third log. same issue pretty much.
can i use the values i get when i average map A and map B without applying the closed loop filter?
Every time i apply the closed loop filter all my values drop to 0
third log attached:
calcvet3.efi
third log. same issue pretty much.
can i use the values i get when i average map A and map B without applying the closed loop filter?
Every time i apply the closed loop filter all my values drop to 0
third log attached:
calcvet3.efi
OK start over and log the Fuelsys PID, it will tell you if you're actually getting into CL or not.
~Erik~
2013 Sonic RS Manual - 1.4L I4T E78, tuned, turbo mods, etc.
2008 TrailBlazer SS 3SS AWD Summit White - LS2 E67/T42, bolt ons, suspension, etc.
2002 Chevy TrailBlazer LT 4X4 Summit White - 4.2L I6 P10, lifted, wheels, etc.
CL=1 means Closed Loop if engine is at operating temperature and your have LTFT/trimming enabled.
I'm out of town this week so I can't view your files.
okay this is a picture of map A before filtering anything except for low cell counts:
this is a picture of map A after using the calc_vet filter
this is a picture with the CL filter...
this is a picture of map B before filtering anything but low cell counts
this is a picture of map b after calc_vet
this is a picture of map b after CL filter
This is what my CL filter is set up to look like...per tutorial:
but then when i change calc_vet filter to EXCLUDE all frames where calc.cl is less than 1 like so...
which when i apply to my map A...i end up with a map like so:
Ok, change the filter to include CL=1 (or to exclude CL=0).
Think about what CL stands for...
next step is getting a decent log. the logs i have only have about 30 miles or so of travel on them (which is eqv to an hours worth of driving around here). they don't look like any of the logs that the other threads have in them.
is there a safe "goal" for counts per cell? some sort of target number i should achieve in order to get a better average?
Try to get better than 10 hits per cell.
Operate the throttle is a smooth steady manner, this produces better data (the filter throws away less of it).
my question now is about smoothing...
i took a log, did the copy/paste with labels in the ve main and the b5001 maf table (multiply with labels in that table)
in the ve table, there were tons of spikes everywhere, should i utilize smoothing in order to get the curve back?