Dialing in MAF tables anyone????
01-19-2005, 10:40 PM
#101
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soooo does this mean there's no effective way to counter this timing pull without sacrificing driveability???
That is what I have been working on.
I shut off all the corrections and tried to get everything set so it would run entirely off the H/L Octane tables and Base Tables and at least at commanding 13.0 the VE AFR looked spot on... But I had significant surging at idle and I had throttle hang above 20 mph... I did not try this commanding stoich b/c the driveability sucked ***...
Your throttle hangs because your PCM has no idea how to reduce your rpms because you took away it's ability to.
1) The ECT correction doesn't relate to this problem in any significant way
If tuned out, that is correct. Mine is tuned out.
2) The Idle Overspeed Spark Control does eliminate some of the timing pull, but makes the car surge at idle... (well at least for me and I am cammed)
That is because the PCM uses timing for "fine" idle control. Without being able to adjust your spark it uses the IAC valve, which is not as accurate and will cause surging.
I guess I'd have to test each correction factor one by one... Another thing, why would I not be "jumping" in b/w Base and H/L Octane tables??? If I'm going less that 40 mph and have less that 1% throttle it references the base table... beyond those thresholds it goes to H/L Octane... So if I'm driving around the city, or at a stop light it's using the Base table and in my case my respective base table columns are anywhere b/w 6-10 degrees less than the H/L Octane tables...
Yes, at just the right TPS you could jump back and forth from the main and base spark tables. The hysteresis is supposed to prevent that by leave some "give" between the two.
When i was building average AFRs to tune my VE table with, most of my driving was well above 40 mph so no matter what I was using the H/L Octane tables... meaning that if the computer sees less timing than the H/L tables (and it should since I could be moving less than 40 mph and off the throttle completely) it will essentially not spark all the fuel supplied and run rich, and show negative trimming or richer AFR... So Maybe the answer is to find an average b/w the Base and H/L tables that the VCM can cope with and tune the VE with that timing value that way if you run a little less timing, it may run rich but not too rich, and vice versa for lean...
I think this issue requires more than a simple fix. I am currently working on updated main spark tables, changes to the idle IAC and spark controls, as well as a other things, all of which I believe contribute to this problem. I will keep posting as I figure things out. Unfortunately there is a ton of snow on the ground here, so the Camaro is staying in the driveway until it melts.
That is what I have been working on.
I shut off all the corrections and tried to get everything set so it would run entirely off the H/L Octane tables and Base Tables and at least at commanding 13.0 the VE AFR looked spot on... But I had significant surging at idle and I had throttle hang above 20 mph... I did not try this commanding stoich b/c the driveability sucked ***...
Your throttle hangs because your PCM has no idea how to reduce your rpms because you took away it's ability to.
1) The ECT correction doesn't relate to this problem in any significant way
If tuned out, that is correct. Mine is tuned out.
2) The Idle Overspeed Spark Control does eliminate some of the timing pull, but makes the car surge at idle... (well at least for me and I am cammed)
That is because the PCM uses timing for "fine" idle control. Without being able to adjust your spark it uses the IAC valve, which is not as accurate and will cause surging.
I guess I'd have to test each correction factor one by one... Another thing, why would I not be "jumping" in b/w Base and H/L Octane tables??? If I'm going less that 40 mph and have less that 1% throttle it references the base table... beyond those thresholds it goes to H/L Octane... So if I'm driving around the city, or at a stop light it's using the Base table and in my case my respective base table columns are anywhere b/w 6-10 degrees less than the H/L Octane tables...
Yes, at just the right TPS you could jump back and forth from the main and base spark tables. The hysteresis is supposed to prevent that by leave some "give" between the two.
When i was building average AFRs to tune my VE table with, most of my driving was well above 40 mph so no matter what I was using the H/L Octane tables... meaning that if the computer sees less timing than the H/L tables (and it should since I could be moving less than 40 mph and off the throttle completely) it will essentially not spark all the fuel supplied and run rich, and show negative trimming or richer AFR... So Maybe the answer is to find an average b/w the Base and H/L tables that the VCM can cope with and tune the VE with that timing value that way if you run a little less timing, it may run rich but not too rich, and vice versa for lean...
I think this issue requires more than a simple fix. I am currently working on updated main spark tables, changes to the idle IAC and spark controls, as well as a other things, all of which I believe contribute to this problem. I will keep posting as I figure things out. Unfortunately there is a ton of snow on the ground here, so the Camaro is staying in the driveway until it melts.
