Trying to tune MAF
06-11-2007, 12:56 PM
#62
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TQ output vs airflow vs fuel. It's a rough estimation but it can put the head on the problem quickly.
Or you can look at airflow vs fuel quantity.
Or you can look at airflow vs fuel quantity.
Originally Posted by RedHardSupra
ok, so how do we account for reversal or scavenging? i'd like to see the 'simple calculations'
06-11-2007, 01:01 PM
#63
how how does this help? going off sensor data will give me false readings due to reversion/scavenging. going off wb/fuel will give me false readings due to wb being freaked out with fresh air in exhaust.
been there, done that, did not get the t-shirt tho...
been there, done that, did not get the t-shirt tho...
06-11-2007, 01:20 PM
#64
LS1Curious, you missed my post:
I have been side-lining this conversation, but I just have to ask/add the following. Please explain, and thanks for your time.
Again your AIM is for AF ratios that are not real. IF you try to rationalize the amount of air actually in the cylinder and the amount of fuel in the cylinder then compare that to the AF your observing you will find a large error between the 2.
Well then, explain why this approach yields such excellent results as far as real-world driving is concerned if it's so wrong... I've seen too many cars come out running like a champ to beleive that there is some large flaw here
I have no idea what your observing but its seems very inverted. How are you concluding with rich down low ? Higher MAP values at low rpm should always be richer then lower map values. the engine is more heavily loaded. while I tend to agree, the big issue is that the lack of low-end vacuum puts the PCM into an area around idle where the perceived load is much greater than the actual load, which results in overfueling
I have been side-lining this conversation, but I just have to ask/add the following. Please explain, and thanks for your time.
Originally Posted by LS1curious
Again your AIM is for AF ratios that are not real. IF you try to rationalize the amount of air actually in the cylinder and the amount of fuel in the cylinder then compare that to the AF your observing you will find a large error between the 2.
Well then, explain why this approach yields such excellent results as far as real-world driving is concerned if it's so wrong... I've seen too many cars come out running like a champ to beleive that there is some large flaw here
I have no idea what your observing but its seems very inverted. How are you concluding with rich down low ? Higher MAP values at low rpm should always be richer then lower map values. the engine is more heavily loaded. while I tend to agree, the big issue is that the lack of low-end vacuum puts the PCM into an area around idle where the perceived load is much greater than the actual load, which results in overfueling
06-11-2007, 01:20 PM
#65
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whatever goes through the MAF goes into the engine.
Originally Posted by RedHardSupra
how how does this help? going off sensor data will give me false readings due to reversion/scavenging. going off wb/fuel will give me false readings due to wb being freaked out with fresh air in exhaust.
been there, done that, did not get the t-shirt tho...
been there, done that, did not get the t-shirt tho...
06-11-2007, 01:25 PM
#66
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Frost
LS1Curious, you missed my post:
Well then, explain why this approach yields such excellent results as far as real-world driving is concerned if it's so wrong... I've seen too many cars come out running like a champ to beleive that there is some large flaw here
Well then, explain why this approach yields such excellent results as far as real-world driving is concerned if it's so wrong... I've seen too many cars come out running like a champ to beleive that there is some large flaw here
Let me know how those cylinder walls look in 40k.Fuel wash will eat rings.Most likely thats why such a high number of cars here consume oil.
Originally Posted by Frost
while I tend to agree, the big issue is that the lack of low-end vacuum puts the PCM into an area around idle where the perceived load is much greater than the actual load, which results in overfueling
Originally Posted by Frost
I have been side-lining this conversation, but I just have to ask/add the following. Please explain, and thanks for your time.
06-11-2007, 01:30 PM
#67
................
Originally Posted by LS1curious
Let me know how those cylinder walls look in 40k.Fuel wash will eat rings.Most likely thats why such a high number of cars here consume oil.
Plenty are still fine and pulling strong.... you can't really argue that if the fueling is that far off that it will FEEL that far off; especially from 1-3K RPMs. Site more than 1 random example of wideband tuning of VE and MAF ruining an engine and I'm all ears; I don't think that you can...
You can work around that by zeroing out the Load AF multipliers and using PE fuel and Dynaair of VE table fueling to fix those issues. Use the PE for high load like its designed to be used and use Dyna-air to fix Tip in throttle issues. this is skating what I'm talking about.... you want me to use PE to fix a rich idle that is caused by impercieved load from low vacuum? The fact is the area of idle for cammed cars Vs. stock is a place on the VE that was originally mapped for moderate load; not unloaded idle
Plenty are still fine and pulling strong.... you can't really argue that if the fueling is that far off that it will FEEL that far off; especially from 1-3K RPMs. Site more than 1 random example of wideband tuning of VE and MAF ruining an engine and I'm all ears; I don't think that you can...
