I just got my new engine running tonight, and I've got a few questions. Gary sent me his tune so that I could copy it, I figured it would be a decent point to start from. I had the bump the idle up a bit but it idles pretty well at 1050rpm.
The problem I'm having is it's leaning out to high 15's and low 16's AFR's if I try to hit the throttle to quick. He had slightly smaller injectors, so I used my own injector constant and I figured that would work alright. But obviously it hasn't.
So my question is should I make adjustments to the injector constant to richen it up? I'm not really sure where to start.
I attached my tune and a log of my drive. I don't have the Wideband logging yet. I'm quite new to this so any help would be greatly appreciated.
- Attachments
- W41 - First Drive.zip (396k)
Paying someone to install parts and bragging about it being fast, is like watching someone bang your wife and being proud to raise their kids.
This has been said recently in other post, but injector constant is not a magic number that makes the rest of the tune right. You do the injector constant and then tune the VE. Just tune it.
FU Tuning
Ok so I want to get this completely straight because its never actually said in the other posts. Adjust the injector constant then tweak it until the car is idling at the afr you want it to and then tune VE tables? correct?
Zs Z wrote:Ok so I want to get this completely straight because its never actually said in the other posts. Adjust the injector constant then tweak it until the car is idling at the afr you want it to and then tune VE tables? correct?
No. Figure your injector constant based on the injectors your running, then tune your VE tables.
FU Tuning
Alright thanks, and sorry for the noob question.
Paying someone to install parts and bragging about it being fast, is like watching someone bang your wife and being proud to raise their kids.
my injector constant was not derived from the formula, with that formula my ve tables were maxxed out and i thought that was ridiculous, my ve offset would have to be 20% just to compensate and that is not even realistic, i just adjusted the injector constant to where i wanted and tuned accordingly. i used .19750 over the injector constant of 0.15900 that i got from the formula. This is why it did not work perfectly for you Tim, you prob got your own injector constant from the formula. you should try my tune with an injector constant of .18000 or something.
Ahh, gotcha, yeah I bumped the VE tables 10% and its running better now.
Paying someone to install parts and bragging about it being fast, is like watching someone bang your wife and being proud to raise their kids.
gmanz24 (The Bash Whore) wrote:my injector constant was not derived from the formula, with that formula my ve tables were maxxed out and i thought that was ridiculous, my ve offset would have to be 20% just to compensate and that is not even realistic, i just adjusted the injector constant to where i wanted and tuned accordingly. i used .19750 over the injector constant of 0.15900 that i got from the formula. This is why it did not work perfectly for you Tim, you prob got your own injector constant from the formula. you should try my tune with an injector constant of .18000 or something.
Why not move the Ve offset up? 20% VE offset is nothing. Some J's come stock with that.
FU Tuning
i have 60lb injectors and i did the formula for injector constant and my tables were maxed out even with my VE offset to 70% so i just spent about a half and hour finding a happier number
running rich? turn the boost up
Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:gmanz24 (The Bash Whore) wrote:my injector constant was not derived from the formula, with that formula my ve tables were maxxed out and i thought that was ridiculous, my ve offset would have to be 20% just to compensate and that is not even realistic, i just adjusted the injector constant to where i wanted and tuned accordingly. i used .19750 over the injector constant of 0.15900 that i got from the formula. This is why it did not work perfectly for you Tim, you prob got your own injector constant from the formula. you should try my tune with an injector constant of .18000 or something.
Why not move the Ve offset up? 20% VE offset is nothing. Some J's come stock with that.
because i was more anal about my car not having the possibility of going over 100% ve with my build, so i adjusted the constant where my ve would be more realistic i.e. 100 and lower. just seemed like the proper thing to do vs. seeing my ve table up in the 120 range.
gmanz24 (The Bash Whore) wrote:Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:gmanz24 (The Bash Whore) wrote:my injector constant was not derived from the formula, with that formula my ve tables were maxxed out and i thought that was ridiculous, my ve offset would have to be 20% just to compensate and that is not even realistic, i just adjusted the injector constant to where i wanted and tuned accordingly. i used .19750 over the injector constant of 0.15900 that i got from the formula. This is why it did not work perfectly for you Tim, you prob got your own injector constant from the formula. you should try my tune with an injector constant of .18000 or something.
Why not move the Ve offset up? 20% VE offset is nothing. Some J's come stock with that.
because i was more anal about my car not having the possibility of going over 100% ve with my build, so i adjusted the constant where my ve would be more realistic i.e. 100 and lower. just seemed like the proper thing to do vs. seeing my ve table up in the 120 range.
sorry that makes no sense to me.
FU Tuning
Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:Zs Z wrote:Ok so I want to get this completely straight because its never actually said in the other posts. Adjust the injector constant then tweak it until the car is idling at the afr you want it to and then tune VE tables? correct?
No. Figure your injector constant based on the injectors your running, then tune your VE tables.
I will be the first to say I am no expert and I want to learn more. When I did the math for the injector constant(I did Pj's method and another) and plugged it into HPtuners the car idled at like 10-1 afr with the idle VE table as low as it would go. That is where I came up with the conclusion that the constant affected idle. Now I did figure out that I had a bad TPS which made the rest of my tune crap but the idle table is map based so I wouldn't think that would cause the issue. I have since flashed Gary's tune on the car and it runs so much better, all I did was recalculate the injector difference based on the constant he had. I have not hooked up the wideband yet so I cant verify the idle afr but it doesn't smell like raw fuel anymore coming out of the exhaust anymore. I have smaller cams so leaning out through out the rest of the rpm range does not worry me.