Last edited by Another_User; 01-19-2005 at 10:46 PM.
01-20-2005, 02:42 AM
#102
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Another_User
Soooo does this mean there's no effective way to counter this timing pull without sacrificing driveability???
That is what I have been working on.
I shut off all the corrections and tried to get everything set so it would run entirely off the H/L Octane tables and Base Tables and at least at commanding 13.0 the VE AFR looked spot on... But I had significant surging at idle and I had throttle hang above 20 mph... I did not try this commanding stoich b/c the driveability sucked ***...
Your throttle hangs because your PCM has no idea how to reduce your rpms because you took away it's ability to.
1) The ECT correction doesn't relate to this problem in any significant way
If tuned out, that is correct. Mine is tuned out.
2) The Idle Overspeed Spark Control does eliminate some of the timing pull, but makes the car surge at idle... (well at least for me and I am cammed)
That is because the PCM uses timing for "fine" idle control. Without being able to adjust your spark it uses the IAC valve, which is not as accurate and will cause surging.
I guess I'd have to test each correction factor one by one... Another thing, why would I not be "jumping" in b/w Base and H/L Octane tables??? If I'm going less that 40 mph and have less that 1% throttle it references the base table... beyond those thresholds it goes to H/L Octane... So if I'm driving around the city, or at a stop light it's using the Base table and in my case my respective base table columns are anywhere b/w 6-10 degrees less than the H/L Octane tables...
Yes, at just the right TPS you could jump back and forth from the main and base spark tables. The hysteresis is supposed to prevent that by leave some "give" between the two.
When i was building average AFRs to tune my VE table with, most of my driving was well above 40 mph so no matter what I was using the H/L Octane tables... meaning that if the computer sees less timing than the H/L tables (and it should since I could be moving less than 40 mph and off the throttle completely) it will essentially not spark all the fuel supplied and run rich, and show negative trimming or richer AFR... So Maybe the answer is to find an average b/w the Base and H/L tables that the VCM can cope with and tune the VE with that timing value that way if you run a little less timing, it may run rich but not too rich, and vice versa for lean...
I think this issue requires more than a simple fix. I am currently working on updated main spark tables, changes to the idle IAC and spark controls, as well as a other things, all of which I believe contribute to this problem. I will keep posting as I figure things out. Unfortunately there is a ton of snow on the ground here, so the Camaro is staying in the driveway until it melts.
That is what I have been working on.
I shut off all the corrections and tried to get everything set so it would run entirely off the H/L Octane tables and Base Tables and at least at commanding 13.0 the VE AFR looked spot on... But I had significant surging at idle and I had throttle hang above 20 mph... I did not try this commanding stoich b/c the driveability sucked ***...
Your throttle hangs because your PCM has no idea how to reduce your rpms because you took away it's ability to.
1) The ECT correction doesn't relate to this problem in any significant way
If tuned out, that is correct. Mine is tuned out.
2) The Idle Overspeed Spark Control does eliminate some of the timing pull, but makes the car surge at idle... (well at least for me and I am cammed)
That is because the PCM uses timing for "fine" idle control. Without being able to adjust your spark it uses the IAC valve, which is not as accurate and will cause surging.
I guess I'd have to test each correction factor one by one... Another thing, why would I not be "jumping" in b/w Base and H/L Octane tables??? If I'm going less that 40 mph and have less that 1% throttle it references the base table... beyond those thresholds it goes to H/L Octane... So if I'm driving around the city, or at a stop light it's using the Base table and in my case my respective base table columns are anywhere b/w 6-10 degrees less than the H/L Octane tables...
Yes, at just the right TPS you could jump back and forth from the main and base spark tables. The hysteresis is supposed to prevent that by leave some "give" between the two.
When i was building average AFRs to tune my VE table with, most of my driving was well above 40 mph so no matter what I was using the H/L Octane tables... meaning that if the computer sees less timing than the H/L tables (and it should since I could be moving less than 40 mph and off the throttle completely) it will essentially not spark all the fuel supplied and run rich, and show negative trimming or richer AFR... So Maybe the answer is to find an average b/w the Base and H/L tables that the VCM can cope with and tune the VE with that timing value that way if you run a little less timing, it may run rich but not too rich, and vice versa for lean...
I think this issue requires more than a simple fix. I am currently working on updated main spark tables, changes to the idle IAC and spark controls, as well as a other things, all of which I believe contribute to this problem. I will keep posting as I figure things out. Unfortunately there is a ton of snow on the ground here, so the Camaro is staying in the driveway until it melts.
