Doesn't matter what vehicle (but prefer 2012 Traverse). Trying to compare what GM uses for its stock FFV settings to those without. My email is my screenname at gmail.
Doesn't matter what vehicle (but prefer 2012 Traverse). Trying to compare what GM uses for its stock FFV settings to those without. My email is my screenname at gmail.
I don't have a 2012 Traverse tune, something important though, the vehicles I've seen with FlexFuel enabled using an E39 also have a real ethanol sensor, they don't use the estimation system any more. So I suspect the estimation calibrations may not be complete enough to make it work if you just tell it the vehicle is FlexFuel enabled, you might need to fit a real sensor to the car.
I no longer monitor the forum, please either post your question or create a support ticket.
Thanks for the information. Exactly what we're trying to find out with this ECM & tests. The 'default' setting is FF off & calculated sensor. I'm actually surprised with how many fields they do have filled in for E85. Most of the time they seem to be left blank. I'll know by Wednesday whether it worked or not. Awaiting a 2012 Impala 3.9L FFV ECM to swap in place of the 12 Traverse. Didn't realize they were already reimplementing the actual sensor in 2012. Thought they were waiting for 2013 models & the EPA Tier III standards.
Do you mean 3.6L? SIDI is only on the 3.0L and 3.6L.
Thinking about it, all our local 2012 cars here in Australia (both V6 and V8's) so E38 & E39 ECM's have all gone to a real sensor too.
Perhaps they couldn't get the accuracy with the estimation system or it was taking up too much CPU power to do it, only GM would have the answer there. Whatever it was it must have been a no win situation because think of the cost of installing a sensor on every car now. At least as a spare part (assume a 300% mark up) they are super expensive.
It's hard to know just what platforms had the FlexFuel parameters all done in the background. The only one I know that never had any FlexFuel cals set was the Northstar V8 on the E67, the give away is the Stoich table, if that all all the same then you are out of luck.
I no longer monitor the forum, please either post your question or create a support ticket.
I did mean the 3.6L SIDI, which felt like an awesome engine! We got 26.5 MPG with the Traverse at over 6000 feet. Unfortunately many of the PIDs were not working (SAE.E85R, E39AF_DEM, GME85PCT, etc...), we did find the vehicle got 22 MPG with E85 and its LTFT were only around 4%. That indicated to me the vehicle was flex fuel capable with a simple reflash. Most of the 8 ethanol tables were populated (E37 has 21) and I only had to put in a few scalars. Same basic story with an 11 Malibu 2.4L, sold to fleets FFV, not to citizens.
I'm told GM went away from the virtual sensor due to the new EPA Tier III emission and OBD standards. The algorithm just isn't accurate enough for the EPA (we've had several refill's mislearn the fuel type, decreasing gas mileage and raising emissions). Shame, because that extra $100 sensor might have lost the FFV war.
Wish I could get into the files and see these algorithms in action. I've found all 07+ GM vehicles have some FFV capability, but like you've said, the level of calibration might be off for many of those.
I believe the new E85 sensor is not the one from early 2000, so maybe it's a bit cheaper? I don't have a part number to check though. I have a vehicle with an LFW outside but I have no idea where they mount the sensor (don't anyone be smart and say in the glove box!).
Last edited by GMPX; May 9th, 2012 at 11:24 AM.
I no longer monitor the forum, please either post your question or create a support ticket.
Did you want the 2012 Traverse & Impala tunes emailed to you? Like I mentioned, the Traverse behaved great as an FFV with the virtual sensor enabled.
The new sensors are only $66!!
I no longer monitor the forum, please either post your question or create a support ticket.