Zs Z wrote:Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:Zs Z wrote:Ok so I want to get this completely straight because its never actually said in the other posts. Adjust the injector constant then tweak it until the car is idling at the afr you want it to and then tune VE tables? correct?
No. Figure your injector constant based on the injectors your running, then tune your VE tables.
I will be the first to say I am no expert and I want to learn more. When I did the math for the injector constant(I did Pj's method and another) and plugged it into HPtuners the car idled at like 10-1 afr with the idle VE table as low as it would go. That is where I came up with the conclusion that the constant affected idle. Now I did figure out that I had a bad TPS which made the rest of my tune crap but the idle table is map based so I wouldn't think that would cause the issue. I have since flashed Gary's tune on the car and it runs so much better, all I did was recalculate the injector difference based on the constant he had. I have not hooked up the wideband yet so I cant verify the idle afr but it doesn't smell like raw fuel anymore coming out of the exhaust anymore. I have smaller cams so leaning out through out the rest of the rpm range does not worry me.
Let me ask. Did you have closed loop disabled?
FU Tuning
Yes I did, I followed the directions in the sticky and made all the values 300 iirc.
Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:gmanz24 (The Bash Whore) wrote:Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:gmanz24 (The Bash Whore) wrote:my injector constant was not derived from the formula, with that formula my ve tables were maxxed out and i thought that was ridiculous, my ve offset would have to be 20% just to compensate and that is not even realistic, i just adjusted the injector constant to where i wanted and tuned accordingly. i used .19750 over the injector constant of 0.15900 that i got from the formula. This is why it did not work perfectly for you Tim, you prob got your own injector constant from the formula. you should try my tune with an injector constant of .18000 or something.
Why not move the Ve offset up? 20% VE offset is nothing. Some J's come stock with that.
because i was more anal about my car not having the possibility of going over 100% ve with my build, so i adjusted the constant where my ve would be more realistic i.e. 100 and lower. just seemed like the proper thing to do vs. seeing my ve table up in the 120 range.
sorry that makes no sense to me.
how does it not make sense, my build would never reach over 100% ve in real life so i tuned accordingly. as in i set my ve table where the numbers were realistic with real world readings. obviously my motor is not going over 100% ve with how i had it setup, so i wanted my tune to reflect that. i could have simply raised the ve offset, but then i would have numbers in my ve table up in the 120's and how is that realistic at all? i guess its just a preference. oh well, my car ran like a top.
Theres a difference between GMVE and regular VE. The other issue is that our computers are retard and that the VE in ours isnt even anything close to actual VE. I'm sorry but theres no way the car is in the upper 90's and/or over 100% VE stock. In a real car or with a standalone, yes your VE tables should make sense. On these cars they make no sense. My maps look stupid, hell they look like the car must run like @!#$, but they're alpha-n AND theres other @!#$ going on in the background that I have control of and stuff I dont have control of that I have to compensate for.
I'm really beginning to believe that our VE numbers are actually related to how much air can fit through the throttle body more than it is by the actual engine. If someone is tuned on the stock TB and then only went to a bigger TB then re-tuned I would like to see both tunes and know what size your throttle bodies are/were. I could do some math and figure it out.
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
A while ago I did some logging on MAP versus TPS just because I was curious. Before I started the test though, I made a theoretical model of what it should look like. I won't get into the details, but the experimental data speaks for itself.
Now my Ion has a manual transmission, so I am guessing that is why the lower throttle deviates from theoretical as much as it does. To prove this, I tested my Mom's Montana (automatic obviously) because they are much less prone to high vacuum during decel, because they upshift virtually immediately after letting of the gas if they are in a low gear.
It isn't perfect by any means, but there is certainly a relationship. Also, you can see that the WOT pressure delta across the throttle body is no more than 5 kPa in both vehicles. So it would be even less of a delta at lower throttle. I would imagine that a larger throttle body (at least on an N/A car) would only make a small difference in the part throttle manifold pressure. In short, I don't think a larger throttle body would make a HUGE impact on VE, especially at part throttle. On a built N/A car or forced induction car, the TB delta pressure would probably be higher though.
Leafy (Club Jeffie FEA man) wrote:Theres a difference between GMVE and regular VE. The other issue is that our computers are retard and that the VE in ours isnt even anything close to actual VE. I'm sorry but theres no way the car is in the upper 90's and/or over 100% VE stock. In a real car or with a standalone, yes your VE tables should make sense. On these cars they make no sense. My maps look stupid, hell they look like the car must run like @!#$, but they're alpha-n AND theres other @!#$ going on in the background that I have control of and stuff I dont have control of that I have to compensate for.
I'm really beginning to believe that our VE numbers are actually related to how much air can fit through the throttle body more than it is by the actual engine. If someone is tuned on the stock TB and then only went to a bigger TB then re-tuned I would like to see both tunes and know what size your throttle bodies are/were. I could do some math and figure it out.
Just so happens I have my hands on a M62 powered Eco, that I tuned on stock TB. I will be putting a larger TB on it this weekend (hopefully) and retuning. I will see.
FU Tuning