You know i'll be around till we get to the bottom of this... maybe this will be worthy of a "sticky" by the end... Something else I was thinking about, what if i set the TPS threshold to enter main spark tables to zero, but keep all the corrections intact. That way I would always be running on the main tables, and not jumping back and forth between that and the base tables (since mine vary so much). I'm sure the timing pull would still occur, but wouldn't be nearly so disruptive since as it stands right now, some of that timing pull is effected on my lower base spark values when the computer is referencing that table... Kinda like reducing the multiplier effect... the base table already knocks timing off, and then other varous correction/safety/BULLSHIT tables take even more off!!!
I will try this tomorrow and report back!
01-20-2005, 10:42 AM
#103
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have looked everything over and I have some ideas on how to correct this issue. One thing I have to say though, GM obviously realized their mistake. On later year cars it only affects timing +/- 300 rpms instead of +/- 1000 rpms on earlier years. That takes you well out of most cruising and decel areas while you are driving. I think we could do one of two things:
1) zero out all but the first 200-300 rpms of spark pull on the idle tables.
2) flip the retard degrees vs. rpms to positive numbers, and put them in the underspeed table, and zero out the overspeed table completely. Then instead of using the IAC to pull your rpms up and adjust rpms back down with timing, the PCM would use the IAC to pull your rpm down and adjust back up with with timing. This should eliminate timing pull at cruise and decel, without affecting the PCMs ability to control idle.
Then it will just be a matter of making sure your IAC doesn't do anything stupid like jump around too much.
1) zero out all but the first 200-300 rpms of spark pull on the idle tables.
2) flip the retard degrees vs. rpms to positive numbers, and put them in the underspeed table, and zero out the overspeed table completely. Then instead of using the IAC to pull your rpms up and adjust rpms back down with timing, the PCM would use the IAC to pull your rpm down and adjust back up with with timing. This should eliminate timing pull at cruise and decel, without affecting the PCMs ability to control idle.
Then it will just be a matter of making sure your IAC doesn't do anything stupid like jump around too much.
Last edited by Another_User; 01-20-2005 at 01:27 PM.
01-20-2005, 04:26 PM
#104
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Another_User
I have looked everything over and I have some ideas on how to correct this issue. One thing I have to say though, GM obviously realized their mistake. On later year cars it only affects timing +/- 300 rpms instead of +/- 1000 rpms on earlier years. That takes you well out of most cruising and decel areas while you are driving. I think we could do one of two things:
1) zero out all but the first 200-300 rpms of spark pull on the idle tables.
2) flip the retard degrees vs. rpms to positive numbers, and put them in the underspeed table, and zero out the overspeed table completely. Then instead of using the IAC to pull your rpms up and adjust rpms back down with timing, the PCM would use the IAC to pull your rpm down and adjust back up with with timing. This should eliminate timing pull at cruise and decel, without affecting the PCMs ability to control idle.
Then it will just be a matter of making sure your IAC doesn't do anything stupid like jump around too much.
1) zero out all but the first 200-300 rpms of spark pull on the idle tables.
2) flip the retard degrees vs. rpms to positive numbers, and put them in the underspeed table, and zero out the overspeed table completely. Then instead of using the IAC to pull your rpms up and adjust rpms back down with timing, the PCM would use the IAC to pull your rpm down and adjust back up with with timing. This should eliminate timing pull at cruise and decel, without affecting the PCMs ability to control idle.
Then it will just be a matter of making sure your IAC doesn't do anything stupid like jump around too much.
You try this yet??? I guess I could... Something else I just thought about is do you have your Closed Loop Proportional Idle Airflow Shutoff??? I remember reading somewhere that it supplied extra air during idle to lean out mixtures... As of now mine is still shutoff but if this is the case you think reactivating it would help??? I originally shut it off cuz someone said it helped their bucking issues... In my case I'm rich to begin with so all the fresh air I can get will help i suppose... I never noticed any difference with the CLPropIdle turned off or on so maybe I should turn it back on and see if it leans me out any... Lemme know how that theory of yours turns out!
