EFILive's GM Tuning Resource Wiki

[redhardsupra]

guys, you are making an imperial shitton of assumptions here, you might wanna ask more questions instead of repeating old answers.

[mr.prick]

IMO
The wiki should only be about hardware & software features & configuration ect.
it should not go into tuning methods.

[redhardsupra]

http://forum.efilive.com/showpost.ph...52&postcount=7 ah look, we've tried it before in 2006, and it didn't go far. one can only hope that the gearheads finally caught up with the 21st century

[acomp917]

redhardsupra,

What guys? What assumptions? If your ability to understand what is WAS like to begin using EFI live is ANYTHING like your ability to relate the most basic of information, I can see why we have a difference of opinion.

I have stated that "I" am new to this stuff. I have read a bunch of the forum, most of both types of tutorials. There is really good information ALL OVER THE PLACE... that is the problem. I would like to make a contribution to the new users. Basically a step by step for understanding of the available tools, understanding of PCM preparation, and finally a tuning solution(or many, as myself or others contribute). I would also like to make ALL of this available in ONE place...a wiki.

I know from learning other difficult subjects that as a person becomes more advanced, they loose sight of just how difficult it was to get into the ballpark. It is also becomes EASIER to ad to a library of knowledge by browsing a forum. This is called populating of your cognitive map. Forming one is difficult. Forming one correctly is of paramount importance. I might make mistakes in my attempt to teach the basics of getting started... Atleast I tried.

Good Day,
Steve

[redhardsupra]

few assumptions that most people are comfortable making, that make me cringe, because i've seen what happens when you try to verify some of these things:
1. MAF is correct from factory--it's a technically correct statement which is weak only because in reality the intake tract is usually the first thing that's altered, which invalidates the 'MAF is correct' premise. If you don't believe me that MAFs need recalibration when changing anything in the intake tract, go rotate your MAF 90 or 180 degrees, and go for a ride. Did your trims/WB readings change in a non-trivial way? I bet you they did.
2. IFR is correct. Kinda, statistically speaking, the IFR values are a good 'estimated values' but with a significant amount of noise. Our fuel systems are weak from factory, and when stressed (aka added higher demand for fuel), they do not perform anywhere near as designed. I've seen the popular racetronix kits drop fuel pressure to lower 40psi on a big cube NA motor, just because the increased airflow demanded matching fuel.
3. WB is correct. Between electrical problems (bad ground), and most people not being able to determine an equation for a straight line between two points, I have rarely seen a WB that reads correctly.
4. AutoVE/AutoVE is correct. It isn't, it's flawed at the very onset. I have written on this topic extensively, and it's beyond the scope of this post, so the short version is: you're not normalizing your conditions as you should, and thus you're not attributing the airflow changes to the correct source.

Put these four cardinal tuning sins together, and I guarantee your tune will never be stable, robust, or controllable.

[acomp917]

redhardsupra,

Before I begin.
I have just read some of your incomplete wiki(barely started). Not bad. Sort of Naysayerish... good advice for novice "with a heavily modified car". Whoa, we know were off to a good start now! Also, that tire radius measurement should be taken from the axle ctr. to the top of the tire. Measuring to the flat spot at the bottom(pavement) will throw off the calculation.

Now I will begin.
I believe you understand much of what is going on. I know from experience with simple aftermarket SD systems that the engine does not care how the PCM figures the AFR/ and to some degree timing... as long as it is correct. I know the GM systems are a LOT more complicated than that and they expect the 2D and 3D tables to reflect at least a moderately accurate set of values.

From your previous post, you have stated that there is not a single functioning method from which to create a baseline from. SD...IFR is not accurate-VE table will never be correct, MAF... both MAF and IFR are not accurate-we have nothing to work with here. Without calibrated measuring (lab) equipment, we cannot begin to tune our cars. Both the injectors and the MAF will have to be sent in for calibration, at least you did not pick on the MAP sensor.

You started a wiki. If you are not in the business of tuning for profit... I cannot figure out why you have not published the basics for engine tuning. Since you offer mostly NAYSAYER information... PLEASE, enlighten all of us as to how exactly you tune an engine.

S

[redhardsupra]

That wiki is 4yrs old and it was abandoned for lack of interest. I understand the concepts and issues presented there in a lot more detail then before.

And no, I'm not a naysayer, if you've read more of my stuff, you'd be aware of how many tools and methodologies I've made available to the public for free over the last 5yrs. So why would you concentrate on the negative, you naysayer you?

I do have a method of tuning that works and does not violate any of my own rules. The problem is that the solution to it is so computationally complex that I have not been able to make my software robust enough that you could just put in your logs and let it spit out a reliably good results; there's always a need for tweaking and sanity checks. once i solve these problems, it will be available.

[Steve Bryant]

redhardsupra,
I believe that you do have some good points as I have read some of the information in your hyperlink, here and in other fora like LS1Tech.com. But a fair amount of it is so math intense and borders on being incomprehensible.

1. Are you willing to constructively help with some basic tuning information for beginners and intermediate folks?
2. Do you want to be a cynic who just wants to belittle the efforts of others?
3. What is your point of strategy here?

Steve

[redhardsupra]

1. yes, i have been for 5yrs. if that doesn't prove intent, i don't know what does.
2. i am not belittling efforts of others. i am merely pointing out the bad science and garden-variety mistakes.
3. my strategy? to release a tool that will put the end to all of discussions, and does things correctly, regardless of model, year, or platform. It's actually done, just not something i'd ever hand over to general public.

you're right about the math intense. it's just the nature of the beast and there's no way around it. you can beat around it all you want, but all you're gonna do with basic math is keep going in circles by adjusting one table, only to find out that the same error pops out somewhere else; it's a tuning equivalent of whack-a-mole.

that's why i've been showing the more advanced tricks to people individually, usually using skype and remote desktop, because you need a lot of tricks in your bag before you even think of attempting doing this the right way. it usually takes few weeks before people even get close to understanding all the pieces involved, yet alone putting it all together and solving it with some actually fairly advanced math. if you think you got the mental skills for it, please hit me up, and i'll show you a whole different way of thinking of this stuff. however, and this is a big however, this is not for the faint of the heart, impatient people, or anyone mathematically challanged.

[acomp917]

readhard supra,

I think you are FOS!

I have been tuning engines for 30 years, even before computers. I know that since the invention of (I hope fairly accurate +-.5) WBO2's about the only mistake you can make in "BASIC" tuning is to chase your tail with the timing/fuel scenario. eg. adding timing...shows leaner, add more fuel..., add more timing... ect.

You seem to REALLY embrace the computational aspect of engine tuning. I know for a fact that an engine is just an air pump with a personality(CAM DYNAMICS/ and other influences). All you have to do is mix the correct amount of fuel with that air(I don't care if you pour it out of a beer bottle, read:carburetor) and set fire to it at the correct point. If I have the ability, I would limit fuel after the peak torque and tada the engine is happy.

I have logged powerful ECU's with a limited amount of required calculations and their logs are so close to the actual events that corrections made from them are "perfect". I have also logged doggy ECU"s and during transition, their logs are useless. I hope I am pleased with the logging capabilities of this PCM/V2 setup. If so, I will try to show you and your believers how simple tuning an engine can be.

I'm off the box now
S