Simple LS2 VE vs. Gen III VE table question

[jdo6696]

I know the LS2 table isn't setup in % like the LS1/6 was, my question is when I scan the LTFTs, do I subtract or add those values from the given increments still? (ex.1600 + (-5)) I am using the LTFT method to tune the part throttle VE.

the only reason I am doing it this way and not using a WB is b/c I don't have access to one at this point. I will at the dyno for the WOT stuff obviously. Should I just scrap this until I can get a WB into it and set aside a day to get the part throttle stuff done?

Thanks.

[5_Liter_Eater]

I can't find the thread where redhardsupra posted it initially but he has come up with a spreadsheet where you plug in your VE and STFT's, LTFT's or % AFR Error and it proposes new VE #'s. I don't know what kind of logic/equation it uses but it works quite well. I have it but I can't upload attachments behind the firewall at work. Search around or PM me your e-mail and I'll send it to you.

[2006 z51 Vette]

http://redhardsupra.blogspot.com/

take a look at this....
great stuff...

[Bill@HPTuners]

lol the spreadsheet simply puts it into % form rather than raw form which to some is easier to understand but in reality its the same numbers

Your not adding or subtracting though...trims are in % so your multiplying.

[Street Legal]

I have HPT 2.16 but i can't find the MAX VE table in dynamic airflow the one redsupra is talking about !!!

[Bill@HPTuners]

whats the year/make/model of your vehicle? it only effects a small handful of cars/trucks

[Street Legal]

whats the year/make/model of your vehicle? it only effects a small handful of cars/trucks

06 corvette c6

and 07 corvette z07

i cant find max VE table....how can i tune the VE if i want to use SD mode ? which table do i have to mess with to get LTFT AND STFT close enough ?

[Bill@HPTuners]

wont affect either of them since there is no VE table. You might want to consider reading the sticky about SD tuning those vehicles

[jdo6696]

lol the spreadsheet simply puts it into % form rather than raw form which to some is easier to understand but in reality its the same numbers

Your not adding or subtracting though...trims are in % so your multiplying.

so when my LTFT log cell indicated -5 I need to multiply the corresponding value by .95 to reduce the value by 5%. If it were +5 I would multiply it by 1.05 to increase it by 5%. Does that sound right?

I think I am going to add some of this stuff that differs from the Gen III stuff to the Gen IV PCM to the starter guide I am using. The write up is really helpful, it just takes some research on the new stuff as I have come to realize.

I might try that deal 5 Liter Eater is talking about too, might make it a little easier to just subtract the %s.

[jdo6696]

ok, I did a log and made the alterations to the table the right way now. I added fuel in some places and now there are a couple peaks to smooth out b/c I wasn't able to hit some of the MAP cells. What is the best way to smooth between those, esp the one at 4400 rpm, interpolate the data I didn't get with the surrounding cells, and then do a smoothing once over the entire table?

here's the .bin and one of the logs I have so far, thanks again for any help/suggestions.

[EC_Tune]

I usually hand smooth. However if you have mountains and mineshafts they are probably bogus data points.

[Bill@HPTuners]

so when my LTFT log cell indicated -5 I need to multiply the corresponding value by .95 to reduce the value by 5%. If it were +5 I would multiply it by 1.05 to increase it by 5%. Does that sound right?

yes, exactly, and the copy-paste special feature will do that work for you. But using trims is a very bad way to tune...highly consider getting a wideband as through those scans I can already see it screwing with your data.

I might try that deal 5 Liter Eater is talking about too, might make it a little easier to just subtract the %s.

if you do that you will screw up your entire VE table period, not good.

[5_Liter_Eater]

I might try that deal 5 Liter Eater is talking about too, might make it a little easier to just subtract the %s.

What do you mean? I don't recall suggesting subtracting %'s. Use Marcin's spreadsheet. You plug in your initial VE table and then you plug in either your LTFT's or STFT's (if you have LTFTs disabled as some find it easier to tune that way) or ideally plug in your %AFR Error and it will spit out a new VE table for you. You can use any method since they are all % errors.

[jdo6696]

yes, exactly, and the copy-paste special feature will do that work for you. But using trims is a very bad way to tune...highly consider getting a wideband as through those scans I can already see it screwing with your data.


if you do that you will screw up your entire VE table period, not good.

cool, well I won't do that. I see what you and EC are saying about the data points being messed up. I will see what I can do about getting hold of a WB. Thanks for the help guys.

[jdo6696]

What do you mean? I don't recall suggesting subtracting %'s. Use Marcin's spreadsheet. You plug in your initial VE table and then you plug in either your LTFT's or STFT's (if you have LTFTs disabled as some find it easier to tune that way) or ideally plug in your %AFR Error and it will spit out a new VE table for you. You can use any method since they are all % errors.

I just meant Marcin's spreadsheet you suggested using, thanks for sending it btw.

[Bill@HPTuners]

The thing is Marcin's spreadsheet really does nothing more then put it into numbers that you can understand & then spits them back out the EXACT same way hptuners would using the copy-paste special feature.

[redhardsupra]

correct, that's all it does. the VE form is only for easier grasp of how much you're flowing.

[jdo6696]

The thing is Marcin's spreadsheet really does nothing more then put it into numbers that you can understand & then spits them back out the EXACT same way hptuners would using the copy-paste special feature.

yeah, I understand that, I was looking at it as a tool to help understand the values more than anything else, not as a plug in values for a solution thing.

I am going to try a couple more logging runs and adjust the VE, if its still messed up looking like the one I posted above I am going to just park the f-er until I get a WB 02.