You use the mdthod that works for you and that you are comfortable with.
A large part of tuning is knowing when to use which method, and to understand the method (and its implications) sufficiently well to get good results.
Hi guys, I'm fairly new to the EFI tuning world. I'm tuning my slightly modified 2004 GTO, and I'm having issues with CALC.VE and CALC.VET. I've attached my latest log, tune, and calc_pids files. Whenever I paste (with labels) my new VE values (in g*K/kPa, or %) I get some really weird values. Any idea what I might be missing here, or is my factory VE table off this much? Any help would be great!
Garrett_GTO_tuned_20160802_1.ctz
GTO_August_5_2016_1.efi
calc_pids.txt
Can you post screenshots of what is happening...
I now use Calc.VET instead of Calc.VE: Calc-VET-correcting-MAF-and-calculating-VE-(in-single-log)
Try the attached tune.
Hints: use more throttle, try to make smaller motions on the throttle.
Question: did you change your MAF plumbing air duct...? Post pics.
Thanks Joe!
I've attached screenshots of my B0101 and B5001 before and after using Calc.VET, as well as the tune with these changes. I started with Calc.VE a few days ago, but after I got wonky results (similar to what I see with Calc.VET), I found this thread. The two big things that I'm unsure of are the spikes in the B0101 table, and the drop in the B5001 table. These are following the first post's tutorial, and making sure to apply the Calc.VET filter.
I'll give your tune a shot and get some drive time logged. Should I shoot for more RPM, or just try to get more load on the engine? By smaller motions, do you mean accelerate more slowly and get to higher RPMs, then hold it with steady throttle input?
I have changed my induction, I've attached a picture of that as well. The main changes are an XAir intake and fast acting IAT. I do have aftermarket headers (short) and JBA mid pipes (catted).
After:
Before:
After:
Before:
Induction:
Tune with Calc.VET logged updates:
Garrett_GTO_tuned_20160805_1.ctz
I looked through your tune, thanks for running through that! I think I understand what you did. It looks like you took out the PE enable delay, made the PE modifier 0.85 across the board, and modified the TPS % for PE enable. I assume the B3615 modifications are based on experience?
For the B0101, did you mainly smooth the lower RPM "dip" it had? I think that makes sense, I actually had an issue under higher load, lower RPM acceleration where the engine would lean out for a second or two. Did you do a decent amount of smoothing on the B5001 and lower it a bit? Sorry for all the questions, I'm an engineer and can't help it!
You need more load, and larger throttle opening... but try to keep throttle smooth (less jerkiness), this is hard on the street... dragging hard on the brakes for a few moments will help increase load.
After doing low RPM and seeing the trend in MAF, then edit MAF table to continue trend, and then do a high RPM log (but pay attention it does not go lean, i.e. want PE fueling to be 0.86 lambda (1.163) or richer (not leaner).
I suspected your MAF duct had changed (see my comment below regarding B5001)...
If the driver does not realize the PCM is in hot mode, then PE should still kick in as normal, there is no reason to hold it off....
I assume the B3615 modifications are based on experience?
...
Yes, the trend was downward a bit, so I carried it up....
Did you do a decent amount of smoothing on the B5001 and lower it a bit?
No worries. Me tooSorry for all the questions, I'm an engineer and can't help it!
Alright so I loaded your tune and did some logging. I did three logs (really just two, the first was a quick spin around the block). I wasn't able to get some good time with high load/throttle opening. So today on my way to work, I used a stretch of fairly flat highway to log high load/throttle opening. I got a log there and one back. The log there seemed to give me pretty good data. It looks like my B5001 wants to come down a hair, and most of the data for B0101 wants to bump it up a bit. Can you take a quick look and make sure I'm on the right track with my thinking? I've attached my later two logs, and a modified tune based off the first log.
First log:
GTO_August_8_2016_1.efi
Secong log:
GTO_August_8_2016_2.efi
Tune:
Garrett_GTO_tuned_20160808_1.ctz
just a quick question setting up the calc.ltftben {b5001} map, why is engine rpm used in the column tab?