verbs

You are running so disgustingly rich you are giving yourself KR. Your MAFT should not be set at +10/+4......more like +10/-3 or so.....keep ataping till you have the leaner of the two banks as close to .880 as possible with no KR.

What were your LTrims??? I couldn't decipher from the maze of #'s..

Shane

Thanks for the reply Verbs...I got sick of trying to format that crap (is there an easy way?).
LTFTs are all in the +6 to +15 range...locked at +14 and +19 at WOT. That's what led me to believe I was running lean...???
Thanks,
Shane

Shane

Here's a link to the excel files:
http://home.austin.rr.com/ezgo/temp/SS1st.xls

http://home.austin.rr.com/ezgo/temp/SS2nd.xls

thanks...
Shane

verbs

[quote]Originally posted by Shane:
<strong>Thanks for the reply Verbs...I got sick of trying to format that crap (is there an easy way?).
LTFTs are all in the +6 to +15 range...locked at +14 and +19 at WOT. That's what led me to believe I was running lean...???
Thanks,
Shane</strong><hr></blockquote>

Try a setting of +4/-3 on the MAFT...not in percent, but the setting that leaves you with base of +20% and WOT -6%.....try it for 100 miles or so and give your cpu time to learn....then adjust your WOT setting from there.

Shane

I'm wondering now, if I've just done enough mods that I need to start the MAFT tuning over? You know, start back at 0/0, reset the PCM, tune in the LTFTs, then tune in the WOT O2s?
Man...I gotta get this fixed before Friday...track time... <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">
thanks,
Shane

Carlitos

[quote]Originally posted by Shane:
<strong>I'm wondering now, if I've just done enough mods that I need to start the MAFT tuning over? You know, start back at 0/0, reset the PCM, tune in the LTFTs, then tune in the WOT O2s?
Man...I gotta get this fixed before Friday...track time... <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">
thanks,
Shane</strong><hr></blockquote>

That sounds like a very good idea. What mods have you done since the last MAFT tune? It might be in your first post, but I probably missed it. I was getting dizzy looking at all those numbers.
<img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0"> <img src="graemlins/gr_barf.gif" border="0" alt="[barf]" />

Shane

I mentioned a few days ago that I encountered some serious detonation on the dyno this past weekend ( https://ls1tech.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=1&t=002477 ).
I've finally had a chance to look at the ATAP data for these runs, and I've got to tell you, I'm CONFUSED. Someone please tell me what the hell is going on with my O2's, and why my KR only shows up slightly bad, when it was actually *horrible*?
Here's the data from the first run (323/331 w/moderate pinging) and the second run (324/329 w/serious pinging):

[edit] Crap, that's impossible to read...I'll try to re-format and re-edit...Shane

[edit2] Damn...not easy to reformat...here's a paste of just the pertinent WOT data:

[edit3] LAST TRY... <img src="gr_sad.gif" border="0">
1st run:
LTFT LTFT RPM MPH B1S1 B2S1 Fuel KR Coolant TPS Timing
9.4 9.4 1668 36 0.73 0.2 14 0 185 79.2 26
14.1 19.5 2078 45 0.97 1.025 22 2.8 187 100 28
14.1 19.5 2382 52 0.97 1.02 22 2.5 187 100 28.5
14.1 19.5 2674 58 0.975 1.02 22 2.2 187 100 29.5
14.1 19.5 3002 65 0.975 1.005 22 1.9 187 100 29.5
14.1 19.5 3454 75 0.965 1.01 22 1.5 187 100 30
14.1 19.5 3770 82 0.965 1 22 1.2 189 100 26
14.1 19.5 4092 89 0.97 1 22 1.1 187 100 25
14.1 19.5 4414 96 0.965 1.005 22 1.3 189 100 25
14.1 19.5 4747 103 0.975 1.01 22 3.9 190 100 22.5
14.1 19.5 5067 110 0.97 1.01 22 3.4 190 100 24
14.1 19.5 5372 117 0.97 1.01 22 3.1 190 100 26.5
14.1 19.5 5675 123 0.97 1.005 22 2.8 190 100 27.5
14.1 19.5 5983 130 0.97 1.02 22 3.3 192 100 27
2nd run:
LTFT LTFT RPM MPH B1S1 B2S1 Fuel KR Coolant TPS Timing
10.9 10.9 1910 42 0.14 0.16 14 0 196 100 29
14.1 19.5 2186 48 0.935 0.995 22 0 196 100 30.5
14.1 19.5 2488 54 0.94 0.99 22 0 196 100 31
14.1 19.5 2792 61 0.935 0.98 22 0 196 100 31
14.1 19.5 3254 71 0.935 0.985 22 0 196 100 31.5
14.1 19.5 3567 78 0.92 0.98 22 0 196 100 29.5
14.1 19.5 3874 84 0.93 0.975 22 0 196 100 26
14.1 19.5 4189 91 0.925 0.97 22 0.4 196 100 26
14.1 19.5 4519 98 0.935 0.975 22 3.9 196 100 22.5
14.1 19.5 4828 105 0.935 0.98 22 3.4 198 100 23.5
14.1 19.5 5158 112 0.93 0.975 22 3.8 198 100 24.5
14.1 19.5 5450 118 0.92 0.98 22 3.9 198 100 26
14.1 19.5 5891 127 0.91 0.98 15 3.3 198 100 27
14.1 19.5 6127 133 0.93 0.98 22 3 199 100 27


thanks in advance,
Shane

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Shane ]</p>

Shane

Carlitos,
when I added the MAFT, I had just done the ported MAF ends - I don't think I ever got that tuned in right though, and it was still pretty lean.
Since then, I've done the PCV mod, the EGR mod, the FRA mod, and the headers.
I've now change the MAFT to +5%/-2%. I'll keep it there until after I hit the track (RCR) tomorrow. Then, over the weekend, I'll reset the PCM and start tuning the MAFT in all over again.
thanks,
Shane

Team ZR-1

Shane:

For one very short traces like yours do not give a real good average of calibrations.

Also you should monitor injector pulse width, MAP and delivered torque to get all answers.
If you had I could give you MAX HP and Torque as a chassie dyno would.

I redid your results using my spreadsheet design.
It has two sheets, raw data and results.
Look at AFR section to O2 results.

If you notice one of your problems is your not moving enough air into the intake.
I could give better answer with a longer run ( go for a 10 mile drive/recording using all RPM range.

Results here :

Your Results Here

verbs

[quote]Originally posted by Team ZR-1:
<strong>Shane:


Results here :

Your Results Here</strong><hr></blockquote>
WOAH!!!! What kind of analysis is this???? I've never seen anything like this before!!!

What kind of values should one look for using injector pulse, and MAP???

As far as delivered torque those #'s looked really screwy to me (way to high to be accurate), but can those #'s actually be used to measure power loss/gain???

JAS BLK 98 TA A4

[quote]If you had I could give you MAX HP and Torque as a chassie dyno would.<hr></blockquote>

John - He is running MAFT ends and also tweeking with a MAFT. Since delivered torque is a calculation function of the PCM, that data is completely useless unless you used it as a back to back mod comparison without any MAFT changes.

Shane

John,
that spreadsheet is pretty amazing! thanks for putting the numbers in there.
The data in those files is so short because it was just recording during the two dyno pulls. I have a longer (~30 minute) file from a few days before the dyno runs, and the WOT readings look a lot different. It also does not have pulse width or MAP readings... <img src="gr_sad.gif" border="0">
Could the amount of air moving through the MAF actually change that much just sitting on a dyno as opposed to driving? I've got FRA, K&N, whisper lid, whisper ported MAF...I probably can't get much more air thru there! <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">
Thanks again!
Shane

Team ZR-1

I have spent just over a year now scanning and analyzing over 1,000 PCMs. Almost all are C5 Corvettes of all MY from stock, stroker to having a super charger, thus my excel sheets were evolved with a lot of research to each function the PCM monitors/controls.

