using 14.047 for desired AFR and not 14.63?

[mr.prick]

Yes,
If {B3601} is static(one value) you are stuck with that.
Example:
If it is set for gas(14.7=EQ1) and you put in E10 in the tank
there is now way for the PCM to know or change EQ1 for E10(14.1),
it is going off of the static value of 14.7(EQ1) when it should change to 14.1
and PE will be stuck at 12.6(EQ1.17) when it should be lower.

If you change {B3601} and save your tune then reopen it you will see
{B3618} changed because it is actually in EQ only,
the software converts it to AFR.

This whole thread is about a static {B3601}
not newer OS' with a 2D table based on Ethanol percentage.

[98 tigershark]

mr.prick is right. read through this thread from the front to the back, I think it will really help you and its free.
It is very good stuff and it helped me.
98 tigershark

[98 tigershark]

Exxon/Mobile or is it Chevron that says it is Techrolean. Enriched with Techrolean to be exact. The 1% is Techrolean in Exxon/Mobile or the Chevron fuel I gorget which one. Nanner nanner nanner!! mr.prick
Love to say that,
Regards,
98 tigershark

Actually it is 14.63AFR = 1% Ethanol



Most likely for cat protection.
{B3601} set to 14.63AFR and the small fuel injectors
tell me that the LS1 was not meant for Ethanol.

[SSpdDmon]

Updated previous post with pics...

http://forum.efilive.com/showthread....534#post103534

[CalEditor]

Yes,
If {B3601} is static(one value) you are stuck with that.
Example:
If it is set for gas(14.7=EQ1) and you put in E10 in the tank
there is now way for the PCM to know or change EQ1 for E10(14.1),
it is going off of the static value of 14.7(EQ1) when it should change to 14.1
and PE will be stuck at 12.6(EQ1.17) when it should be lower.
If you change {B3601} and save your tune then reopen it you will see
{B3618} changed because it is actually in EQ only,
the software converts it to AFR.

This whole thread is about a static {B3601}
not newer OS' with a 2D table based on Ethanol percentage.

What do you think the PE AFR should be set to with E10?

[mr.prick]

According to your spreadsheet 12.1275 AFR

[98 tigershark]

The newer PCMs say 14.07.
Ha Ha HA, You got mr.prick to stay on this thread. I am glad as he always stays on course!! I mean that as a compliment too. But that is a very good question also because it is more than just the E%. When are we going to get around to the Spark aand Timing issues too and what that does to the AFR with the E fuels and the vaporization issues and spark and flash. No mater what the E fuel% is, the motor seems to pick its spot as far as timing regardless of what is commanded, and timing does affect how the actual AFR is obtained also, Since that is static, something is tricking the PCM, How can this be and how do we adjust spark for the correct AFR in B3601? My logging says it is right today(new gas from Portland), but, I put an old fashioned timing light on the HB and it says it is different than the PCM is commanding this weekend. I had that happen before and it is not a loss reluctor. Is the PCM is commanding the right timing or just showing it that way when I log. In other words do the E fuels trick the PCM as that is all I can think of as that has to change the commanded AFR also??? Really!
98 tigershark

According to your spreadsheet 12.1275 AFR

[CalEditor]

This is an 05 Flex fuel stock bin file. 05 5.3L Flex.zip

[Chalky]

Yes,
If {B3601} is static(one value) you are stuck with that.
Example:
If it is set for gas(14.7=EQ1) and you put in E10 in the tank
there is now way for the PCM to know or change EQ1 for E10(14.1),
it is going off of the static value of 14.7(EQ1) when it should change to 14.1
and PE will be stuck at 12.6(EQ1.17) when it should be lower.

If you change {B3601} and save your tune then reopen it you will see
{B3618} changed because it is actually in EQ only,
the software converts it to AFR.

This whole thread is about a static {B3601}
not newer OS' with a 2D table based on Ethanol percentage.

I am aware of this. My point being did GM set the PE table up as unusually rich or were they acknowledging the fact that many cars would see E10 and set up PE tables to acknowledge a rich non-ethanol AFR or a damn close PE for E10.

[98 tigershark]

I set up my car making it think it had larger injectors by about 6%. You would think since B3601 is static that the IBPWs should be smaller and the AFR way off. Under the PE/RPM table the IBPWs were more, they should have been less and run lean. The PE AFR was the almost the same and the commanded Tuned/Logged timing logged a higher than actual when checked with a timing light on the HB. I am switching to LAMBDA for the most part and did not get this finished as planned. But this I know, The PCM does seem to be able to be tricked. I have no clue how this happens as the trims were almost the same. In 97-98 Vette PCMs are set up to run rich stock @62psi Inj pressure so I would buy your theory for those years but that was changed to a leaner condition from 99 on @58 psi and Inj flow accordingly.
Go Figure,
98 tigershark

I am aware of this. My point being did GM set the PE table up as unusually rich or were they acknowledging the fact that many cars would see E10 and set up PE tables to acknowledge a rich non-ethanol AFR or a damn close PE for E10.