01-20-2005, 04:41 PM
#105
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by txhorns281
You try this yet??? I guess I could... Something else I just thought about is do you have your Closed Loop Proportional Idle Airflow Shutoff??? I remember reading somewhere that it supplied extra air during idle to lean out mixtures... As of now mine is still shutoff but if this is the case you think reactivating it would help??? I originally shut it off cuz someone said it helped their bucking issues... In my case I'm rich to begin with so all the fresh air I can get will help i suppose... I never noticed any difference with the CLPropIdle turned off or on so maybe I should turn it back on and see if it leans me out any... Lemme know how that theory of yours turns out!
01-21-2005, 01:19 AM
#106
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your theory #2 investigated:
Couple notes:
1) Idle overspeed was controlled very well (I'm guessing by the IAC???), it dipped some but underspeed control countered it. No hanging RPMS, and it looks as if there is no additional pull in timing...
2) I changed my LTFT Boundaries as noted above... I don't know what the hell they do but it looks like it's isolating the trimming somewhat... compare to the trims i posted earlier in this thread and you can see the area of stupid trimming has decreased
3) I turned my closed loop proportional back on but didn't notice any considerable results...
4) Trims were reduced a bit but still not quite what we're looking for... It's gotta be something about those base and main spark tables... (for me) that's the only timing drop I can see now, the transition from main to base...
Do you think the LTFT Idle Cells Thresholds might be effecting anything in idle??? I know the the idle trims can't be reset and learn very very slowly, so at least at idle if before i was getting negative trims, why wouldn't they still be in effect now?
Also, this timing thing does make plenty of sense as to why we're seeing this rich stuff going on where we do, but what doesn't make sense (at least in my case) is why I don't see this effect when commanding 13.0. I only get this problem when commanding 14.628. When I was commanding 13.0 before, I'm sure all the pulling of timing was still going on so then why didn't it mess my AFRs then as well? I've tested this time and time again... Open loop no problems commanding 13.0, open loop same crap we keep seeing when commanding 14.628
And I doubt we're the only people that have noticed this... are there others of you out there that have noticed this and chosen to ignore it? Or have found ways to fix it? Or are there some of you that this sort of thing never happened to (ie. when you command 14.628, you get 14.628). This is becoming quite the thorn in the side...
Couple notes:
1) Idle overspeed was controlled very well (I'm guessing by the IAC???), it dipped some but underspeed control countered it. No hanging RPMS, and it looks as if there is no additional pull in timing...
2) I changed my LTFT Boundaries as noted above... I don't know what the hell they do but it looks like it's isolating the trimming somewhat... compare to the trims i posted earlier in this thread and you can see the area of stupid trimming has decreased
3) I turned my closed loop proportional back on but didn't notice any considerable results...
4) Trims were reduced a bit but still not quite what we're looking for... It's gotta be something about those base and main spark tables... (for me) that's the only timing drop I can see now, the transition from main to base...
Do you think the LTFT Idle Cells Thresholds might be effecting anything in idle??? I know the the idle trims can't be reset and learn very very slowly, so at least at idle if before i was getting negative trims, why wouldn't they still be in effect now?
Also, this timing thing does make plenty of sense as to why we're seeing this rich stuff going on where we do, but what doesn't make sense (at least in my case) is why I don't see this effect when commanding 13.0. I only get this problem when commanding 14.628. When I was commanding 13.0 before, I'm sure all the pulling of timing was still going on so then why didn't it mess my AFRs then as well? I've tested this time and time again... Open loop no problems commanding 13.0, open loop same crap we keep seeing when commanding 14.628
And I doubt we're the only people that have noticed this... are there others of you out there that have noticed this and chosen to ignore it? Or have found ways to fix it? Or are there some of you that this sort of thing never happened to (ie. when you command 14.628, you get 14.628). This is becoming quite the thorn in the side...
01-21-2005, 09:06 AM
#107
but what doesn't make sense (at least in my case) is why I don't see this effect when commanding 13.0. I only get this problem when commanding 14.628. When I was commanding 13.0 before, I'm sure all the pulling of timing was still going on so then why didn't it mess my AFRs then as well? I've tested this time and time again... Open loop no problems commanding 13.0, open loop same crap we keep seeing when commanding 14.628
What's your Inj. PW doing when the timing drops???
01-21-2005, 12:08 PM
#108
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bink
I think your PCM is protecting the engine from a lean condition - your EQ Ratio as determined by the PCM is probably below 1.00. At 13.0 AFR the EQ is above 1.00 (14.7/13= 1.13). Easiest way to prevent meltdown - pull timing.
What's your Inj. PW doing when the timing drops???
What's your Inj. PW doing when the timing drops???
