Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: ve table looks very different from others..

  1. #1
    Potential Tuner
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Reva, SD
    Posts
    8

    ve table looks very different from others..

    Have the car running nicely..afr looks good through all my useful rpm ranges....but my VE table looks like a mess compared to others, The car runs well and everything is reading safe on the WB but I cant help but think I'm missing something somewhere, The table really shouldn't look like this should it?

    LQ4, stock cam stock bore stock intake, twin 72 mm turbos
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Tuning Addict 5FDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rogers, MN
    Posts
    13,533
    You are right, it doesn't look the best for sure.

    Not smooth at all below like 150 KPA, lots of choppyness and dips.


    I think if it were me I'd toss the stock VE table back in it for the 15-100 kpa and use the interpolate function for the rest. Then just re-tune the VE with a wideband and you should be good to go. Or just start with what you got and start going back over it with while tuning with your wideband.
    2016 Silverado CCSB 5.3/6L80e, not as slow but still heavy.

    If you don't post your tune and logs when you have questions you aren't helping yourself.

  3. #3
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    216
    I'm tuning a stock 5.3 with 72mm and I have the same choppiness down low and big spike right around 90-100kpa like you do. Havent had enough alone time with the truck to try and figure it out. Could possibly be I haven't driven this truck for a long long cruise for a good collection of data.
    04 Single cab Lq4/243 228r 112lsa, Long tubes, catless, Yank st3000.

  4. #4
    Tuning Addict 5FDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rogers, MN
    Posts
    13,533
    Perhaps that is the case. I always logged for 20-25min at a time at least then did my changes. Use the editor to your advantage too. Don't just take your data and slap in the table and walk away. Use the functions it has, smooth the table, manually adjust spots too. It just takes time to do these things that's for sure.
    2016 Silverado CCSB 5.3/6L80e, not as slow but still heavy.

    If you don't post your tune and logs when you have questions you aren't helping yourself.

  5. #5
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SV, AZ
    Posts
    447
    If you're seeing a big spike right where it crosses into PE/BE, it comes from the sudden change to the command fueling and should be ignored.

  6. #6
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    216
    So should I just smooth out the big spike at 105KPA and leave it smooth with all the smooth tuned cells around it. Would this not cause a hesitation during that transition? Unfortunately this truck doesn't have a PE enrichment ramp in rate like mine does
    04 Single cab Lq4/243 228r 112lsa, Long tubes, catless, Yank st3000.

  7. #7
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SV, AZ
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by Nastruck View Post
    So should I just smooth out the big spike at 105KPA and leave it smooth with all the smooth tuned cells around it. Would this not cause a hesitation during that transition? Unfortunately this truck doesn't have a PE enrichment ramp in rate like mine does
    First verify that this is the cause by combing over your data. Once you determine that it is, you can smooth it out. This shouldn't cause any sort of hesitation.

  8. #8
    Potential Tuner
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Reva, SD
    Posts
    8
    the big spike is just a nature of the beast with boost I think, my idle area is still slaughtered due to the fact that I cant get idle to lean out... afr is perfect in drive, go to park and instantly pig rich....still studying for a solution...

    Thanks for all the discussion on the topic, smoothing feature and some manual work definitely helped!!

  9. #9
    Tuner in Training
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    25
    The cylinder volume doesn't appear to be correct for a 6.0 Looks like a 5.7 value.