Just doesnt seem right with all those peaks. I understand some of those are on pretty extreme corners of the curve that my engine may never see, but it still doesnt seem right. These tables were produced from VE learns, could my O2 sensor be whack?

 

Somethings is definately not right. I would save the .BIN as something else to save the old one, to allow you to change to a new one, do some hand smoothing and see where that gets you. That is DEFINATELY not a healthy VE table. This is what a decent VE table looks like, the two VE tables belong to a cammed/heads/stroker (396) 1994 LT1 Automatic camaro. I first corrected the MAF fueling in closed loop, once I knew the MAF tables were correct, I then corrected the VE table off the MAF readings.

 

I'm running a speed density system, no MAF. What could cause this? Could it be an 02 sensor throwing off the VE learns?

For now I just smoothed it all out using the smooth command. What should my next step be? Wide band?

 

How many trips of data is this from?

Have you calibrated your Acceleration Enrichment?

Just some tips:

Use BLM data slowly and smoothly to build a VE table. Don't use data from old VE tables when making changes either (like if you make some changes, you have to take new data, and only use the new data for new corrections).

Try to hold a few of the load points for several seconds. Try to see if a whole area needs more VE. Don't put a peak in the VE, and then expect the new BLMs to be consistant.

Use Excel and Pivot Table (Data toolbar button) and analyse the (warm engine only) data looking at min, max, average, and count (round the RPM and MAP to larger breakpoints for the pivot table, i.e. make new columns of RPM100 = round(RPM,-2) and MAP10 = round(MAP,-1)). If the count is low, don't rely only on the data supplied. Use the average only if there a high count. If there's "holes" in the data, mentally fill them in, and go back and try to reach those points on the car. Also look at INT. It's also a good idea to calculate BLMINT=100*(INT/128)*(BLM/128) OR =128*(INT/128)*(BLM/128) to analyse the combination of the two (depending on if you want to see the % fuel addition, or a new number that is the combination of BLM and INT in similar 128ish terms).

 

A E is by far not perfect. When cold the engine really sounds like its gargling on gasoline when I accelerate. Plus I am only getting about 10 MPG. How can i zero in my AE?

 

Those look to be VE Master corrected tables from short drives because they stop looking goofy above 3K.

When I do a retune with new spark or something I will use 1 bin as a base file and then make a couple of "single" corrections using VE master.
After I get a decent running file I will then do 3 or 4, logs of 1/2 hour each. Then take VE Master and make corrections to 4 bins individually numbered 1-4 (0 is the base bin).
Take the 4 bins and copy the tables that are corrected into Excell and find the average of each cell.
From there you can take the average values and copy them to the new bin and align things between the upper and lower tables too.
Works much better than single drives and corrections. I usually get too much overshoot/undershoot when doing single drive corrections and makes the all around driving pretty good.
Once you get the 2700 and below done you can do like Red N' Gold stated to get the rest of the values where they need to be or just do the whole thing that way.

 

With the BBC injectors the AE is going to be more then required. In the AE tables: MAP PW and TPS PW, reduce each value by 33%. Just multiply each row by .66 and enter the result.

If it is still too much on a cold engine, reduce the values in the AE CTS table. Look at the data log to get the engine coolant temperature and reduce that area. Then blend it in above and below for a smooth transition.


For the VE tables, I've seen weirdness when continuously driving the same route. Found better results when different routes are taken for the VE Learns.

RBob.

 

RBob,

Why would that be? Do the PID controls have any effect on this?

DShot,

I have some similar peaks and valleys. Many times you start out with a VE table and since you're only hitting certain cells, the surrounding cells are either too high or too low. Once you get the modifcations to the VE table done, it helps to try some smoothing either manually or using smoothing tools. I'm going through that process now. It takes sveral passes to start making the VE table look decent.

 

Keep hitting the same areas of the VE table. Not enough all-around VE areas learned in. It is the same as you found, that only certain areas get hit. Have to mix up the driving to get better overall coverage of the VE table.

RBob.

 

About AE, how can I tell if I am getting it right? I lowered each cell by 33% like you said, and now it feels much better accelerating when cold. However when warm it doesnt seem to have as much power. How can I tell if I am giving it too much or too little AE?

 

I think I am going to miss fine tuning VE tables and AE. Oh well.

On my TBI 350, I logged the MAF Calculated Flow against RPM and MAP. I then used the averages for all and used that as the Backup VE table in case the MAF sensor goes out. I eliminated all of the MAP AE out of the calibration and only have TPS AE.

