Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: Should I Download to a Later Software Build

  1. #1
    Lifetime Member Steve Bryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    373

    Default Should I Download to a Later Software Build

    I am now retired and working on my bucket list. One of the things on that list is to get re-acquainted with EFILive and to refine the tune on my 2000 GMC Yukon XL (AKA Suburban). I was one of the original Flash/Scan Beta Testers and at that time kept up with changes daily, but that's been about ten years ago. My vehicle has its original LQ4 6.0 L engine and 4L80E transmission.

    Here are my questions:

    1. Is there a compelling reason to update my V 7.5.7 Build 180 software for scan and tune?
    2. If so, is there a specific build that you could recommend for me?
    3. Do you have any other general recommendations to re-familiarize myself with the software?


    I've flashed my PCM about 200 times and logged at least that many scan files, so I'm familiar with how things work, but most of that was seven to ten years ago and I also did some work in 2011, shortly after I retired.

    Thanks in advance!

    Steve
    Last edited by joecar; December 24th, 2014 at 08:46 AM. Reason: corrected spelling of title (to help in searches)

  2. #2
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    27,752

    Default

    Hi Steve,

    Welcome back

    Do you have FlashScan V1 or V2...?

    If you have FlashScan V1, then you could stay at V7 build 180.

    Do you have a wideband (if so, which one...?)...?


    See post #1 of this thread, it introduces an interesting tuning concept (correcting MAF and calculating VE at the same time), and it exercises you on logging, map creation, how to use wideband lambda, and calibrations relationships (see linked material):

    Calc.VET thread

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Lifetime Member Steve Bryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Joe,
    Thanks very much for such a lightning-fast and helpful reply! I will study all of the threads that you have linked. I have FlashScan V1 and a PLX-300 analog WBAFR.

    The main culprit that caused me problems in the early days (2004/2005) when I was trying to set up my VE Table and calibrate my MAF was that I had B4206 enabled (Use NBO2 with Open Loop Commanded Fuel Table) because that was the default setup on truck tunes for the PCM. The influence or consideration of B4206 was never discussed very much if at all in those days. On the tuck tunes of that era, everything was set up to discourage/eliminate open loop operation whenever the NBO2 has come up to temperature. PE wasn't set up in any way from the factory in any way (60 second time delay setting for B3608, among other obstacles). I've never had the time or taken the time to get all of this straightened out, so I'm trying again now.

    Regarding the Calc.VET thread, I so appreciate the contributions that Shawn made before his untimely death. There is a great deal of valuable information in that thread and I've already been reviewing it during the last few days.

    One thing that I think is problematic in Shawn's simultaneous approach of MAF/VE Table calibration is that the PCM always is using the MAF table and allows the VE Table to modify the mixture only during throttle/MAF transitions and only below value set in B0120. In order to get an accurate setup for your tune, I think that you must calibrate speed density and MAF separately. log data using Speed Density/VE Table to control the mixture (MAF/LTFT/STFT/NBO2 all disabled) and then repeat the procedure allowing MAF to exclusively control the mixture (fail MAP by setting B0120 to 0 RPMs or some other means) with LTFT/STFT/NBO2 all disabled.
    Last edited by Steve Bryant; November 6th, 2014 at 06:15 AM. Reason: Clarity

  5. #5
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    27,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Bryant View Post
    ...
    The main culprit that caused me problems in the early days (2004/2005) when I was trying to set up my VE Table and calibrate my MAF was that I had B4206 enabled (Use NBO2 with Open Loop Commanded Fuel Table) because that was the default setup on truck tunes for the PCM. The influence or consideration of B4206 was never discussed very much if at all in those days. On the tuck tunes of that era, everything was set up to discourage/eliminate open loop operation whenever the NBO2 has come up to temperature. PE wasn't set up in any way from the factory in any way (60 second time delay setting for B3608, among other obstacles). I've never had the time or taken the time to get all of this straightened out, so I'm trying again now.
    ...
    Yes, the early AutoVE procedure was based on the Camaro/Firebird tune files, in these B4206 was turned off and PE enabled immediately.

