stock 05 5.3 - why is commanded/delivered fuel so far off? AutoVE

[gm22j]

Working with a stock 5.3 in an 05 Silverado with K&N and magnaflow muffler, otherwise bone stock. 87 octane in PA. Drove with Zeitronix wideband via serial and saw 10.5 afr delivered while trying to do a burnout (dead-stop, 100Kpa). Truck was obviously gutless and didn't execute. Wasn't entirely sure why this much fuel was delivered, so I decided to isolate maf from ve and run an AutoVE per PDF to try and figure out if the issue was maf, ve, or hard-part related. It didn't make a whole lot of sense that it was a problem with the VE table, seeing as it's a totally stock truck, but in speed density, it was definitely commanding way too much fuel. After 11 different logs/adjustments, I pretty much raped 95 & 100 KPA of the B0101 to get the mixture where it belonged. The VE table didn't look good at all, but was delivering what was commanded and actually ran better despite the crappy approach. Didn't feel great about this, but returned to maf operation afterwards anyways to see if it was good, but it couldn't have been more off. Wondering if there is something huge that i'm missing or if i'm fighting myself. I've had success with tuning my 00 2500 6.0 and cammed 00 camaro but am really pulling my hair out over this one and am fearing it' something stupid that i've overlooked. Attatched a file. dg VEreal.efi

[Wheelz]

I can't see your tune from my phone, but did you account for PE mode? 10.5:1 (or approx .74 lambda depending on fuel) isn't that far off from the factory commanded fueling in PE mode

[gm22j]

PE mode was set to "1" for entire range, and the richest it's commanded in open loop is .95 from 140*f and warmer. Truck was warmed up.

[joecar]

Post tune file.

Both VE and MAF may be incorrect (is MAF collecting oil from K&N...?)... did you inspect the PE table to see what it was commanding...?

Don't set PE to 1 (regardless of what pdf says).

[picnic_george]

What do you set PE to Joe? I've never had a problem setting PE to 1, I just make sure I command the correct AFR I want. I've done it with PE set to whatever I'm desiring and I haven't noticed any problems with that either :shrug:

I always thought setting your commanded was a better more accurate way to adjust your VE/MAF than using PE.

[slows10]

what do you set pe to joe? I've never had a problem setting pe to 1, i just make sure i command the correct afr i want. I've done it with pe set to whatever i'm desiring and i haven't noticed any problems with that either :shrug:

I always thought setting your commanded was a better more accurate way to adjust your ve/maf than using pe.

huh ???

[joecar]

What do you set PE to Joe? I've never had a problem setting PE to 1, I just make sure I command the correct AFR I want. I've done it with PE set to whatever I'm desiring and I haven't noticed any problems with that either :shrug:

I always thought setting your commanded was a better more accurate way to adjust your VE/MAF than using PE.

I agree with you (can set PE to any value, including 1)...

the problem I see very often is that B3605 gets set to say 1.16 lambda (rather than EQR)(due to software installation defaulting to lambda)... if PE was left as stock then it offers protection from this inadvertent mistake.


( some people did not realize software defaults to lambda... not everyone pays attention to units displayed on upper right of table displays )

Not everyone does what you said (about making sure).

[joecar]

See posts #29 and #4 here: Summary-Notes

[picnic_george]

I agree with you (can set PE to any value, including 1)...

the problem I see very often is that B3605 gets set to say 1.16 lambda (rather than EQR)(due to software installation defaulting to lambda)... if PE was left as stock then it offers protection from this inadvertent mistake.


( some people did not realize software defaults to lambda... not everyone pays attention to units displayed on upper right of table displays )

Not everyone does what you said (about making sure).

I always make sure I'm reading lambda or eqr before I make any adjustments, that could be a very costly mistake. But i completly understand what you are saying.

Does it matter if PE is on at 1.16 or commanded(B3605 I assume) is set to 1.16eqr/.86lambda . Will the results be as accuratel? Like I said I've had no issues using either. Obviously leaving PE enabled makes the process a step quicker, but I thought there was some data that was not as accurate during transition. Sorry for thread jacking, seems like a good place to ask since it was brought up to use PE.

[slows10]

Working with a stock 5.3 in an 05 Silverado with K&N and magnaflow muffler, otherwise bone stock. 87 octane in PA. Drove with Zeitronix wideband via serial and saw 10.5 afr delivered while trying to do a burnout (dead-stop, 100Kpa). Truck was obviously gutless and didn't execute. Wasn't entirely sure why this much fuel was delivered, so I decided to isolate maf from ve and run an AutoVE per PDF to try and figure out if the issue was maf, ve, or hard-part related. It didn't make a whole lot of sense that it was a problem with the VE table, seeing as it's a totally stock truck, but in speed density, it was definitely commanding way too much fuel. After 11 different logs/adjustments, I pretty much raped 95 & 100 KPA of the B0101 to get the mixture where it belonged. The VE table didn't look good at all, but was delivering what was commanded and actually ran better despite the crappy approach. Didn't feel great about this, but returned to maf operation afterwards anyways to see if it was good, but it couldn't have been more off. Wondering if there is something huge that i'm missing or if i'm fighting myself. I've had success with tuning my 00 2500 6.0 and cammed 00 camaro but am really pulling my hair out over this one and am fearing it' something stupid that i've overlooked. Attatched a file. dg VEreal.efi

So what is the problem? 10.5 afr when standing on the brakes and holding the throttle to the floor at a dead stop? Post the tune .Why are you running open loop??? Why mess with the ve table and maf table?? The truck was gutless because, thank god GM saved the truck from a guy like you. If they did not have failsafe modes for fools they would go bankrupt.