As far as injector PW, I'm not sure what I'm looking for, but it follows my TPS very cleanly. It seems independant of timing, if the timing drops the Injector PW doesn't drop with it, it stays with TPS...
I dunno what the hell to think anymore... I noticing some trends that occur frequently but they don't always hold up... Like I've seen places where the timing drops and so does the LTFT, but there's other times when I have plenty of timing, plenty TPS and the LTFT still drops negative... Something tells me that timing does have alot to do with it, but there's more to it than just that...
01-21-2005, 10:11 PM
#109
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by txhorns281
I see what you're saying, and it seems that the timing tables are setup to protect from lean condition. Is there something that references this EQ ratio and reacts to it's value (Ie. a timing drop, etc???) Like you said, the EQ ratio for all other driving other than WOT PE should be ideally 1.00 right or slightly more... But even if it is less than 1.00 I would have thought that the o2s were the correction factor... And they certainly wouldn't push the car to run as rich as it does and also I would see more of this "richness" since I'm sure there's other parts in my VE that may run slightly lean. But this phenomena is occuring only in an isolated part of the VE table...
As far as injector PW, I'm not sure what I'm looking for, but it follows my TPS very cleanly. It seems independant of timing, if the timing drops the Injector PW doesn't drop with it, it stays with TPS...
I dunno what the hell to think anymore... I noticing some trends that occur frequently but they don't always hold up... Like I've seen places where the timing drops and so does the LTFT, but there's other times when I have plenty of timing, plenty TPS and the LTFT still drops negative... Something tells me that timing does have alot to do with it, but there's more to it than just that...
As far as injector PW, I'm not sure what I'm looking for, but it follows my TPS very cleanly. It seems independant of timing, if the timing drops the Injector PW doesn't drop with it, it stays with TPS...
I dunno what the hell to think anymore... I noticing some trends that occur frequently but they don't always hold up... Like I've seen places where the timing drops and so does the LTFT, but there's other times when I have plenty of timing, plenty TPS and the LTFT still drops negative... Something tells me that timing does have alot to do with it, but there's more to it than just that...
01-21-2005, 10:30 PM
#110
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Another_User
My PCM did not like flip-flopping and trying to use the spark to keep the idle up instead of pull it down. Quite frankly...it seemed a little pissed. Now that I have my spark settled more by making my idle air and spark tables match later years, things are better, but my IAC valve appears to be the latest culprit. But I am making some progress!
TTT
01-24-2005, 07:47 PM
#113
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a cool log for you to look at txhorns281. See anything interesting?
http://users.adelphia.net/~someoneelse/aaa.hpl
http://users.adelphia.net/~someoneelse/aaa.hpl
01-25-2005, 01:09 AM
#114
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the timing moves quite smoothly with TPS and rpm increase and decel... but right as you get to zero TPS it breaks up and gets all stupid... but it does seem that you've found away to clean up alot of the near-idle speed timing BS... What did you do? And have you verified if this improved your trims yet??? also, how far off are you base tables from your main? Like i keep sayin, mine aren't lined up very well (base is generally 8-10 degrees less from right after idle and up for me). Even though the timing isn't terribly smooth for me when making transitions, the car itself drives well, with minor minor low rpm bucking and no surging issues...
Have you played with O2 rich/lean points any? I got that suggestion from another poster...
What did you do? And have you verified if this improved your trims yet??? also, how far off are you base tables from your main? Like i keep sayin, mine aren't lined up very well (base is generally 8-10 degrees less from right after idle and up for me). Even though the timing isn't terribly smooth for me when making transitions, the car itself drives well, with minor minor low rpm bucking and no surging issues...Have you played with O2 rich/lean points any? I got that suggestion from another poster...
01-26-2005, 09:39 PM
#116
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by txhorns281
the timing moves quite smoothly with TPS and rpm increase and decel... but right as you get to zero TPS it breaks up and gets all stupid... but it does seem that you've found away to clean up alot of the near-idle speed timing BS... What did you do? And have you verified if this improved your trims yet??? also, how far off are you base tables from your main? Like i keep sayin, mine aren't lined up very well (base is generally 8-10 degrees less from right after idle and up for me). Even though the timing isn't terribly smooth for me when making transitions, the car itself drives well, with minor minor low rpm bucking and no surging issues...
Have you played with O2 rich/lean points any? I got that suggestion from another poster...