You can work around that by zeroing out the Load AF multipliers and using PE fuel and Dynaair of VE table fueling to fix those issues. Use the PE for high load like its designed to be used and use Dyna-air to fix Tip in throttle issues. this is skating what I'm talking about.... you want me to use PE to fix a rich idle that is caused by impercieved load from low vacuum? The fact is the area of idle for cammed cars Vs. stock is a place on the VE that was originally mapped for moderate load; not unloaded idle
06-11-2007, 01:45 PM
#68
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Frost
.......Plenty are still fine and pulling strong.... you can't really argue that if the fueling is that far off that it will FEEL that far off; especially from 1-3K RPMs. Site more than 1 random example of wideband tuning of VE and MAF ruining an engine and I'm all ears; I don't think that you can.......
Originally Posted by Frost
........ this is skating what I'm talking about.... you want me to use PE to fix a rich idle that is caused by impercieved load from low vacuum? The fact is the area of idle for cammed cars Vs. stock is a place on the VE that was originally mapped for moderate load; not unloaded idle.......
Think of it like this.
Open a tank of air at a very slow rate. Open that same tank at a fast rate.You eventually get the same amount of air. But when you are measuring the amount of air the amounts are the same but initially the rapid opening showed higher momentarily.
Hence the VE table and DynAir.the VE table correct for the Lag in measurement. Now by forcing Openloop and turning the Openloop correctors back on to zero you have created the same effect withouth the NBo2 intrusion.
No that we are back to stioch speaking in terms of chamber AF's not observed AF's we have to start working to make the engien happy.
the throttle is definatley a better determination of load then map in a Large camshafted engine. No argument there. Espcially at low speed. But the way GM set up the software to work was to have the VE table be the Delta corrector and the PE tables to give the engine best power fueling during high load.
Its not a very hard concept to grasp.
06-11-2007, 02:07 PM
#69
....... still not onboard with ya here
Originally Posted by LS1curious
I would tend to disagree. The numbers of cars that I have personally seen tunned this way that consume oil all tend to be shorted lived for ring seal are enourmous.
Why are YOU the only person seeing and posting about such? Where are the examples I asked for. Since SOOO many are tuned in this fashion you should have no trouble shoring up some results. There are plenty of tuned cars, tuned by the aforementioned method that now have over 100K on them, and plenty have been cammed for 60-70K miles. I'm not even talking about users here, but folks I know in real life, and their walls are not washed, their engines are not ruined.
I think you seem to misunderstand the intetion of the Software engineers. The software engieers are trying to do one thing and one thing only. Limit the amount of deviation fron 14.7:1 as much *** possiable. they are doing this to keep the catalyst in its efficnecy range. The only way to force it to fuel at 14.7:1 during large transients and such other throttle deltas was to use a VE table to correct Surge volume that occur from the MAf ducting. the MAF is slower by design as well, I understand what you are saying here, but since transient needs are now different, it makes since that the VE needs to reflect such
..... Now by forcing Openloop and turning the Openloop correctors back on to zero you have created the same effect withouth the NBo2 intrusion.....
Who tunes by ditching the factors in the OLFA?? You can tune against desired AFR, then it's of no consequence if what is commanded deviates.
Its not a very hard concept to grasp. No need to be condescending; you are essentailly telling a whole forum (plus other forums as well) that they are wrong and their methods don't work; when the REAL LIFE side of the coin shows that they DO in fact work, and work well. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. Whether you like the approach of VE tuning and MAF cal or not makes little difference to me. They WORK. I KNOW they work. I SEE them work and most importantly, I FEEL them work when driving. A car can't be as far off as you claim and run nearly perfectly. How do you account for that?
Why are YOU the only person seeing and posting about such? Where are the examples I asked for. Since SOOO many are tuned in this fashion you should have no trouble shoring up some results. There are plenty of tuned cars, tuned by the aforementioned method that now have over 100K on them, and plenty have been cammed for 60-70K miles. I'm not even talking about users here, but folks I know in real life, and their walls are not washed, their engines are not ruined.
