Calc.VET: correcting MAF and calculating VE (in single log)

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

February 28th, 2014
Haans249

3 Attachment(s)

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
February 28th, 2014
joecar

I'm looking thru your files tonite/tomorrow...
March 1st, 2014
Haans249

Thank you very much joecar! Hopefully we can get it figured out.
March 2nd, 2014
joecar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haans249

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?

You will have to filter out all data for open loop (i.e. EQIVRATIO not equal to 1).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haans249

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?

Set B3601 to the stoich of the fuel you are running.
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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haans249

3) Am I somehow not using the correct PIDs? (I have attached my PID file for your review AND calc_pid.txt file)

Those pids are correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haans249

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)".

Since you're not using the wideband, you will have to filter out all open loop data (add a clause to the transient filter).

Post screenshots of your maps.
March 2nd, 2014
joecar

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.
March 4th, 2014
Haans249

5 Attachment(s)

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!
March 4th, 2014
joecar

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.
March 4th, 2014
joecar

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.
March 5th, 2014
Haans249

Quote:

Originally Posted by joecar

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!

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
March 5th, 2014
joecar

Hey Adrian, no worries...

This thread has a summary of stuff: Summary-Notes

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page