Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: VE correction factors and EFI COS. Maybe charge temp blending?

  1. #1
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    327

    Default VE correction factors and EFI COS. Maybe charge temp blending?

    Gents,

    Using COS 05230001 on a built N/A 496 big block. It's speed density only, no MAF. Big AFR heads, 10:1 compression and a single plane port injection manifold. Just completed power tour with the truck and it did OK. Really didn't have much time to tune things in before we left, so I roughed it and left it OL and sent it. Now is the time to really get things dialed, honestly most hot rod swap people would probably call it good where its at- but I'm a bit particular.

    We found a fuel tank vent issue, so my VE is off due to varied base fuel pressure over a log session. I'm going to basically start fresh and work my way back through the entire tune file. One major sticking point has always been excessive des. airflow and startup/friction airflow. Also warmed up(hot) idle AFR is spot on with current VE settings, but all 'cold' AFRs are SUPER rich. as an act of desperation I went in the OLFA (B3605) and took out 40-50% of fuel during warm up {insane but worked}. While warming up, the commanded vs actual EQ is FAR off but the end result works. Not ideal and I think it is throwing RAFPN calcs off and basically any airflow calc that is done before the engine is hot.

    In an attempt to fix desired airflow to more sane numbers as well as maybe some of the startup and friction airflow tables, I'd like to better understand the VE correction factors. I also think this could help with my wildly rich warm up and help get airflows more accurate during warm up, which will make desired airflow more accurate from a better RAFPN. With the warm up so incredibly rich (and a commanded EQ of 1), it is impossible my RAFPN logging is accurate below operating temp. These ve correction factors are temp biased and initialize at a set baro reading apparently? I don't think EFI has this mapped but I was able to bring in the tables via a .cax.

    I understand they are used to better match SD airflow calcs to MAF calcs, but if no MAF is present then the VE is the bible and therefore doesn't have a basis for a correction. So I half wonder if all the corrections should be set to 1 for a SD tune and the min and max correction limiters set to 0.999 and 1.001. Thoughts?

    Basically my questions are how do these factors play into the final airflow calculations when we are running 100% speed density on the COS? How is the correction updated to correct VE to MAF if there is no MAF? Are we chasing our tails while VE tuning everytime we startup and log at different coolant temps since we potentially initialize a different ve correction (assuming it never gets updated during a run cycle)?

    With all that said, how can I use my wideband to temperature correct my VE during warm up? Is VE corrections not what I'm looking for(although a potential issue) and I should be looking at remodeling the charge temp blending calcs? How do I get cold airflow actual to better match the PCM calcs? Obviously I can't change VE as once it is warm it is good. I can(and have) log a BEN for warm up. This is how I 'tuned' the B3605 table. What I would prefer to do is to find a way to get the calc airflows to match actual while warming up, and then use the OLFA B3605 to set it slightly rich so the engine is happy. Setting a target lambda of 1.5 to actually get .9 or so seems very wrong.

    I know I'm all over the place here but just looking for a general conversation from both the EFI crew on how their COS is programmed and from users on what has worked for them.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RADustin View Post
    Are we chasing our tails while VE tuning everytime we startup and log at different coolant temps since we potentially initialize a different ve correction (assuming it never gets updated during a run cycle)?
    Short answer... YES!

    Longer answer.... YES, the VE will always move around. You can get it better but it will never be what I would call good. Even if you don't want to run a MAF... I would suggest that you install one for tuning and then remove it later. It will give you an actual airflow rather than just a calculated one. You can then fix your calculated airflow to match the real airflow. Getting good fueling in VE is another problem altogether, and while you can effectively scale to anything you want with the flow rate... good fueling requires the other injector data tables to be correct. Even with everything set right, the air temp calculations will always cause some drift in fueling errors.

  3. #3
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by statesman View Post
    Short answer... YES!

    Longer answer.... YES, the VE will always move around. You can get it better but it will never be what I would call good. Even if you don't want to run a MAF... I would suggest that you install one for tuning and then remove it later. It will give you an actual airflow rather than just a calculated one. You can then fix your calculated airflow to match the real airflow. Getting good fueling in VE is another problem altogether, and while you can effectively scale to anything you want with the flow rate... good fueling requires the other injector data tables to be correct. Even with everything set right, the air temp calculations will always cause some drift in fueling errors.
    I've long suspected this to be the case, part of why I've left the trucks MAF only as they seem more consistent now across the 4 seasons. Is there a decent procedure to correct for this?
    1998 GMC Sierra K1500 5.7/4L80E, longtubes, 411 w/COS 5, marine cam/intake, Whipple. 91 octane at 6000'.
    1997 GMC Sierra K3500 7.4/4L80E, 411 w/COS 3, Whipple, small cam.
    2004 Corvette Z06 with longtubes.

  4. #4
    Joe (Moderator) joecar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    28,403

    Default

    Are we talking VE % or VE g*K/kPa...?

Similar Threads

  1. Charge Temp Blending, no MAF
    By 12_Square in forum Gen III V8 Specific
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 16th, 2014, 02:04 AM
  2. Speed Density Charge Temperature Blending (E40)
    By Gelf VXR in forum Gen IV V8 Specific
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 28th, 2008, 03:36 PM
  3. charge temp blending
    By 5.7ute in forum Custom Operating Systems
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 8th, 2007, 03:07 PM
  4. Dyno Correction Factors etc.
    By NAH in forum General (Petrol, Gas, Ethanol)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 25th, 2006, 11:26 PM
  5. Intake charge blending, surgery time.
    By ringram in forum General (Petrol, Gas, Ethanol)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 19th, 2006, 06:26 AM

Posting Permissions

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