Sanity check, please?

[critter]

Hi,

I took the liberty to make some sugestions/changes to your tune, see attached;

In the rpm and temp bypasses, min/max/zero values may have special meaning (or they may not), so I like to put simple values like 400, 100, 100.

Thank you very much. I will diff the two.

If you think B3605 is too rich, then lean it a little (keep it safe, not lean), but keep that general shape.
If you tune only B3605, then adjust the last 3 cols (and the slope of the transition).

If you also tune B3618, the rich part is wherever your peak torque RPM is at, and above that it leans a few fraction points to where peak power is (the end of the table).

I haven't sorted out which I want to do yet. It wouldn't fire last night with the new PCM, so plans got sidetracked.

Notice that you want B3616 to enable PE before you get to peak torque.

Duly noted. I will make sure.

BTW: I set my tunetool properties fuel units to EQ, it avoids some other problems.

Having not worked on a tune much recently, I no longer have an intuitive feel for EQ <-> AFR, so switched to AFR to better see what was happening. I can certainly switch back. What, if I may ask, are the "other problems"?

[critter]

B3605 is an interesting table. It has two humps at the lower MAP values in two distinct ECT ranges - a narrow one at 68-86 ECT and a wide one at 194-284 ECT. All the Camaro and Vette tunes I have, covering 1997 to 2004, are almost the same except for the Z06 and 04 Vette. The 19980100, 19980200, 19980400, 19990361, 09360361, 09381344 and 12212156 are identical. 12202088 is the same except in the 212-230 ECT range from 20-50 MAP, which makes a bump on top of the normal wide hump, or leaner in that range. 12593359, 09365637, 12593358, 12221588, and 12584929 are the same as the first seven except in the 68-86 ECT range from 40-100 MAP where they are leaner, and 12584929 is even leaner in the 104 ECT / 40-45 MAP range. This all seems a bit strange, but I assume they developed these tables with dyno or road testing. One caveat - since you can't compare different OSes directly, I cut & pasted to text files and in one case I caught, I didn't cut before pasting.

[joecar]

I noticed the same humps in various OS's... they may have to do with emissions "quality", but I dont' really know.

When using EQ units, any multiplier tables just multiply in;
When using AFR units, multiplier tables don't just multiply in;

Someone on here has a spreadsheet to produce a table of EQ <-> AFR conversion that you print out and place in a visible place.

[critter]

When using EQ units, any multiplier tables just multiply in;
When using AFR units, multiplier tables don't just multiply in;

Ah! The light bulb goes on!

Someone on here has a spreadsheet to produce a table of EQ <-> AFR conversion that you print out and place in a visible place.

Oy! I use 2 lines of Python .... But my new wife throws away loose papers :-(