Wild idea....disable VVT....part of Speed density coefficients which still look stock? Haven't done a SD DI yet :-(
Ed M
Wild idea....disable VVT....part of Speed density coefficients which still look stock? Haven't done a SD DI yet :-(
Ed M
I tried adding the vvt stuff in the eq-ve
It doesn't make any difference..
The log I posted was with the vvt enabled and with changes in the ve to vvt tables
In wot, why does PE eq ratio go to .85....that's leaner?????
Ed M
Commanded afr is fine.
Just cant get actual fuel to follow
That's strange I cant see the CMD AFR on my scan, I see the PID is red and I select to the chart, but no data/graph shows up?
So I quess EQ Ratio is really commanded Lambda, mismarked?
Ed M
Another wild idea.....based on this is a torque based system, perhaps in SD, the torque/airmass values are inaccurate and not enabling PE fueling. What about setting pedal to like 20 to enable PE and see if it at least triggers fueling.
Sorry don't have anything better.....
Ed M
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowton
it is not a Commanded fuel issue...
it commands the correct amount
you will have to make a commanded to AFR PID...
Commanded AFR is Fine....
I just cant seem to make it add fuel no matter what I do to the VE table.
I doubled the table up top just as a test and it makes ZERO difference
Scott, understand your frustration but you aren't commanded PE (EQ goes from 1 to .85) until 107 kPa, some thing is not right with basic PE trigging to start.
Also, are you mating the pedal for the run, because you are only getting about 59% throttle. My understanding is the throttle opens to the point of the torque demand so it believes it is open enough based on the SD calculations.
Did you see similar results running in the MAF mode?
I really cant contribute any more so I will listen and see if someone more capable chimes in. Hope you get it straightened out.....
Ed M
so help me find where its commanding it from...
cause I dont see it in the stuff I'm looking at...
and either way.....I've DOUBLED the VE values...and it makes ZERO difference...
Dyno pull AFR looks exactly the same, follows the exact same line as the previous pull....
problem goes away when I re-enable the MAF...
Again, my disclaimer is I am theorizing the SD effects as I have not tuned an E92 in anything other than MAF only or blended modes....
So after a long night and a few scotch's, the question still exists in my mind as to what is the difference between your MAF based fueling results and Speed Density (MAP). Understanding that the fundamental control of the SIDI is torque based, there must be a difference in the torque calculations between the 2 and/or a MAF fail sends the PCM into a "safe" mode. My biggest fear is this is where all the calibrators talk about the Torque Coefficient Tables in the Torque Management>Engine section as being the key to DI tuning......:-( Howard from Redline wrote that he uses the Dyno Torque reading to validate the Tune calculated torque value and the Airmass Coefficient ABCD can be updated to bring them back in line. We use that now when we scale tunes and it precludes having to scale all the A6 torque values and brings the torque calculation back in line with the setup.
As the TPS is being held to 59%, one of the limiter parameters must be intervening and limiting the opening of the throttle. Parameters that limit torque include, but not limited to Trans output max, axle torque limiters, Maximum torque Peak, Brake Torque limits (only when brake is applied), DFCO/CFCO, TCS and Cruise Control.
So to this, I would log the pedal position as well as the TPS% to verify if limiting of the TB plate is taking place (assumption it is). Again, without the enhanced PID set, logging is very limited. Another wild idea....is it possible the Beta software doesn't have the enhanced PDs while the 2.24 does? The first thing I would want to know is there a change in the torque calculation from MAF and SD. Need to find PID(s) that show the engine and transmission torque values for your setup. I would include Dynamic Airmass PID (VE based) and cylinder airmass (not calculated because that is based on MAF) as well to your PID lists to try and help in seeing the difference between MAF and SD.
Lastly, the things that I would change to try and get the TPS/fueling back would be the add 50% to the torque limiting values in engine>Torque mgmt>General>Maximum torque> including Overboost limit (all seems good until kPa >105), Trans output through Rear Trans Limit parameters and any other limiting tables that might be intervening.
The key to this system is the Driver Demand Torque (predicted) must always exceed the calculated Engine Torque, or limiting is enacted.
Sorry I don't have more. The key to me is finding the difference between MAF and SD calculations of torque....... Maybe fixing the reversion is the easier way to go :-)
Ed M
Try logging all fuel pressures, commanded rail, actual rail, and lift pump before the high pressure pump. I just had this same problem yesterday, out of fuel at 4700rpm injectors maxed out. Lift pump not keeping up. Pressure goes from 65psi down to 30psi by end of the run. Commanded rail is 19MPA actual was down to 9MPA by the end of the pull. This is on a 2014 silverado with TVS EFORCE and cam and headers after filling up with e85. It was able to keep up on 93oct making 420rwhp @12.5 A/f. On alcohol its at 440whp and out of fuel. We are going to try and upgrade the lift pump first before doing anything else.
This setup performs ok (enough fuel) in the MAF mode, the problem comes to view when Scott converted to Speed Density.....says, as Scott reiterated the fuel system/injectors are up to the challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by scattergun9
Ed M
[/QUOTE] is it possible the Beta software doesn't have the enhanced PDs while the 2.24 does?
Ed M[/QUOTE]
This is what I was told by Bill himself when I was having 2.24 datalogging issues and requested the 2.25 beta version. For these reasons I don't use 2.25 for datalogging or tuning, atleast not yet - the 2.24 was fixed and working perfectly right now... I know this doesn't cure your actual problem, but who knows, you might be able to fix it using the 2.24 latest stable build.
Straight from Bill ---
Known issues are:
File compare is mostly ready
GM Custom operating systems not ready
GM speedo calculator not ready
2.25 scanner not ready(use 2.24 scanner)
is it possible the Beta software doesn't have the enhanced PDs while the 2.24 does?
Ed M[/QUOTE]
This is what I was told by Bill himself when I was having 2.24 datalogging issues and requested the 2.25 beta version. For these reasons I don't use 2.25 for datalogging or tuning, atleast not yet - the 2.24 was fixed and working perfectly right now... I know this doesn't cure your actual problem, but who knows, you might be able to fix it using the 2.24 latest stable build.
Straight from Bill ---
Known issues are:
File compare is mostly ready
GM Custom operating systems not ready
GM speedo calculator not ready
2.25 scanner not ready(use 2.24 scanner)[/QUOTE]
Scott,
Any progress? I was thinking more in line that the tune software 2.25 didn't have the latest PIDS. That's based on my assumption that they are contained in the Software similar to EFI Live....You cant even open the data logger in 2.25.
Ed M
Isn't it easier to relocate the MAF or the BOV and enable the MAF again. I have tuned a few of those Gen 5 truck and they work very good with the BOV close to the turbo and the MAF close to the Throttle Body. No surging whatsoever.
In your case it's a Procharger but the same principle applies.
Try to use 2.24 for all supported applications, 2.25 may be incomplete or have unknown issues
Well, still yet another help thread, with a lot of thought and effort and just dies on the vine........really hate that :banghead:
Ed M
call me crazy but how would the pcm know to add fuel in SD if your map is maxed out?
RPMQuote:
Originally Posted by GPGTP
Ed M
What about map? How does it calculate load?
my bad I see someone already commented on that. If it doesn't add fuel even before the map is maxed it's obvious its a table mapping issue.