Secondary VE to Main VE Converter

[txhorns281]

OK here's some help for us Secondary VE guys...

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257090

[narcszm]

I've got a 2000 FRC and I've been tuning the primary table then copying the selected rows to the secondary table. Why are you tuning the secondary table first then interpolating to the primary table?

[txhorns281]

well, my train of thought is that when is SD mode the Primary VE is useless is it not???

So adjusting the Primary wouldn't make sense since it doesn't change anything. Since we work with the Secondary table, it still reads a full histogram just with less the flexibility since it has half the resolution... BUt either way it's the secondary we end up dialing in correct?

I've been making all my adjustments to the secondary in which i bet all the missin x5 rows are still there, we just can't adjust them... so after adjusting and then smoothing the secondary, those x5 rows eventually become a rough average anyway of the upper and lower x0 rows that bound it...

I got my secondary dialed in pretty close to perfect (-2 to 2 LTFT, mostly around 1 and 0, cept for the areas i don't ever really drive in) and i didn't do it cell by cell either. I took my histogram and for the most part, there are areas of the fueling table that behave similarly, so I took those particular "chunks" and made my adjustments till the histogram reported what i was looking for... Really didn't take that long at all, it took longer for me to figure out what magnitude of changes effect the VE more than anything...

So once my secondary VE is good to go, I pump out a Primary VE with that calculator and just paste it in, and then I'm ready to plug the MAF back in... If you look at the Primary table you'll see that the x5 rows are basically averages of the x0 rows that bound it... All i did was just make the math easy instead of going cell by cell... here check some of these out!

This is still in SD mode after 2 days of learning:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/wl333/pic3.jpg

Here's my tuned out Secondary:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/wl333/pic1.jpg

And here's my derived Primary from my calculator:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/wl333/pic2.jpg

I dunno ??? I'm not sayin this is THE way to do it, but I found it very easy to do this Don't have to use it if ya don't wanna...

[narcszm]

My procedure is pretty much the opposite. Since I have all the data for the x5 rows in the histogram I use all of those to tune the Primary VE table. Then, I copy the half of the rows that are duplicated among the Primary VE and Secondary VE tables from the PVE table to the SVE table.

I would imagine the net effect is similar, though my tables aren't nearly as smooth. I guess that makes sense since your data is 50% interpolated.

[txhorns281]

My procedure is pretty much the opposite. Since I have all the data for the x5 rows in the histogram I use all of those to tune the Primary VE table. Then, I copy the half of the rows that are duplicated among the Primary VE and Secondary VE tables from the PVE table to the SVE table.

I would imagine the net effect is similar, though my tables aren't nearly as smooth. I guess that makes sense since your data is 50% interpolated.

My thoughts are that if the car runs off the secondary VE, get that squared out first and then derive a Primary VE... like you said it probably comes close to the same effect by tuning the Primary but it just makes more sense to me to tune what's actually effecting the car's behavior... If you look at your stock VE tables you'll find that the x5 rows are pretty much averages of the rows that bound it... so I say just tune the secondary out and create derive a new Primary... notice how my Primary and secondary are practically identical??? Yay!!!!!