 

I'm starting to figure out how to get the VE tables into shape. In the past I have been relying ONLY on the VE learn feature, and now I'm learning how to hand smooth the entire table based solely on the cells affected by the VE learn. I cruise around and my BLMs are really good all around. HOWEVER, the VE learn still gives me these crazy peaks, certain cells go all the way up to 100 where there is no surrounding cell even close. Could this simply be a glitch in the Whats Up VE learn software? See pic.

Also - If I were to start using a wide band setup, what exactly would that help me do that I cannot already do?

 

Check the data log in that RPM/KPa area. You will probably find that the BLM is high. You mentioned in a previous post about the AE changes. Cold is now good, but warm is not as responsive. This may be tied in with the high BLM at that point.

In the AE vs Coolant table increase the warm engine values about 10%. This will add in a little more AE during warm engine usage. Only change that area of the table that is sued during warm engine, then blend that area into the areas above and below it.

As for a WB, a VE Learn can be made more quickly. More importantly, WOT AFR can be dialed in easier. Also helps with AE, as a WB responds more quickly then a NB O2 sensor.

RBob.

 

Welcome to the dark side...

Im still amazed that it runs with only a small ammount of AE to cover for the transient response of the MAF. Im going to have to try that and look at the WB output.

As for the original posters VE tables, you want to try and smooth the VE tables out once your done. Large changes will cause the engine to surge as it goes from one VE cell to the next. I also would say that you should have a wide band to tune them properly.

 

i have not used input from my WB to EBL. yet.

my tables too looked much like yours. i recall the large peak (93-95 values) around 2600-2800 40-50 map. smoothing apparently was the answer. i too logged the same route so need to find a diffferent way to office and home.

AE seemed to be rich using old (7747) values. on WB AE shows 11.5/1. i needed to pull out some AE fuel.

i experimented with equaling AE in tps vs map. recommended by another forum member that apparrenty likes to favor TPS MAP. previously i was using around AE-TPS 66% vs 33% in MAP for ratio of fueling. i never completed the experiment. seems i was getting lean pop on hard accelleration when i removed the AETPS and move it to MAP. normal driving i might suggest was better trying to equalize the AE. but then again my VE tables were not optimized.

 

I did have to add back some AE, but it really only needs it when you nail the pedal from idle on a cold morning with a relatively cool engine. It was bogging some on cold mornings here the last few days. It ONLY happens when the PCM goes into closed loop with a cool engine in cold weather. I am thinking it is an inherit problem with the TBI manifold in cold weather before it has a chance to heat up.

 

my experience is that with a cold manifold- coolant temp under 165F- OL the AE is very good during a normal accelleration. when fully heat soaked before EBL AE was difficult to master. EBL has improved the AE event considerably overall. my struggle currently is high BLM's and high A/F at OL idle. we made some changes that will be proven to help in spring. car in storage.

 

Darkshot, FWIW, I am STILL tuning my AE tables. I've had the ebl for almost a year. So don't expect anything over night. The more time you invest in it, the sooner the tune will get dialed in.

 

I know the feeling, just as I got my latest combo on the van to run well, I ripped the EBL out, installed a late model PCM and MAF sensor. Then exiled the EBL to run my 3.1 TBI V6 in my GMC Jimmy. Both are now running very well. I drove the GMC after spending several hours this morning roughing in the tune on the EBL. This afternoon, I killed the transmission in the GMC. Seems I can't keep a 700r4 derived transmission in anything. The Vans been through 3 4L60Es lately and now the 4x4 GMC. That is going to be fun. The pump is gone in the GMC, won't even engage or pump fluid out of the cooler line.

 

I haven't had the time to invest to finish the tune of the AE. I should pratice what I preach to Darkshot. It's not my fault, the Military keeps me pretty busy.

 

DS,

I'm going through the same process you are. Since I had gotten EBL, pretty much used the VE table as they came out of the oven. In the last couple of weeks I have progressed with smoothing of VE tables by hand once the VE Learn did its thing. Slowly I am reducing the peaks and valleys I had before. However, with a 108 LSA cam, the idle VE region is still pretty choppy.
I started out with a VX version of the bin. I am now on VX-H version.
Something I have incorporated over the last 2-3 bins is having smoothed the SA tables. I just happened to take a look at them and they were pretty uneven. So I smoothed that out and that has really seemed to help in getting the VE tables smoother.