Guys,

I feel obligated to show this information to you, and truthfully I don't understand it, so please tread easily on me when reading this.

OK. As many of you recall, I posted some data logs a while back that indicated that my PW for my 24# injectors at 43 psi with vac off, were going static at ~3600RPM. This was further evident when I had the car dynoed and could not alter the Hp/Tq curves beyond ~3650 RPM. At that point I was convinced that my injectors were static and something needed to be done to solve the problem.

The easiest way, since the SR is a bear to reemove and I was only over shooting the injectors a little, was to increase the FP to a higher level, then retune the Part throttle, playing with the injector constants, and then WOT tuning again once the duty cycles were in control again.

After countless attempts after work, with weather spoiling nearly every attempt, I finally was able to perform the tests. I am going to walk you through the scenerio that unfolds, and leads to my dismay.

I planned on making the FP change at my house then driving down to my parents house, as my dad needed some help with some stuff and then we were going to go out and play around with the tuning a little. I pulled the car out, hooked up all the diagnostic links for the ease software, but left the original chip in the memcal, that the other logs were made from, and the one I have been racing with for the last two track appearances.

I cranked the FP up to 55 psi, with vac unhooked. And set off for my 20 mile trip to my parent house. Along the way there is a mix of hills/curved roads great for driving, and also its fair share of straight aways that you can easily open up the car and let it sail. I was running ease on the lapstand, and was watching as my nice 127-131 BLMs were now 112-120 as expected. Along with a few other key parameters on the *billboard* display as I call it, the PW was there staring at me. On one or more of the straightstretches I slowed down to ~20 MPH and hammered it though the gears, at the top of each shift ~5600 RPM I noticed what seemed very strange, keep in mind really the only thing different in this tune now is the FP. 12 psi increase. At the ~5400 RPM shifts the PWs were ~9.7msec. If I recall correctly while driving, 100% duty is around 11 msec. Its 11.2xxmsec to be exact. WTF?

So the question that baffles me, is how can the car now have an 86% duty cycle while at WOT? When all that has changed was the FP? I was antisipating on having to make several changes to the injector constant etc to alter the PW? I am totally confused.

Upon arriving at the house, dad and I took the car out and made several other passes. My WB02 was fat as heck, ~12.2 in the lower RPM range and then ~11.4 in the upper RPM range. Power was still up there, but you could definately tell it wasn't pulling no-where near as hard as it did before, and the exhaust note was much different (quiet).

The only logical explination would be that the data logging somehow sets a change to the injector constant but that would be the first I have ever heard that.

I am open to suggestions, since this has totally confused me now.

Here is the log from before that I showed you all that determined, I was static (no arguement there)



RPM PW TIME AVAIL
2200 11.67 27.3
3475 14.31 17.3
4150 13.85 14.5
4525 13.43 13.3
4900 12.74 12.2
5125 12.52 11.6
5075 12.48 11.8
4975 12.67 12.1
5075 12.41 11.8
5275 12.13 11.4
5300 11.87 11.3
5450 11.23 11.0
5825 11.03 10.3
5850 10.57 10.3
6075 10.42 9.9
6175 10.39 9.7
6300 10.24 9.5
6375 10.08 9.4

Here is the new one. I did notice that the system said closed loop, even while at WOT, and the blms did go to 128 during the runs, so I am assuming that is OK. PLease tell me if that is not.. I am starting to doubt everything I once knew.



Here is the data captured during that run:

Hope it comes through ok. It didn't here is a snaphot of it...



You can clearly see a definate decrease in PW from one log to the other. Really quite crazy. Maybe I am missing something. but everything is identical, with the exception of the FP.

What do you guys think this is. I hope this post makes sense, I got interrupted about 10x, and had to keep coming back to when I left off.

I thought you guys would think this was interesting. I hope I am not missing something completely obvious LOL. I wanted to examine them last night before posting, but got tied up with some plumbing maintenance at one of my apartments. Oh well. Curious to what you guys have to say.

Thanks!

 

I don't understand what you don't understand. You raised the pressure from 43 to 55 psi and the engine went from being dead on to being rich. This should be expected. If your injectors were at or near max duty cycle at 43 psi, then when you raised the pressure it should (and did) shorten the duty cycle since it is getting more fuel in the cylinders in a shorter time.

 

.

 

Sorry was laughing so hard I forgot what I was going to say.

 

Maybe try EFI-Tuning.com, moderator over there has a 11sec., and hopefully soon to be 10 sec vette, maybe he can help you.

