I am currently running and will be sticking with the Stock 1 Bar.
I am learning my self so I will not portray myself as a tuner expert. Still doing research.
But im willing to help....heck I might even steer you in the right direction.
To begin how was tuning the volumetric efficiency high RPM tables?
To think outside the box how's your intake manifold holding up? Good seal's...no leaks?
And last Im thinking TPS but you stated it was functioning properly
GMR has got nothing on this
No problem.
I replaced the stock intake manifold. (Blew a ringland, so I replaced it)
New manifold gaskets were installed as well...
No leaks as far as I can tell. I can't hear any hissing, or feel any air around the seals.
At idle, my boost gauge used to read -21hg (bone stock engine, before the rebuild)
Since the rebuild, it reads -16hg at idle.
I don't know how useful that info is, but I believe the decrease in Vacuum is from the new camshafts. My turbo piping and BOV/Boost control lines haven't changed.
High RPM tables haven't been tuned yet. I was to start with Low RPM Tuning, and am still stuck on it. I haven't done the high RPM yet, and am worried that this issue could cause me grief with the high rpm table as well. Really don't want to lean out to 18:1 when I am doing datalogs on those runs.
I might double check my Wideband PID.
I noticed that most users are using the AEM Uego formula as:
Volts / 0.5 + 10ish
They are using the 0.5 as a constant., and modifying the 10. The 10 is an offset to obtain correct afr readings between the gauge and the vcm scanner.
I have been using the formula:
Volts / 0.421 + 7.3
I got that info off of an HP Tuners thread, and am wondering if my problem lies with using 0.421 instead of 5.
I am still reading the correct afr between the scanner and boost gauge...but maybe that constant is throwing off my results in the histogram?
the .5 is the range divided by the voltage (ie max lean afr - max rich afr divided by 5 volts or w/e).
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
Try tuning your volumetric efficiency high RPM tables first. Then go from there. If your worried about leaning out then decrease the volumetric efficiency percentage in all cells as stated in the sticky you mentioned. Thus you will be running rich.
GMR has got nothing on this
DOHC_tuner wrote:Try tuning your volumetric efficiency high RPM tables first. Then go from there. If your worried about leaning out then decrease the volumetric efficiency percentage in all cells as stated in the sticky you mentioned. Thus you will be running rich.
I disagree. I think you should first tune idle, then tune low rpm. then do high rpm, then coast down.
Oh btw. when you change the low rpm single fire table do you then copy that and paste it into the double fire table. The two tables should be the same.
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
The High RPM VE tables would fit more suitable tuned initially due to the increase in MAP. At low RPM's you should be fine with the stock tune unless compression/piston selection was changed dramatically. And of coarse timing as well.
Again I could be wrong but this is my current thesis with my experience with boost and tuning research thus far.
GMR has got nothing on this
Unless you dont hit boost until over 4000 rpms then the low rpm tables are going to change a lot. Not to mention if you have to change your ve offest or your injector pulsewidth vs vac multiplier (theres two schools of tuning where it comes to adjusting that and both ways change it, either to all 1 (ryans way) or to try and increase with boost pressure (the right way, to do the fake stuff on a @!#$ty pcm [only works with 2.5 bar]).
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
I agree the low rpm tables will be altered. However I stated a meaning of safety for the low RPM's to be delayed allowing you to go on with the High RPM's first.
So your saying a fake bar is the way to go?
GMR has got nothing on this
It depends, they both have their benefits. In all honesty no one should ever boost one of these cars on the stock computer with hp-tuners, its just not set up right. The guys who really know what they're doing can actually get an ok tune done. I know for a fact that my tune sucks balls and I might get it to be an ok tune if I put more effort into but really, I'm setup to make good, safe power, a car that starts every time, never stalls, and get @!#$ty gas mileage. I have other tunes that get good gas mileage, make good safe power, but dont always start and sometimes just randomly stall while driving on cold startup or stall when the clutch goes in. its really fricken hard to get a good boost tune on an alpha-n setup, I rally cant imagine how hard it is to do with a turbo.
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
Your just breaking my heart now, making me not want my Z24 anymore. LOL
Well to say the least I am currently running a 2002 Cavalier on stock tune and 9psi without any problems. I agree on cold start up its a bit rough however I allow the 02 sensor to heat up so closed loop can initiate. When I let her warm up she runs great.
GMR has got nothing on this
DOHC_tuner wrote:Try tuning your volumetric efficiency high RPM tables first. Then go from there. If your worried about leaning out then increase the volumetric efficiency percentage in all cells as stated in the sticky you mentioned. Thus you will be running rich.
