I never knew what balance I need on my AE TPS vs MAP values. I pretty much followed the "stock" GM tables on AE and just adjusted from there plus or minus by a set percentages.

i decided to work on each TPS and MAP seperately by zeroing out one of the two and just for kicks see what result would be. Yesterday I removed all the AE MAP in total and left THOSE tables zero. then i burned three bins with varying amount of AE. Each about 10% more AE IN tps/aes.

Result is that i ran the first "test" this AM with same tables as yesterday just no AE MAP. Result is the drivability on accelleration was no different than when the AE MAP was contributing. I would have expected that AE MAP would have given me some contribution. Now i did not try to climb a hill steady pedal(TPS locked) to invoke AE MAP. i expect that will reflect lack of AE/MAP and bring on lean stumble.

Is this a valid strategy?

 

It's valid if it works for you. One needs to expeiment, ie 0 out a table like you did, and see *how it feels*, or how it effects the engine's happiness.

While you can tune for 128s all day, what matters is how the car drives, and suits your style of driving (while keeping the engine happy).

 

Upshift at low rpm and AE Map?
Converter lock?

 

thanks. i have a manual trans however.

i started from scratch tuning my AE. my wideband stopped working last week so WBless. maybe that ok for a while. started with 0 map values and min AE tps. lean pop expected and confirmed. added ae tps incrementally. got better as expected. today have min 210 to max 738 AE tps.

seems if i accellerate in first or 2nd gear (of 5) at low rpm and load "throttle is dead" . when i hit say 20% TPS fuel flows (higher values) and engine catches and goes. when it is "dead" and i hammer it tires break lose and its by-by. i think the incremental increase of values in AE TPS may not be prudent. rather than 201-268-244-305. possibly i need to start 0 tps at 305 and then 305-305-305-305-366 and up. seems i need a pumpsho right where the throttle blades open allowing the drop in VAC.

 

update.

changed my incremental AE from 183-244-305 etc. to 305-305-366 etc. my bog stumble on gradual accelleration is improved. prior had a lag b4 the AE would allow car to accellerate. will run 366-366-427 and try that.

the point is i have a WB. the sensor is mirror image to the NB 02. both just behind collector. the WB log showed pig rich after a lean spike. so i was pulling out AE and that did not help. seems i need a large amount at 0-3-6-9% tps/ae. almost a flat same amount in all values.

i am running currently with 0 ae map and car runs the same as when i had ae map values 61-122-183 etc.

 

I too have the lean spike followed by a very rich period. Some times its just a rich dip, sometimes it falls on it's face and stays there for a while. I credit the a-synch dropping time to the variation, but I can't seem to get rid of the initial lean spike without haveng the rich dip aftewards. Seems like I have to choose one or the other.

 

a-synch dropping time? does this mean when AE involked the ECU goes a-synch? does this relate to distributor pulses to ECU and open loop? is all a-synch operation open loop ? i read a definition of a-synch some time ago but not at hand..

there are a lot of factors i feel contribute to TBI stumble on tip in.

without regard to spark.

1. i have large injectors in a 350 cid. i can fuel up top no issue(5800rpms) off idle is tough. BPW is erratic. i think injectors are turning on off on attempting to hit 14.7/1 at idle.

2. seems in morning before i hit 160F CL when in open loop idle is smooth and it drives better(enrichened). same when choke on.

3. on tip in the vac drops and i lose my fuel charge. condensation in manifold? was especially bad with xram plenum(former). and cool days.l

4. my WB and NB02 is reading downstream so the event is not real time.

5. others?
5. my intake runners heads and manifold are sooo much larger than stock. especially crossfire. they are tiny. again venturi velocity(2 cycle term?) issue disappears when rpms come up. as fuel is sheared off runners throttle blades.

 

Monte: one more: what are your approx AE values in TPS. are they increasing at each %? give any thought to making them more uniform? I will take my thought one step further and make them all the same tommorrow at all % like 366-366-366 etc. i wouldlike to douse the manifold with fuel as throttle opens. just for kicks! wacko idea???

adding MAP input to Innovate as well when WB is fixed.

 

What's the INT doing while all this is going on?. Alot of AE can raise the INT, and then leave things lean while it recovers.

 

when i saw the lean spike and then pig rich i responded by reducing the values proportionately that i had prior raised earlier pro.por from stock. tried to keep a balance off stock. that was last year.

this year i started lean and worked up rich. finding lean pop. trying to use the stock relationships of GM. it too did not work out. sooo thought to throw some heavy fuel into manifold at low % tps. it worked. but that was ony 2 burns with 4 rides. will continue on that journey.

no did not look at int. However my VE table runs rich. nothing above 128. most 124-128. was not aware the AE routine will affect my VE tables. but i can see how a shot of gas will be seen at the NB02 and ECU may assume i am rich and adjust when it goes CL assuming fuel is residual. is that what you are getting at?

is open loop running another experiement i should consider? then int wont make a diff? too hot here to tune. car runs 190F cept yesterday got stuck in traffic and it went to 225 and that scarred me.