Awesome info Shawn. Thanks for doing the tests.
Printable View
Awesome info Shawn. Thanks for doing the tests.
Your more than welcome..:cheers:
I had a lot of data, so also thanks to Joecar for his talents in summarizing into Summary Notes!
So what you're saying is when closed loop is enabled in the tune, having a richer Commanded Fueling in Open Loop (CFOL) table setting than what is in PE table will not override the PE table when the PE enablers kick the car over into open loop?
What about before the car goes into closed loop (when ECTs are lower than the CL threshold)? I know the logs I have would show the commanded AFRs that follow the CFOL table. But, I never really get on the car to find out if PE took over.
I do agree with the other half of what you're saying. When CL is turned off, fueling will follow the CFOL table until PE is enabled, at which point it'll take the richer of the two.
Interesting...I knew there was a reason I constantly tell people to use the PE table. Damn ESP is flaring up again. LOL
If and when I get married - can you please teach this concept to my future wife? It'll make life much easier from what I understand. Thanks!!!
PS - Just saw your sig and realized we're twins. The car I just picked up this winter is a Black '02 Z hardtop M6. LOL
For non-EFILive people reading this...
B3618 = PE EQR table
B3605 = OL EQR table = OLFA table (depending on the fueling units selected in the tunetool)
B3647 = OL EQR table for COS (Custom Operating System)
Can you brake the acronyms down for us slow kids? PLEASE
RE start of thread:
Does B3618 or B3605 Control Commanded Fueling..
Test: 2002 LS1B OS 1221256
I suppose 1221256 is a misprint, and that we are actually talking about 12212156
If this is the case i fing it strange that in my calibration (12206911), the 3605 and 3618 consists of numbers smaller than 1, IE 0,88 multiplied with 14,63= 12,87 AFR.