I think you seem to misunderstand the intetion of the Software engineers. The software engieers are trying to do one thing and one thing only. Limit the amount of deviation fron 14.7:1 as much *** possiable. they are doing this to keep the catalyst in its efficnecy range. The only way to force it to fuel at 14.7:1 during large transients and such other throttle deltas was to use a VE table to correct Surge volume that occur from the MAf ducting. the MAF is slower by design as well, I understand what you are saying here, but since transient needs are now different, it makes since that the VE needs to reflect such
..... Now by forcing Openloop and turning the Openloop correctors back on to zero you have created the same effect withouth the NBo2 intrusion.....
Who tunes by ditching the factors in the OLFA?? You can tune against desired AFR, then it's of no consequence if what is commanded deviates.
Its not a very hard concept to grasp. No need to be condescending; you are essentailly telling a whole forum (plus other forums as well) that they are wrong and their methods don't work; when the REAL LIFE side of the coin shows that they DO in fact work, and work well. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. Whether you like the approach of VE tuning and MAF cal or not makes little difference to me. They WORK. I KNOW they work. I SEE them work and most importantly, I FEEL them work when driving. A car can't be as far off as you claim and run nearly perfectly. How do you account for that?
06-11-2007, 02:47 PM
#71
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not the only person. People ignore the proof. Oil consumption on ls1 cars with camshafts is a huge problem.Its certianly not all fuel related but its definately not all other issues either. Just look at the numbers of cars with oil in the intake. Obviously a sign of blowby. Blowby is genrally cuased by lack of oil sealing the rings to the cylinder walls.
I wouldn't say the MAF is slow by any stretch. In fact its exremtly fast. As fast as the MAP. The bottle exmaple I was making before. the MAF can actually Oversample.
OLFA is an offset table. If you have an 02 sensor failure then you overichen the engine to protect the catalyst. Part one of the function of that table. Part 2 is it allows for enrichment at cooler engine tempatures. I wouldn't ditch all the values just the high load operating temp values.
Lets look at it from this angle.
Airflow x fuel injector. what changes here ? If the MAF calibration is factory and correct and the injector size is correct why would the fueling be off in the first place.It shouldn't be. Regardless of displacement the amount of air and fuel and the coefficient of those 2 will be constant. the observation of varying Af's could be a million other factors totally unrelated to steady state fueling.
I did not mean for that to come off as condescending.I am short on sleep. My apologies.
Perfect is a subjective term.Define it. What exactly does perfect blanace out ? Secondly being there is no baro correction that is arbitrarily applied to the fueling calcs as the base of the fueling output the calibration will meander alot without a MAF.
There may be more then one way to skin a cat for sure. But the hype about SD is just that Hype. There is a way to modify the operating system to run true SD but it would require some heavy work on the OS software and rewriting of the primary fueling algorythm.
Mostly it would involve setting up a true baro offset and a good fundemental Airflow calculation.
Don't take me as saying it can't be done.It has been done. But the evidence is in that the Calibration never meets the weather the way it is supposed to.
Originally Posted by Frost
....... Why are YOU the only person seeing and posting about such? Where are the examples I asked for. Since SOOO many are tuned in this fashion you should have no trouble shoring up some results. There are plenty of tuned cars, tuned by the aforementioned method that now have over 100K on them, and plenty have been cammed for 60-70K miles. I'm not even talking about users here, but folks I know in real life, and their walls are not washed, their engines are not ruined.
Originally Posted by Frost
.......
the MAF is slower by design as well, I understand what you are saying here, but since transient needs are now different, it makes since that the VE needs to reflect such
the MAF is slower by design as well, I understand what you are saying here, but since transient needs are now different, it makes since that the VE needs to reflect such
I wouldn't say the MAF is slow by any stretch. In fact its exremtly fast. As fast as the MAP. The bottle exmaple I was making before. the MAF can actually Oversample.
Originally Posted by Frost
.......
Who tunes by ditching the factors in the OLFA?? You can tune against desired AFR, then it's of no consequence if what is commanded deviates.
Who tunes by ditching the factors in the OLFA?? You can tune against desired AFR, then it's of no consequence if what is commanded deviates.
OLFA is an offset table. If you have an 02 sensor failure then you overichen the engine to protect the catalyst. Part one of the function of that table. Part 2 is it allows for enrichment at cooler engine tempatures. I wouldn't ditch all the values just the high load operating temp values.
Lets look at it from this angle.
Airflow x fuel injector. what changes here ? If the MAF calibration is factory and correct and the injector size is correct why would the fueling be off in the first place.It shouldn't be. Regardless of displacement the amount of air and fuel and the coefficient of those 2 will be constant. the observation of varying Af's could be a million other factors totally unrelated to steady state fueling.
