gp90gta

iTrader: (1)

Does the MAF update the VE tables? I did something like this last year on my car, someone needed my help programing an aftermarket MAF called the DBX97 from Abaco, I put on my car to play with it, hooked it up to WB input of my 7730, logged it in a histogram then copy pasted the conversion to my VE tables, worked out good.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

Ok nevermind!

I had a brain fart about how it did the calculations. The conversion from grams to liters is interchangeable and differs only by the specific gas constant for dry air. Theyre both the same technically, but at the time I did the vortec hac I chose to use liters for direct conversion to VE in tunerpro as the conversion is as simple as just dividing by the cylinder volume. GM represents it as grams, so the two conversions look different, but in fact are equivalent. Scaling my conversion factor by R directly gives GMs conversion for their funky grams*K/kPa.

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

It works provided the MAF is calibrated. The conversion to get VE from the mass airflow readings is:

([MAF grams/sec]*287.05*([IAT deg C] + 273)*120)/([MAP kPa]*1000*[RPM]*[engine displacement in L])

dimented24x7

iTrader: (2)

To be clear, mine are not in %, but as a scalar giving the ratio of volume the air moves to that of the engines displacement. For example, in my 4800 RPM/100 kPa cell, .959 is 95.9% volumetric efficiency. My XDFs use the same notation. More confusing semantics.

Although on second thought I should probably check the LS1 XDFs to make sure they are correct. I do recall taking into account the differences to make sure my notation gaves the actual correct VE values using GMs funky composite value, but its worth checking. I will also probably change them to %. just so theres no more confusion

Edit: The LS1 XDFs are correct as far as the conversion. I will re-release the fueling one with the corrected VE % tables.