Corrected
GMR has got nothing on this
Quote:
Well to say the least I am currently running a 2002 Cavalier on stock tune and 9psi without any problems. I agree on cold start up its a bit rough however I allow the 02 sensor to heat up so closed loop can initiate. When I let her warm up she runs great.
Yeah and that is a ticking time bomb, and your a moron for doing so.
I have found with Ryan's help that the stalling issues are usually the tune being off in the Low RPM's and idle tables. Some tuning in closed loop wil usually take care of that.
FU Tuning
Leafy wrote:Lolz, never saw this one before get rid of sens 121 < 14.5. Think about it, why is this here? All it does is exclude everything where your commanded afr is leaner than 14.5 and in no way helps you tune. I mean that hits all of open loop start up, all of PE, and some of closed loop cruise. Thats the only glaring issue I see. everything else looks fine.
This, along with the other filters, and in combination with the other histograms in that config file allow me to tune in closed loop. I didn't actually look at which version of the config was referenced here, but it makes my life WAY easier when tuning a mild n/a set up. No need to go open loop, and no need ot disable DFCO...
It's just another way to look at it - you can either change your tune to try to capture the data you want, or properly filter your data to tune what you want. After tuning cammed ecotecs in open loop, i very much appreciate being able to effectively tune in closed loop
Use it at your own risk of course, and don't take it out of context.
Ok that makes sense. you just have to make sure the car achieves closed lop before you start your log
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:Quote:
Well to say the least I am currently running a 2002 Cavalier on stock tune and 9psi without any problems. I agree on cold start up its a bit rough however I allow the 02 sensor to heat up so closed loop can initiate. When I let her warm up she runs great.
Yeah and that is a ticking time bomb, and your a moron for doing so.
I have found with Ryan's help that the stalling issues are usually the tune being off in the Low RPM's and idle tables. Some tuning in closed loop wil usually take care of that.
Settle down sir....Its not my choice to run on a stock tune. Its not like I refused to go to the MANY jbody tuning shops around here and get a tune. Im aware if might be a ticking time bomb but Im prepared for it. And to think I was going to ask you and few questions on tuning.
GMR has got nothing on this
!!! SOLVED !!!
Was using the wrong Injector constant. I slowly dialed it back towards stock until I got a better idle under normal operating temps.
Used the formula:
24/80 x 0.17800 = 0.0534 (new constant. Worked fine during inital cold startup, but if I turned the car off and restarted after it warmed up, it would INSTANTLY go lean.) I thought that the lean issue was caused by re-flashing with AFR errors, and didn't think the constant could be the issue.
Slowly dialed it back towards stock, until I got the decent idle.
Now everything works like it should.
Simple fix, just thought the formula would always be 100% correct, and overlooked it.
Thanks for the help!...cause I've been scratching my head for the past couple weeks.
How far off was the formula value? What constant ended up working for you? Wow after this and other accounts it kind of seems like the bigger the injector the more variation in the constant. I can't wait to tune my 60 pounders now lol.
The formula value I originally got was: 0.05340
I finally ended up with 0.06918
I found out that trying to tune with an injector constant that was off would create peakes and valleys in the low rpm ve tables, and after a few flashes. the car would need a bit of gas to get it started.
As soon as the injector constant was correct, it all fell into place. I was able to get 3-4 logs and flashes in. After turning my OL/CL temps back down to normal, my STFT showed around 1%-3%
Yeah, if anybody is trying with larger injectors, I would:
1. calculate the injector constant normally
2. start up and idle to normal operating temperature
3. Slowly adjust the constant back to stock until you get a PERFECT stoich AFR ratio under warm temps.
Im going to be tuning for 55lb injectors. How did you get from your original to the injector constant your using now? I just never figure it out, i would wag it.
Spook 427 wrote:Im going to be tuning for 55lb injectors. How did you get from your original to the injector constant your using now? I just never figure it out, i would wag it.
Really man? Try searching
"Straight roads are for fast cars, turns are for fast drivers"-Colin McRae
onecleancavy wrote:Spook 427 wrote:Im going to be tuning for 55lb injectors. How did you get from your original to the injector constant your using now? I just never figure it out, i would wag it.
Really man? Try searching
Or he could have read up 3 posts above his to find the answer as well.
Spook, here ya go, I quoted myself again for ya
Erik Nyman wrote:
Used the formula:
24lb/80lb x 0.17800(original constant) = 0.0534 (new constant)
Slowly dialed it back towards stock, until I got the decent idle at normal operating temps.
I know how you got this 0.05340. I want to know how you got to this 0.06918?
