercat gives me the ability to do more vehicles with less residual costs; the V2 is just plain sexy. Therefore I've been leaning towards the tunercats first. Ill work on the harness on my weekend.
V2 on its way. Cats next.
Good call on the V2! You will never regret it. Welcome to the party!Quote:
Originally Posted by TunasTwins
Cool :cheers:
Its here...been waiting years:beer:
Im a bit confused about the PID WB settings from post 476 & 477. Is this assuming I have E0 gas as it divides the equation by 14.7? Without buying a E% test kit, can I use the WB to figure out what % Ethanol my gas has? If the WB is set at 14.3 (it is) and its reading 1.02 lambda, can I assume its really E0 or richer than 14.3AFR?
Wideband will not tell you alcohol content.
Which wideband do you have...?
If it outputs serial data, then you can connect it to your V2 using a null modem serial cable
(i.e. you don't need what posts # 476,477 say... )
(i.e. you just keep the standard calc_pids.txt from the Calc.VET thread)
I see you have an LM-1... this will connect serially to V2.
Which is the best recommended WB for EFILive? Is $200 AEM any good?
Thanks joe. I had a hunch the serial pass through worked with the original calc pid. i've read up and will look for the cable supplies tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by joecar
easiest thing to do is give up on afr and go to lambda. just set your tune fueling the same as your wideband. so u dont get any wierd correction happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by TunasTwins
yepQuote:
Originally Posted by Tre-Cool
Hello Everyone,
I have been away from tuning for quite sometime! I sold my TA back in 2012, but I have a friend with a Camaro asking me to do some tuning. Since i was pretty involved, i said yes. Fast forward today, and now we have this badass Calc.VET tuning! Pretty impressive and really neat if you ask me. I set everything up, but i got some results that I am a little confused on, so here is the following setup:
2002 Camaro Auto
Completely Stock, except Lid, Kooks long tube headers with Kooks dual 3" exhaust, and removed Air Pump assembly. This includes a completely stock tune file.
Has front O2's installed and MAF (as opposed to the OL-SD I used to tune), so I am doing the Calc.VET tuning instead of autoVE
What is confusing me, is the following:
I got my calc.pid setup for use with the AEM wideband setup, but the wideband is currently NOT installed. I went ahead and did a run anyway to log at least the non-PE portion of the VE table (<50% throttle) and MAF just to see how it works. What was surprising to me is after logging a run, the VE figures actually went down in the lower RPM bands compared to stock (i didn't get enough logged for upper rpm >2,400 rpm). I figured that with the addition of the kooks headers/dual exhaust, that they would actually be up. Additionally, the fueling (from what I saw on the trims) was +6% on average (according to the log file). So, I'm just wondering if because of the way I have it setup if it is not working correctly. Would it not work because of the following:
1) Not having my Wideband hooked up to give actual readings? Would this cause some sort of mistake in the formula for anything below PE mode?
2) I am using the AEM wideband (http://www.aemelectronics.com/Images...%2030-4100.pdf), and the instructions are not VERY clear as to what it considers "stoich", could a difference between 14.65 and 14.7 have a significant impact? Does Stoich on B3601 being the stock 14.63 value somehow mess up calculations if compared to the AEM wideband stoich of 14.65/14.7?
3) Am I somehow not using the correct PIDs? (I have attached my PID file for your review AND calc_pid.txt file)
4) Have I somehow used the incorrect data for the adjustments on my MAPs in EFILive Scan? I have attached my log file. My VE table Map used Calc.VET (%) data from "Calculated VE, BEN corrected (%)" and my MAF table used data from Calc.SELBEN from "BEN selected from LTFT or WB (factor)".
If someone sees anything funky, please let me know! If I am doing everything correctly and I should just carry-on, tell me that too, ha. I suppose I was just not expecting lower VE figures from those changes in the lower rpms.
Thanks a lot,
Haans249
I'm looking thru your files tonite/tomorrow...
Thank you very much joecar! Hopefully we can get it figured out.
You will have to filter out all data for open loop (i.e. EQIVRATIO not equal to 1).Quote:
Originally Posted by Haans249
Set B3601 to the stoich of the fuel you are running.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haans249
The AEM's default value for stoich AFR is for converting from the AEM's AFR to lambda (you use this in CLC-00-110 in the calc_pids.txt file).
Those pids are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haans249
Since you're not using the wideband, you will have to filter out all open loop data (add a clause to the transient filter).Quote:
Originally Posted by Haans249
Post screenshots of your maps.
In the tunetool set your VE units to g*K/kPa and in the scantool map use the g*K/kPa variant of CALC.VET.
I changed my filter from >50% throttle, to EQIVRATIO /= 1.
B3601 is set to my stoich of the fuel i'm using (which is petrol gasoline, obviously not exact because I haven't tested the fuel)
I'm not sure what you mean by adding a "clause to the transient filter" to filter out the Open Loop data, I'm assuming its the EQIVRATIO /= 1.
I changed the VE units accordingly.
I hid all cells with less than 25 frames, it was a short run. What would be best to use here?
After the changes that I made, the corrections look much better and make more sense. I posted the maps for VE and MAF adjustments after the modifications you suggested. There are still some adjustments in the upper MAP that look off, but i'm assuming that's because I was having kicking the traction control on with too much throttle.
Hope it all looks good now and thanks!
Hi Haans,
For E00 (i.e. no alcohol) 14.63 is ok for B3601.
You transient filter shows the clause "OR CALC.CL not equal to 1"... this will exclude all frames that are not CL, so you did it right; when you apply the transient filter, look thru the log to see if any CALC.CL == 1 shows up (it should not).
Hide cells with few than 25 hits is ok... for short runs try 10.
For the MAF map, in the map properties, goto the Cell tab, and you can constrain the cell width (so it looks narrow instead of spanning your scantool window).
Upper MAF range:
- if you can avoid wheelspin that would be helpful (lol, easier said than done); dragging the brakes (increasing load on engine) usually helps to get good data.
- apply the MAF map (paste-multiply-with-labels) and look at the curve, it should look like a smooth 4th order polynomial; so you can "extrapolate the un-hit cells by making them "flow" with the hit cells (don't alter the hit cells); (also paste-with-labels the VE map into the VE table); try this, and then log again and see what the MAF map looks like now.
- without wideband, there is only so much MAF range you can correct.
You may also have to set B0120 to 400 rpm or less to disable the VE... usually the transient filter removes any frames where VE has contributed to the airmass computation.
Hey Joe!Quote:
Originally Posted by joecar
Thanks again for the very good information! I hope I wasn't asking questions that have already been answered, it gets tough trying to read through so many posts. I have taken into account everything you've posted. Now I'm just waiting to hear back why my flashscan cable won't upload a tune to the car! Ugh, if its not one thing, its another. I'll post back up once I get some more results.
Adrian
Hey Adrian, no worries...
This thread has a summary of stuff: Summary-Notes