Stock, part throttle your looking at from 3.5 to about 6 mSecs. At WOT from about 15-20 mSecs but that depends on how lean the AFR is and how hard the injectors are being driven to attempt to get LTFT to around zero.

Monitor both B1 and B2 injectors to see if they are about equal.
From then on you could just monitor one side and then bust your math into InJ PW for cells 0-19 and then when TPS is greater then 80% and cell 22.

By knowing your MAF in lbs/min, take that to lbs/hour and then see how it measures up to injector lbs/hour.

As for Delivered Torque I assume your using Autotap, welcome to more screwups by that crapp tool.
Anytime you see values like 1200 plus ft/lbs, they are screwing up. I use Ease and found G.M was doing some wrong computer (signed) math and Ease made a patch to correct the bug ( I have the patches for Ease) but autotap thinks all users are dumb and ignored my request to fix their bugs.
A negative DelTq means you lifted G-pedal or T.M has kicked in.

You could do is within Excel, make a math condition, that anything less then 0 or greater then lets say 450 is ignored in your math to get a close average.

Otherwise 86 that autotap and get a real PCM scanner.

[quote]Originally posted by verbs:
<strong>
WOAH!!!! What kind of analysis is this???? I've never seen anything like this before!!!

What kind of values should one look for using injector pulse, and MAP???

As far as delivered torque those #'s looked really screwy to me (way to high to be accurate), but can those #'s actually be used to measure power loss/gain???</strong><hr></blockquote>

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Team ZR-1 ]</p>

Team ZR-1

See my other response in this thread, the Delivered Torque is valid but a scanner bug reports worng values.
Most of my work is with Corvettes, thus not sure what the difference is with an F-body but the yaw sensors, T.C etc use DelTq and Max Tq to protect drivetrain ( esp since having a drivetube)
A4 also has a max Tq number and T.M and TCC uses it.
I have analyzed many C5s via PCM scans and then people went on chassie dynos from stock to super charged and dyno results were within 10 HP of what I reported it would be.
Once you get valid DelTq, what the max RPM was you can compute the brake HP.

A negative DelTq lets you know if the engine was driving the wheels or the wheels were driving the engine.

By knowing what DelTq is you then can tell if Torque management is being tripped of TCC (slip. freewheel)if they have a A4.

[quote]Originally posted by JAS BLK 98 TA A4:
<strong>

John - He is running MAFT ends and also tweeking with a MAFT. Since delivered torque is a calculation function of the PCM, that data is completely useless unless you used it as a back to back mod comparison without any MAFT changes.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Team ZR-1

Your welcome Shane.

An engine is a pump, static or not the more RPMs, the more it draws, so yes sitting static on a chassie dyno would not be as good, you still should see a good amount of air in at WOT.

It proves out that your running rich and if you had been pushing 5 lbs/min, that's 300 lbs/hour more and you can see if that would haveand effect to AFR. As you can see you were around 12.XX:1 AFR at WOT.

So if you were taking in more air, it would have been leaner, in your case to a better.

Also you can tell by your WOT timing and the knock you had was at WOT. If your AFR was closer to perfect, your timing would come up a bit and higher timing also gets you higher torque.

When I fixed my crappy tuning ( which was powerloader PCM junk) my chassie dyno results went from 385 RWTP at 360 ft/lns to 410 RWHP at 400 ft/lbs.
So dialing in all the mods with a good tune can get back the performance a lousy PCM calibration is eating up.

[quote]Originally posted by Shane:
<strong>John,
that spreadsheet is pretty amazing! thanks for putting the numbers in there.
The data in those files is so short because it was just recording during the two dyno pulls. I have a longer (~30 minute) file from a few days before the dyno runs, and the WOT readings look a lot different. It also does not have pulse width or MAP readings... <img src="gr_sad.gif" border="0">
Could the amount of air moving through the MAF actually change that much just sitting on a dyno as opposed to driving? I've got FRA, K&N, whisper lid, whisper ported MAF...I probably can't get much more air thru there! <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">
Thanks again!
Shane</strong><hr></blockquote>