having trouble with SD control

[printmanjackson]

tune Cylinder Charge Temp.
there are two scales. Get these inline will solve lots chasing your tails.

I found this the hard way

to tune go to Airflow- General- Cylinder Charge Temp- Bias

To tune this table log Dynamic Air Flow in lb/hr to match the chart in editor.
The lower the number you put in the scale the richer. Find the point that falls in the air flow range.

Getting this tuned solved temp changes in my SD tune.

also speeding up the filter helps also

[RonSSnova]

What year OS are you running?
Mine being a 2000 I only have one table. It's not the complex model that became available in 01 I believe.

I recently switched my car to 1 bar enhanced so I could get rid of the dual VE tables and finally be able to tune the larger table. Then dump that table back into my orig OS and run blended. I've been MAF only for two years now.

Chasing my tail in 1 bar enhanced would be an under statement. Surging, poor idle, off idle have made the car no fun at all to drive. I can get it happy, restart it in a few hours and it's totally pissed off again.
And it's an auto trans.

I've tuned my turbo car (2000 Camaro OS) in 3 bar SD and it runs perfectly. Two other 3 bar cars as well.

My C5 is back to MAF only. I pretty much gave up on SD.

Maybe I'll just update the OS to an 02 and proceed from there. But unfortunately that causes VIN issues at emission test time.

Ron

[printmanjackson]

I'm running '02 1bar SD tune. The table I mention seems to make you chase the tune. The numbers on the bias table, higher number pulls fuel out to go leaner. As for the filter, the higher the number, the faster it corrects. I only had to tune the first 5 columns in each.

I'm not a fan of the MAF because it's so slow to respond. It does seem to be more forgiving. I might try turning the MAF back on to see how if effects my tune.

[mowton]

I'm not a fan of the MAF because it's so slow to respond. It does seem to be more forgiving. I might try turning the MAF back on to see how if effects my tune.

That is why I always recommend maintaining GM's MAF/VE blended operation to 4000 rpm or so. It requires tuning the VE as well, but it does a great job of responding to transient conditions by "filling in" with the VE where the MAF reports erroneous actual airflow to the PCM. You can see the differences by logging both MAF and Dynamic Airflow. When correct, they lay on top of each other during steady state conditions and move apart according to the rate of the transient. Gives you the advantages of the MAF's ability to adjust to conditions and the transient response when needed. That is of course unless you are running a pure race car....

Ed M

[RonSSnova]

I think my best option is to put the updated OS into my 2000. And just write back my present tune at emissions time. Or just swap pcm's.
I'm not real sure how the C5 will deal with a vin change as far as the BCM is concerned.
MAF only runs very well for me.
My hopes with running blended was for the drag strip to possibly get a better 60ft. But once I ran my 10.99, I haven't really raced it much.
Been playing with my turbo 5.3. Which runs a 3 bar SD and has been really easy to tune.

Ron

[printmanjackson]

That is why I always recommend maintaining GM's MAF/VE blended operation to 4000 rpm or so. It requires tuning the VE as well, but it does a great job of responding to transient conditions by "filling in" with the VE where the MAF reports erroneous actual airflow to the PCM. You can see the differences by logging both MAF and Dynamic Airflow. When correct, they lay on top of each other during steady state conditions and move apart according to the rate of the transient. Gives you the advantages of the MAF's ability to adjust to conditions and the transient response when needed. That is of course unless you are running a pure race car....

Ed M

I agree Ed, and that is how I have been running till lately. I like how running just on the VE table seems crisper, maybe it's just my imagination.