New Tuning Tutorial: WeathermanShawn

[joecar]

Mr. P., mine has been working. I just use the V2 right now, not BBL. Don't know if that is the issue, but both my PIDs worked perfectly on a run 1 day ago..???

************************************************** ******

On the 'issue' of the EFILives pre-defined CALC.VE vs the CALC. VE_Table.

The CALC.VE_Table pidincludes the calculation of charge temperature to more accurately 'convert' a MAF based-airflow into a dynamically calculated airflow.

Here is an example of using just the predefined EFILive CALC.VE..and simulating a total MAF failure.

The second MAP shows how adding the ECT & IAT blending (charge temperature), again assuming a total MAF failure, greatly enhances the accuracy of the VE Table calculation.

The second example is utilizing the CALC.VE_Table..

Using the new CALC.VE Table, will increase your VE Table values ~ 5-10% in high ECT, low airflow situations, and ~ 1-3% at WOT..where the PCM uses almost exclusively IAT in its calculations.

Hope that makes sense..

Yes those two maps are quite different.

I'm going to try this with BBL today, I'll post up later.

[WeathermanShawn]

Joe, I like that idea of a manual ECT/IAT blend. Had thought of it before, but could not quite figure out how to introduce the bias factor (unless you use 5.7ute's lookup Temp bias method..you know MAF/DYNAIR flow, etc..).

On the addition of ECT/IAT blend. It took simulating a MAF failure to see the difference. When you log DYNAIR and CYLAIR a .20-.22 difference, does not look like much..but that is a 10% difference.

Because of your previous point(s) on B0120..and if/when you use 4000 Rpms, it tends to take some 'smooth' out some of the LTFTBEN differences vs the direct MAF failure example. You see more of an 5-10% increase in 'VE Values' at 800-2000 Rpm, less as airflow increases.

But, nevertheless it really makes you understand and appreciate that charge temperature weight in the DYNAIR calculation.

[mr.prick]

Try this calc_pids.txt (I haven't tested it yet)...

In CLC-00-004 and CLC-00-005 you may have to replace SAE.IAT with some blend of SAE.IAT and SAE.ECT...

e.g. 0.90*{SAE.IAT} + 0.10*{SAE.ECT} (where the two fractions add up to 1.0)

Change 5.669 to your actual displacement in litres.

Changing CC to liters?
Isn't displacement() meant to be in CC like what's in the customer details?


Would 0.90*{SAE.IAT}+0.10*{SAE.ECT} be the same as {GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA}?

[WeathermanShawn]

Mr. P., We figured out it wanted Liters..I could not get it using CC's.

We may not have communicated that effectively (sorry).

Hopefully Joe will comment on Point #2. That charge Temperature Blending B4901 is a moving target..

[joecar]

It wants Liters...

The term "5.669*61.024" in the equation is a conversion of 5.669L to cubic inches...

61.024 has units ci/L... i.e. it converts Liters to cubic inches.

[joecar]

...
Would 0.90*{SAE.IAT}+0.10*{SAE.ECT} be the same as {GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA}?

No... it is an approximation... and since our old logs don't have GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA, then it is a good starting point.


[ GM.DYNAIRTMP_DMA is updated dynamically by the PCM ]

[WeathermanShawn]

Here are a few examples of a log showing the effects of DYNAIRTMP on CALC.VE & CALC.VE TABLE.

This was done with MAF FAULTED (SDCL)..

1. Tried to keep ECT the same
2. Very cold IAT's (tried to keep steady).

Whether DYNAIRTMP includes B4902 Charge Temperature Filter..I can not tell. But it follows B4901 quite well..

1. WOT
2. IDLE
3. Cruise
4. DYNAIRTMP AVG

[mr.prick]

I guess 273.15+IAT+((ECT-IAT)*lookup {B4901} would be the same.

[WeathermanShawn]

Yes!

Whether B4901 comes into play..I can not tell. I was looking over some logs to see if DYNAIRTMP changes with the same ECT and rapid change in IAT..but I followed my own advice and picked cold mornings where I kept ECT and IAT steady.

But, I think your statement is correct. I think it must indeed by the 'TMP' that the PCM sees. Maybe that is more important than knowing if other tables come into play??

[joecar]

I guess 273.15+IAT+((ECT-IAT)*lookup {B4901} would be the same.

That would be much better than "0.90*{SAE.IAT}+0.10*{SAE.ECT}"... I was running late this morning...

Let try to apply B4902 to this as well...