    ...
    One thing that I think is problematic in Shawn's simultaneous approach of MAF/VE Table calibration is that the PCM always is using the MAF table and allows the VE Table to modify the mixture only during throttle/MAF transitions and only below value set in B0120. In order to get an accurate setup for your tune, I think that you must calibrate speed density and MAF separately. log data using Speed Density/VE Table to control the mixture (MAF/LTFT/STFT/NBO2 all disabled) and then repeat the procedure allowing MAF to exclusively control the mixture (fail MAP by setting B0120 to 0 RPMs or some other means) with LTFT/STFT/NBO2 all disabled.
    The Calc.VET method uses the transient filter to filter out any VE usage... you can rely on the filter, or you can set B0120 to zero to eliminate VE usage (I do it either way).

    Note the following:
    - Calc.VET is similar to AutoMAF.
    - Calc.MAFT is similar to AutoVE.

    The Calc.MAF method requires that the MAF be disabled (since there is no other way ensure VE only).

    Also, Calc.VET and Calc.MAFT can be tailored to use wideband only (i.e. use CALC.WO2BEN only).

    In most cases, when I do Calc.VET I find that the resulting VE table is fairly close, it may need minor retouching at idle, and some very minor correcting with the wideband if any... i.e. in most cases the VE and MAF match closely enough to get almost zero LTFT's when running SD or MAF independently.

    Also, the Calc.VET produces a suitably close VE table that can be used for doing AutoVE (i.e. we're using the MAF to calculate VE, and if we tuned correctly then both should produce the same result).

    The beauty of Calc.VET (and this is the core of Shawn's ideas) is that without much (any) editing of the tune, you could get both MAF and VE very close in a single log... most of the effort is in making sure the wideband is installed and working correctly; and along the way. Shawn and I discovered that this also introduces the newbie to various tuning concepts (using lambda rather than AFR, calculating VE from corrected MAF, dynamic air temperature, VE/MAF transition, PE) and the scantool/tunetool mechanics (i.e. creating maps properly, transient filtering, pasting, smoothing, etc... and judging whether data was good or bad) by means of expanding the "tutorial" (by linking to to various explanatory material)... i.e. multiple goals: providing a one-step tuning method and teaching the user the concepts and usage of the EFILive tools.
    Last edited by joecar; November 6th, 2014 at 12:06 PM.

  6. #6
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    27,752

    Default

    Some advanced tuners will first correct the MAF using wideband and then use a spreadsheet to calculate a VE table (as a starter table to do VE correction)... Calc.VET does this same thing using the EFILive tools (this is Paul's intent, to not have to dive into a spreadsheet).

    BTW: the EFILive tools also allow going the other way (only for some LS1B OS's): first correct VE and calculate MAF table from corrected VE.

  7. #7
    Lifetime Member Steve Bryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Joe,
    Thanks very much for your responses and taking the time to write-up the details. This is helpful to me and should be helpful to others!

  8. #8
    Lifetime Member Steve Bryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joecar View Post

    The Calc.VET method uses the transient filter to filter out any VE usage... you can rely on the filter, or you can set B0120 to zero to eliminate VE usage (I do it either way).
    Joe,
    You have stated the effect of setting B0120 to zero, where I did not. So for anyone reading this in the future, please use Joe's explanation.

    Also, I think that I'm going to use the Calc.VET approach in the next tuning cycle.

  9. #9
    Lifetime Member Steve Bryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    373

    Default Where did my GM.* PIDs go?

    I've been studying that joecar provided this past week. I've also braved the frigid weather here in Kansas and logged some data a read/uploaded the existing .tun file in my PCM...so far, so good. However, my GM.* PIDs are missing in action from my PID tab. But, the GM.* PIDs are right where they should be in the pid_info.txt file (see attachments). How do I get my GM specific PIDs back? I miss them and I need them.

    Thanks,

    SteveClick image for larger version. 

Name:	Missing GM PIDs.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	191.1 KB 
ID:	17665Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PID List.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	176.2 KB 
ID:	17666

  10. #10
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    27,752

    Default

    Hi Steve,

    Click on the column heading "Parameter" once or twice to sort by that column, then eyeball down that column until you see your pids.

    Also, you may have to do a Validate Pids (while connected to PCM).

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. software download not working!!!
    By IHFarmer07 in forum General
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2013, 08:59 PM
  2. Whats the newsest software to download!!!!
    By GAMEOVER in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 11th, 2012, 04:24 AM
  3. New software download, now Duty cycle is incorrect???
    By nitrorocket in forum General (Petrol, Gas, Ethanol)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 02:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •