Calc.Vet saying VE should be 3.5+ g*Kelvin/kPa

[Jetmech442]

Hey guys, I'm running CALC.Vet procedure with LC2 wideband. I've been making maps, and it keeps trying to tell me that the WOT cells (95kPa , 6000rpm) should be corrected to above 3,6 g*Kelvin/kPa.
Is that a normal value? I mean, as I climb in the RPMs in the column, they seems to progress linearly. If it doesn't look right, can you help me figure out what I'm doing wrong? I am applying the filters, and hiding low cell counts.

6.0L LQ9. Longtubes. 228R cam on a 115 LSA. LS6 intake.

I am using LS1 injectors and have made sure to use the correct pn injector tables. The FPR is a brand new AEM unit, NOT vacuum referenced(injector tables scaled correctly). Fuel pressure stays at 58 psi for the entire run(camera on the fuel pressure gauge in the trunk).

I've never been able to find someone with a similar setup that has posted their tune, so I'm just wary of numbers that are that much higher. I thought that airmass would max around peak torque, but these numbers don't start to fall off till 5600rpm.

Attached is my current tune, (anyone looking, I wouldn't use this for comparisons for their own projects.) and my log. I go WOT at frame 902(2nd gear pull). Also I am using MAP "D" for my Calc.Vet map.

I really appreciate anyone that can take a look, or comment on the numbers. Oh, for anyone wanting to just paste them into Excel, the Ve numbers (g*K/kPa) for column 95 kPa and rows 2000 to 6000 rpm :

2.667
2.640
2.871
3.170
3.247
3.523
3.587
3.651
3.703
3.676

One last thing, I do a fairly steady cruise at frame 2700 for a while...should my WB02 cycle like that or does yours stay rock steady?

[joecar]

Something is going wrong, should probably ignore (or round off) the values that exceed some sane amount.


Are injector tables correct...?

I'll take a closer look tonite.

[Jetmech442]

Thanks Joe. I just found WeathermanShawns tune in the Idle tips sticky...his values at 95kPa and 6000 rpm are 2.31..mine are 3.676.

Every table in my injector section is from the correct Camaro tune.

I could def use your help, I'll keep looking through my tune in the meantime.

[joecar]

...

One last thing, I do a fairly steady cruise at frame 2700 for a while...should my WB02 cycle like that or does yours stay rock steady?

It will oscillate when trimming, but the oscillations should be smaller.

Looking at your wideband WO2LAM1 waveform it is not very clear cut that the wideband is responding... which wideband are you using...?

[statesman]

I am using LS1 injectors and have made sure to use the correct pn injector tables.

What part number is on those injectors?

[Jetmech442]

What part number is on those injectors?

Thanks Statesman, I should have asterisked all of my statements where I said something was correct(clearly something is wrong). The PN for the injectors is 12554271. I used a 98 Camaro tune off TuneDepot. I'll try to find the file. (Interestingly, the values all change ever so slightly between auto or manual).

Now that I'm thinking about it, my Efilive stoich table (B3601} is set to 14.68, and I'm fairly certain Chicago gas stations fill E10(14.2...ish?) And I think my wideband is also reporting lambda for 14.7. I don't think this is a huge red flag, but I should change it anyways I think.



Joe,
I'm using the Innovate LC-2 Wideband. I'll do a free air calibration tonight....just to make sure. When I plot {EXt.WO2LAM1}, I see the waveform responding..is that what your talking about? I also have it reading through Serial Coms as Shawn suggested in Calc.Vet procedure.


I'm definitely open to suggestions/critiques. In the meantime I'm going through the PIDS to understand how everything is calculated to see if I goofed up something there.

[statesman]

I just looked at your log and you're leaning out badly at higher rpm. In fact, at 6000rpm you've lost virtually all of your power enrichment... you're almost at stoich. The injector data you are using looks alright, but I don't think those injectors are big enough to support your engine at full noise... especially if you're using e10 fuel.

[Jetmech442]

Not trying to same-day-bump, I think I found the main issue, but not sure the exact cause yet.

When CALC.VEN determines my "not corrected VE" it comes up with a VERY large number like the 3.6 gK/kPa. Then the CALC.VET gets even bigger(4+) because it is multiplied by SELBEN. (I'm freaking out here)

Okay, so I compared my car with the HoldenSS log (0-100kph) log that comes loaded with EFILIVE. And the Holden MAF reading at ~4000 rpm WOT is 190 g/s....mine is 273 g/s!!! At 6000 rpm mine is showing 432g/s.(I thought this was supercharger territory).

Soooo, I have a card style MAF installed and stock LS3 intake manifold and thought I had re-scaled the graph good enough(hoping CALC.VET could fix any small issues I have. ). The LS3 MAF table{B1099} shows 233 g/s at 7500Hz, which is what my Calc.VET is using (roughly).

So if you guys follow and agree that my MAF reading is way too high for a simple CAM/headers car, then I think the question is why is my MAF reading soooo high?

[Jetmech442]

I just looked at your log and you're leaning out badly at higher rpm. In fact, at 6000rpm you've lost virtually all of your power enrichment... you're almost at stoich. The injector data you are using looks alright, but I don't think those injectors are big enough to support your engine at full noise... especially if you're using e10 fuel.

I'm looking at it now. Okay yeah, I see what your saying, so at 6000 rpm (frame 1222) I'm open loop, commanding EQ 1.16. Wideband reads .993 when I think it should be .84. It's weird how it cycles during that WOT run,-gets down to .88, then up to .95 and does that twice before the run is complete.

I really thought those injectors would be okay-seems like everyone else throws cam/s heads/ headers at Fbody's and they do fine. hmmm.

[Jetmech442]

Also, at Frame 1222:
DynCylAir = .72 g/cyl.
MAF = 432.15 g/s
RPM = 6005.

Using the formula I found on another site,
DCA is= MAF Airflow in g/sec * 15 / RPM for a V8 (*20 for V6 and *30 for I4) ...we can see that 432.15*15/6005 equals 1.079//not .72 g/cyl.

I don't know if DynCyl Air is correct, but if it is, then the MAF value that makes that equation work is actually 288 g/s...not 432. (And 288g/s is a lot closer to what the SSHolden file shows).

I feel like I should stop posting now and let somebody slap me around in case I'm chasing down the wrong tree completely.

I feel