What did you do? And have you verified if this improved your trims yet??? also, how far off are you base tables from your main? Like i keep sayin, mine aren't lined up very well (base is generally 8-10 degrees less from right after idle and up for me). Even though the timing isn't terribly smooth for me when making transitions, the car itself drives well, with minor minor low rpm bucking and no surging issues...Have you played with O2 rich/lean points any? I got that suggestion from another poster...
Yes, I have played with the switching points before (I have put them back to stock). I could move the trims slightly by changing the O2 switching points, however I did not have good luck removing any bucking. I was able to smooth the no-throttle timing by making my idle air and idle spark table RPM limits match later years (400 and 300 rpms instead of about 1000 rpms). It made a big difference. Another change that I made today that eliminated my 1-2% TPS surge was adding air values to the Throttle Follower airflow vs. TPS table. Unfortunately that did not eliminate my bucking. I have some more logs that I am working off of, but I don't know how successfull I will be. I can see IAC and spark dips, and I have a good idea how to smooth them out, but I don't know if they are the actual problem, or just compounding the problem. I will post more as I get to test more.
01-27-2005, 12:27 AM
#117
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Another_User
No "and then"!
Yes, I have played with the switching points before (I have put them back to stock). I could move the trims slightly by changing the O2 switching points, however I did not have good luck removing any bucking. I was able to smooth the no-throttle timing by making my idle air and idle spark table RPM limits match later years (400 and 300 rpms instead of about 1000 rpms). It made a big difference. Another change that I made today that eliminated my 1-2% TPS surge was adding air values to the Throttle Follower airflow vs. TPS table. Unfortunately that did not eliminate my bucking. I have some more logs that I am working off of, but I don't know how successfull I will be. I can see IAC and spark dips, and I have a good idea how to smooth them out, but I don't know if they are the actual problem, or just compounding the problem. I will post more as I get to test more.
Yes, I have played with the switching points before (I have put them back to stock). I could move the trims slightly by changing the O2 switching points, however I did not have good luck removing any bucking. I was able to smooth the no-throttle timing by making my idle air and idle spark table RPM limits match later years (400 and 300 rpms instead of about 1000 rpms). It made a big difference. Another change that I made today that eliminated my 1-2% TPS surge was adding air values to the Throttle Follower airflow vs. TPS table. Unfortunately that did not eliminate my bucking. I have some more logs that I am working off of, but I don't know how successfull I will be. I can see IAC and spark dips, and I have a good idea how to smooth them out, but I don't know if they are the actual problem, or just compounding the problem. I will post more as I get to test more.
01-27-2005, 07:55 PM
#118
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by txhorns281
sounds good, i've pretty much taken care of all my bucking/surging so now it's just getting the trims and fueling correct... All i need is to figure what all is causes that richness cuz it seems like mutliple things....
01-27-2005, 10:41 PM
#120
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, getting my VE table inline helped a whole lot with the bucking. My VE is super smooth around idle and low rpms which helps since those conditions are sensitive to VE changes. After the VE, I added 2 degrees of timing to my base and main spark tables from 1200 and below. My bucking problems were mostly below 1500 rpms and that pretty much took care of my bucking... I upped my Base running airflows up to a value of 10.00 at operating temperatures to sort of "fine tune" the bucking. I didn't really notice a whole lot from the RAFs but it was suggested.
I can't let the clutch out in first and creep along a parking lot without bucking some, but I under light TPS I am normally able to push through it and all other driving conditions I experience zero to almost unnoticeable bucking. I can cruise in 6th at 50 mph without bucking... I get some serious bogging but no bucking... car drives almost like stock again and I got every mod in the book almost, short of heads and blockwork (see sig).
NOW!!!! I JUST NEED TO FIX THIS DAMN RICH CRAP!!!!! ARRRRGGGGRGRGR!!!!!!!
My tune is perfect with the exception of this stupid richness... c'mon guys! We gotta figure this one out?!?!?!
I can't let the clutch out in first and creep along a parking lot without bucking some, but I under light TPS I am normally able to push through it and all other driving conditions I experience zero to almost unnoticeable bucking. I can cruise in 6th at 50 mph without bucking... I get some serious bogging
but no bucking... car drives almost like stock again and I got every mod in the book almost, short of heads and blockwork (see sig).NOW!!!! I JUST NEED TO FIX THIS DAMN RICH CRAP!!!!! ARRRRGGGGRGRGR!!!!!!!
My tune is perfect with the exception of this stupid richness... c'mon guys! We gotta figure this one out?!?!?!