Originally Posted by Frost
.......
No need to be condescending; you are essentailly telling a whole forum (plus other forums as well) that they are wrong and their methods don't work; when the REAL LIFE side of the coin shows that they DO in fact work, and work well. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. Whether you like the approach of VE tuning and MAF cal or not makes little difference to me. They WORK. I KNOW they work. I SEE them work and most importantly, I FEEL them work when driving. A car can't be as far off as you claim and run nearly perfectly. How do you account for that? .
No need to be condescending; you are essentailly telling a whole forum (plus other forums as well) that they are wrong and their methods don't work; when the REAL LIFE side of the coin shows that they DO in fact work, and work well. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. Whether you like the approach of VE tuning and MAF cal or not makes little difference to me. They WORK. I KNOW they work. I SEE them work and most importantly, I FEEL them work when driving. A car can't be as far off as you claim and run nearly perfectly. How do you account for that? .
Perfect is a subjective term.Define it. What exactly does perfect blanace out ? Secondly being there is no baro correction that is arbitrarily applied to the fueling calcs as the base of the fueling output the calibration will meander alot without a MAF.
There may be more then one way to skin a cat for sure. But the hype about SD is just that Hype. There is a way to modify the operating system to run true SD but it would require some heavy work on the OS software and rewriting of the primary fueling algorythm.
Mostly it would involve setting up a true baro offset and a good fundemental Airflow calculation.
Don't take me as saying it can't be done.It has been done. But the evidence is in that the Calibration never meets the weather the way it is supposed to.
06-11-2007, 03:27 PM
#72
I am VERY pro-MAF unless it is being maxed out. I also will not do SD tunes without one of the custom OS's (I use HPT so it's their 1,2, or 3 bar SD OS's) that is offered by HPT or EFIL.
If you have a large cam and leave the VE stock it WILL be very rich from start-up until trimming begins at CL operation. What I am talking about has nothing to do with dynamic airflow; the car is sitting still idling with no throttle and fueling more from VE than MAF... the gross VE error is now gross AFR error. Also, I have a hard time beleiving that each MAF shipped hits the prescribed curve as well, and I don't know what effect common changes like lids and bellows may have on the MAF, especially descreened units, even if OEM.
If you have a large cam and leave the VE stock it WILL be very rich from start-up until trimming begins at CL operation. What I am talking about has nothing to do with dynamic airflow; the car is sitting still idling with no throttle and fueling more from VE than MAF... the gross VE error is now gross AFR error. Also, I have a hard time beleiving that each MAF shipped hits the prescribed curve as well, and I don't know what effect common changes like lids and bellows may have on the MAF, especially descreened units, even if OEM.
06-11-2007, 03:32 PM
#73
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats the misconception. Unplug the MAP sensor and watch the AF stay the same. The only time the MAF is not in use is during cranking.
MAF accuracy is 1/2 % tolerance. Its insanely minmal. ducting will have minmal impact unless the unit is descreened. You can just toss the factory curve out the window at that point.
I have been working on a dissasembly of a Custom OS and I don't think I have seen much of anything yet. Its a bit of work but If i figure out whats been done I will pass the info along. I won;t however post exactly where and whats been changed.
MAF accuracy is 1/2 % tolerance. Its insanely minmal. ducting will have minmal impact unless the unit is descreened. You can just toss the factory curve out the window at that point.
I have been working on a dissasembly of a Custom OS and I don't think I have seen much of anything yet. Its a bit of work but If i figure out whats been done I will pass the info along. I won;t however post exactly where and whats been changed.
Originally Posted by Frost
I am VERY pro-MAF unless it is being maxed out. I also will not do SD tunes without one of the custom OS's (I use HPT so it's their 1,2, or 3 bar SD OS's) that is offered by HPT or EFIL.
If you have a large cam and leave the VE stock it WILL be very rich from start-up until trimming begins at CL operation. What I am talking about has nothing to do with dynamic airflow; the car is sitting still idling with no throttle and fueling more from VE than MAF... the gross VE error is now gross AFR error. Also, I have a hard time beleiving that each MAF shipped hits the prescribed curve as well, and I don't know what effect common changes like lids and bellows may have on the MAF, especially descreened units, even if OEM.
