Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Whacked out VE Table

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    79

    Default Whacked out VE Table

    Has anyone had to calculate there VE tables into the 130+'s minimum to get a good Air-Fuel reading???
    My engine is a 5.3, 10.6:1 compression, decent Comp Cam, heads ported/polished, Gibson shorty headers w/crossover pipe.
    I thought that this engine would breathe well but this just seems not right compared to my last LS1 that would top out at 135 VE.

    Anyone have any sugestions???

  2. #2
    Guess who's back!!!! Black02SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,355

    Default

    I did once.... Found out it had a bad fuel pump.

  3. #3
    Unknown Zone TAQuickness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,940

    Default

    For naturally aspirated I would be supsicious of any VE values over 115%. You might want to check for exaust leaks or fuel system problems (as Chad suggested)

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAQuickness View Post
    For naturally aspirated I would be supsicious of any VE values over 115%. You might want to check for exaust leaks or fuel system problems (as Chad suggested)
    TA your always a great help!
    I now its not the fuel system, I have 63 PSI of rail pressure. I will check for exhaust leaks today.
    Do you think it could be a intake leak?? My MAP readings are in the 45-50 KPA area and stay fairly steady.
    Also, I have my wideband located at the exhaust crossover to monitor both sides of the engine. I would asume this is the best place to mount it.... Am I wrong???
    Thanks guys!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Well I figured out the problem!!!!
    Under DTC Processing Enablers if you disable any of the MAF tables P0101, P0102, P0103, the engine will not run correctly. You can disable them under MIL enablers but not Processing Enablers.
    Hope this eventually helps someone out.

  6. #6
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Is there a post somewhere that describes exactly what a processing enabler is? The way you word it it sounds to me like disabling the processing enabler would be the right way to do it too, not letting it be a part of the equation, but obviously the PCM doesn't like that.
    1998 GMC Sierra K1500 5.7/4L80E, longtubes, 411 w/COS 5, marine cam/intake, Whipple. 91 octane at 6000'.
    1997 GMC Sierra K3500 7.4/4L80E, 411 w/COS 3, Whipple, small cam.
    2004 Corvette Z06 with longtubes.

  7. #7
    Lifetime Member 5.7ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    To run in Speed density mode (mafless) the PCM needs to see that the maf has failed. If you turn off the processing enabler this cannot happen, and some other pseudo fuelling mode is used.
    The Tremor at AIR

  8. #8
    Lifetime Member Kevin Doe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RacerChris View Post
    Well I figured out the problem!!!!
    Under DTC Processing Enablers if you disable any of the MAF tables P0101, P0102, P0103, the engine will not run correctly. You can disable them under MIL enablers but not Processing Enablers.
    Hope this eventually helps someone out.
    I hope you found my thread where I had the same problem. It had me stumped for about a week.

  9. #9
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    389

    Default

    I think this is exactly what I was going through the other day! Drove me nuts....

    Lee

    230" Dragster - 2000 LS1, 02020003 Speed Density, PRC 2.5 Heads,
    MS3 Cam 237/242 .603/.609, Vic Jr. intake, Holley 1000CFM TB,
    PowerGlide, 5000 stall converter. 8.70@154 MPH

    My Projects Homepage: http://www.horsepowerracing.com

  10. #10
    Lifetime Member Kevin Doe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Another thing to note is that if youre fuel flow table isn't correct, the VE table certainly be offset.

Similar Threads

  1. Whacked Commanded AFR?
    By N0DIH in forum Gen III V8 Specific
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: November 10th, 2008, 04:47 PM
  2. Please explain table A0007 TPS VE TABLE cos5
    By WHYTRYZ06 in forum General (Petrol, Gas, Ethanol)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 18th, 2008, 05:26 PM
  3. OLFA table vs. Custom OS A0008 table
    By 1bar in forum General (Petrol, Gas, Ethanol)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 6th, 2007, 05:25 AM
  4. Main VE Table ?, Logged data vs VE Table
    By dbaxter_ss in forum Tips and tricks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 26th, 2004, 02:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •