CALC.PID for simultaneous MAF & VE Calibration - need sanity check

[Gelf VXR]

Gelf:

You see thats the conundrum. It looks correct, but you have to see if it is correct for all circumstances.

I.E., what if a tuner's MAF fails on the road. Will it still be valid?

But thats exactly what I have done, the MAF and VE table were calibrated together and agree across the calibration, if the maf fails the ve table was spot on with the maf, so there should be no issue.

[WeathermanShawn]

But thats exactly what I have done, the MAF and VE table were calibrated together and agree across the calibration, if the maf fails the ve table was spot on with the maf, so there should be no issue.

Your making my point. The VE Table was done with the MAF. What it looks like when the MAF fails is the true test. What does the VE Table look like in terms of airflow and Trims without the MAF tuned simultaneously. If one MAF fails, what will there Trims look like.

I have the results for the LS1, and they are far different than one would imagine. Perhaps its different for your OS. And, its possible I am missing your point..or vice versa..

[joecar]

So, AIRPERSEC is s dynamic blend of MAF and VE...?

[Gelf VXR]

Yes that's what I have been saying all along, AIRPERSEC tracks the higher of either MAF or DYNAIR (not to be confused with the PCM internal dynamic air calculation). I am calibrating maf and ve to the trims and ben corrected PCM dynamic air calculation. Because the data is all from one log of the exact same road conditions, the maf and ve calibrations are much closer than they would be from calibrating from two seperate logs with differing road conditions.

If I were a proffesional tuner I'd use a chassis dyno to calibrate individually because I'd be calibrating in a controlled enviroment, I could recreate the same conditions time and time again. But I'm not, I need a method for calibrating on the road, ve and maf must be calibrated to the flow rate of the fuel infector flow rate calibration at the same time. The fuel injector flow rate is the only constant.

This is method for on the road tuning, not a replacement for a proffesional chassis dyno tune

[WeathermanShawn]

Maybe I just don't understand E40 enough to really comment.

If your peers agree that it can be readily duplicated, then I would work on helping others understand your process.

I still would like to see a log where the MAF is entirely failed and how it then influences the VE Table and Trims. If it works, it can be easily duplicated (science).

I take it E40 still involves transient/dynamic fueling. Thats why I keep saying to test it with the MAF failed. Does E40 use any charge temperature computation in its fueling?

Don't misunderstand. I would love to see more people get involved in tuning differing OS's. I am just curious what the rest of the E40 crowd thinks. Is there an airflow blend that is not being modeled correctly here, or does this have merit?

Respectfully..

[Gelf VXR]

Maybe I just don't understand E40 enough to really comment.

If your peers agree that it can be readily duplicated, then I would work on helping others understand your process.

I still would like to see a log where the MAF is entirely failed and how it then influences the VE Table and Trims. If it works, it can be easily duplicated (science).

I take it E40 still involves transient/dynamic fueling. Thats why I keep saying to test it with the MAF failed. Does E40 use any charge temperature computation in its fueling?

Don't misunderstand. I would love to see more people get involved in tuning differing OS's. I am just curious what the rest of the E40 crowd thinks. Is there an airflow blend that is not being modeled correctly here, or does this have merit?

Respectfully..

I enjoy constructive debate, to answer your question, yes the E40 does and I am tuning transient dynamic fueling, the gm ve table is calculated at absolute zero, calibrating it and maf to the calculated dynamic value negates the need to know the charge temp calculation.

I dont think that the E40 is a common PCM, I am quite happy for any one to send me a 3mb plus log with all the pids or equiverlant pids that I attached in my early post, along with their current tune file, to be returned and relogged, so I can try to validate the process in another OS,

[joecar]

E40 is a bit of a learning curve for me, the pids are different, and I don't have one that I can play with... I did have an x4 cam sprocket laying around tho...

[Gelf VXR]

This evenings log after applying my updates to calibrations show LTFTs coming along very nicley




Now that I feel I have ve & maf, and thus my afr's under control my thoughts now turning towards spark advance again, LTFTs are quite sensitive to changes, I tried prior to this log shifting all the hi octane values one cell to the right, LTFTs went noticably negative, in that I stoped after a few miles and reversed back to previous setting. However I read with interest this article, which the tuner commands 22 degrees at peak torque and 27 degrees at peak bhp. I'm seeing around 22 at peak torque but no where near 27 at peak bhp? My focus next I think will be a adjusting spark in the WOT cells above peak torque, up in small increments and note whether the trims go negative/posive (negative = reduce spark / positive = add spark), and look out for knock of course.

Source http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...to/page_7.html

"Jim Moran will be handling the dyno tuning for our '05 GTO. "Unlike LS1s, LS2s seem to like a little more fuel on the top end," Jim explains. He starts out by increasing the idle speed, along with the startup and base airflow tables. The rev limiter is raised to 7,000 rpm, catalytic overtemp is disabled and the power enrichment eq. ratio is initially set at 1.18. Then Jim moves on to the main spark table and brings WOT timing to 22 degrees at peak torque, and 27 degrees at peak horsepower, blending into the surrounding cells. Timing at idle is also increased to the 24-27degree range. The PE spark advance correction table is zeroed out and the IAT spark advance correction table is adjusted to be less aggressive. Cat lightoff spark is also zeroed out. After that, torque management is reduced or removed along with skip shift, cooling fan duty cycle is increased and the car is ready to be started and brought up to temperature. Once it is in closed loop, Moran monitors the fuel trims and makes adjustments to bring them slightly negative. At that point the Goat is ready for a WOT pull, and the air/fuel ratio will be monitored/adjusted--so will the timing table if there are any areas that are getting knock retard. Once the tune is zeroed in (and if we had an auto), he would set the shift points on the dyno."

[ACCLR8N]

Well I decided to muddy up this old thread than start a new one:

In the Calc_pids file the very first line looks like a piece of a formula. I left this out. Then there is an undefined Calc.BEN_B variable. Is this a wideband factor? I replaced it with a new variable (CALC.WO2BEN) that is "{EXT.WO2LAM1}/{SAE.LAMBDA}" that I copied from my failed CALC.VET attempts.
Was that very first line supposed to do something?
Is CALC.BEN_B a wideband factor?

[joecar]

Well I decided to muddy up this old thread than start a new one:

In the Calc_pids file the very first line looks like a piece of a formula. I left this out. Then there is an undefined Calc.BEN_B variable. Is this a wideband factor? I replaced it with a new variable (CALC.WO2BEN) that is "{EXT.WO2LAM1}/{SAE.LAMBDA}" that I copied from my failed CALC.VET attempts.
Was that very first line supposed to do something?
Is CALC.BEN_B a wideband factor?

Yes, CALC.BEN_B is the wideband correction... BUT, we have long since refined the process and replaced that pid with CALC.WO2BEN

please see post #1 here: Calc-VET-correcting-MAF-and-calculating-VE-(in-single-log)

use that thread (and the calc_pids.txt from it) and modify for your ECM's pids (which seems to be what you're doing);

post your calc_pids.txt file so I can see what you got;

what year/model/vehicle/ECM...?