If you have a large cam and leave the VE stock it WILL be very rich from start-up until trimming begins at CL operation. What I am talking about has nothing to do with dynamic airflow; the car is sitting still idling with no throttle and fueling more from VE than MAF... the gross VE error is now gross AFR error. Also, I have a hard time beleiving that each MAF shipped hits the prescribed curve as well, and I don't know what effect common changes like lids and bellows may have on the MAF, especially descreened units, even if OEM.
Last edited by LS1curious; 06-11-2007 at 03:39 PM.
06-11-2007, 04:20 PM
#74
Originally Posted by LS1curious
Thats the misconception. Unplug the MAP sensor and watch the AF stay the same. The only time the MAF is not in use is during cranking.
MAF accuracy is 1/2 % tolerance. Its insanely minmal. ducting will have minmal impact unless the unit is descreened. You can just toss the factory curve out the window at that point.
I have been working on a dissasembly of a Custom OS and I don't think I have seen much of anything yet. Its a bit of work but If i figure out whats been done I will pass the info along. I won;t however post exactly where and whats been changed.
MAF accuracy is 1/2 % tolerance. Its insanely minmal. ducting will have minmal impact unless the unit is descreened. You can just toss the factory curve out the window at that point.
I have been working on a dissasembly of a Custom OS and I don't think I have seen much of anything yet. Its a bit of work but If i figure out whats been done I will pass the info along. I won;t however post exactly where and whats been changed.
06-11-2007, 04:36 PM
#75
12 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Altoona, PA
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desired and or parked airflow?
{B4307} DESIRED AIRFLOW
Used to reduce airflow as the engine warms up.
Although listed in the "Idle" section, this calibration also controls the base airflow for non-idle conditions.
{B4307} DESIRED AIRFLOW
Used to reduce airflow as the engine warms up.
Although listed in the "Idle" section, this calibration also controls the base airflow for non-idle conditions.
06-11-2007, 05:17 PM
#76
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats the thing. You don't run CL on a car with a decent sized camshaft.
You use the OLFa to correct the AF. I also said VE made need adjustments.
You use the OLFa to correct the AF. I also said VE made need adjustments.
Originally Posted by Frost
Well going from what you've said so far, the MAF and VE are always right, so don't adjust them, and the OLFA shouldn't be touched either... so a cammed car that is running rich as hell from cold-start to CL... what do you do to correct AFR?
06-11-2007, 09:56 PM
#78
ok, so please enlighten us, just what is The Right Way of tuning?
Last I checked my car would not even start with MAP sensor unplugged. I don't know how else to describe to the computer the changes in Volumetric Efficiency from the mods but to use a Volumetric Efficiency table. And I've proven on my own car that a stock MAF calibration on a MAF that measures airflow at one point while the airflow is not universally distributed through the MAF housing is not gonna work unless you kept your intake perfectly stock.
SD works, it has a MAP sensor, it has temp tensors, with a good bias model it can figure out the temps quite reliably, as long as the wideband is healthy, and the injector data are correct. and the equations for all this stuff are figured out, it doesn't take much beyond basics physics.
and you still haven't really answered my reversion question. MAF picks up the air backing up quite badly. i've had big cam cars that would run perfect in SD but no matter what amount of MAF tuning i've done, it would never work right in MAF.
why do you say we need a baro sensor? isn't there a baro sensor in there somewhere? how else does it get manifold vacuum which is mandatory to know to operate injectors?
Last I checked my car would not even start with MAP sensor unplugged. I don't know how else to describe to the computer the changes in Volumetric Efficiency from the mods but to use a Volumetric Efficiency table. And I've proven on my own car that a stock MAF calibration on a MAF that measures airflow at one point while the airflow is not universally distributed through the MAF housing is not gonna work unless you kept your intake perfectly stock.
SD works, it has a MAP sensor, it has temp tensors, with a good bias model it can figure out the temps quite reliably, as long as the wideband is healthy, and the injector data are correct. and the equations for all this stuff are figured out, it doesn't take much beyond basics physics.
and you still haven't really answered my reversion question. MAF picks up the air backing up quite badly. i've had big cam cars that would run perfect in SD but no matter what amount of MAF tuning i've done, it would never work right in MAF.
why do you say we need a baro sensor? isn't there a baro sensor in there somewhere? how else does it get manifold vacuum which is mandatory to know to operate injectors?
06-12-2007, 08:33 AM
#80
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say baro doesn't update.Its just not used in the airflow calculations the same way the older Ideal Gas Law SD systems did. Its more od a decoration then an actual value.
Originally Posted by SSpdDmon
Baro is updated at key on and WOT. If it sees a number higher than what it currently has, it'll update to that number.