 

Morley,

Yeah your exactly correct, and I agree, if your in closed loop. But this is for WOT. Therefore the computer really doesn't know that the FP has been increased, unless from the blms it knows that your now running rich, which it is, and make corrections at WOT and shorten the injector pulse widths according to those BLM corrections.

___________________________________________________

Grumpy it would play into your childish games responding to you any other way than this. Problems like this don't occure in your 14 sec slug, I think is the way you refered to your car

___________________________________________________

Funstick/Trax can you offer me some insight? Thanks.

 

That stands to reason. The change in fuel pressure should result in a global change in A/F, closed loop or open.

 

Morely,

maybe I wasn't clear in my decription of what is going on.

Let me try again.

I fully expected the part throttle BLMs to be MUCH MUCH richer and they were. That is fine and not my point.

Second, MY wot AFR was much much richer as I expected, and that too is fine. Those again is not what I am wondering about.

The fact that the PW decreased at WOT is what is baffeling me. And others might I add. I am only sharing this to try to bring up a point that some might have not realized.

It appears that the ECM is going through some learning process during the 20 min drive, and then taking those reading into account during WOT. The PW are commanded by the ECM from parameters in the chip during WOT therefore they should have been exactly the same on these runs as the provious ones. This obviously is not the case.

I am not concerned or alarmed from the overly rich state I am now at, and fully realize that the car needs totally retuned. That was 100% expected. The decrease in PW at WOT was NOT, and from everything I have read/understood it should not have changed any. But again yes due to the increase in pressure the AFR will get richer, since the fuel delivery will be increased from the pressure increase.

I think there is much more to be learned in regards to the learning routines that the cars go through and how it effect WOT PW etc.

Is it possible that maybe there is a commanded AFR at WOT? And the ECM uses the stock O2 somehow to adjust PW to make up for an overly rich 02 reading...as you can see mine were 900+mv. If there was a way to, or if is already does in some way recognize the O2 at WOT, you could tune the car for a given AFR correlate this 02 value to that AFR and target that, and have the computer trim the PW for you automatically. I realize also that not always to do want a flatline AFR too.

MAybe open loop isn't as open as we think. Unless someone can offer some other evidence to explain this further.

 

Thin skinned and the humor challenged please ignore.

My childish games, LOL.
Your a real crack up.
But I see your name calling and hiding on the other list to bash me is OK, LOL

Ya, like I said the EFI-Tuning.com list alledgedly has the pros to help you, or so you claimed.

You went to great lenghts to hype how great your list was, and now you post over here when you need a hand.

Now your right, this is a game, and I'm just playing the one you started, but in a more adult manner.

But, just imagine what good this will do for your list, heck the old bashing thread was about twice as popular as any other thread you guys had going. Think of the fame!.

 

Ski...I also thought that the WOT tuning that you have done was in PE...which is more like an Alpha N setup and only uses the TPS and MAF inputs until the MAF is maxed, and then it is a manually entered calibration...

But if you are going above 255 grams/sec how is the ECM lowering the pulse-width?

This is the crux of your question, right? I don't know that answer...granted I am not an experienced tuner but that doesn't seem right with what I have researched...

Are you sure that nothing else changed?

 

88TPI,

100% sure nothing else changed. And yes you have the crux of the problem. The PWs went from way static, to ~80% with nothing more than a FP change. The rich situation is nothing that I am suprised with, but the PW is blowing my mind.

The bin file from the before logs is exactly the same bin/chip that I have been racing with. That is the first thing I checked when I noticed the change. Other than Pressure the tune is 100% the same. I also checked my TB to make sure it was opening all the way, and it was.

Temps outside were also fairly close to one another.

I spoke with Ralph last night, he has a vette and races it quite a bit, stock 350 bottom end and it runs 11.6s and he said he too noticed a big difference in the cars performance at the strip if he unhooks his battery before a run, opposed to allowing the learn routines to settle down? He too did not know what the answer was, and he's a pretty bright guy with these engines.

Open loop should run the same PW as it did before independant of FP or AFR. That is what is always said. Its a commanded value though the ecm. So I thought, but this tells a much different story.

 

I don't claim to be an expert across all efi code or anything, but going way into the archives of my mind i think i rememeber at least one of GM's computer systems that did in fact use the high load BLMs to make a WOT fuel correction. No idea if your code has anything like that, but it would be something to research.

Also, i am pretty sure that some of the 165 calibrations do in fact change modes when you are collecting data, it actually has IIRC 3 or 4 modes to it. Again IIRC, i think many people have noticed that with un-patched code it is impossible to datalog without affecting some of the running parameters of the ECM.

Other than that, hard to tell since the data isn't the same format, but are the MAF readings lower in your latest log. Lower MAF readings would naturally skew your pulsewidths.

Beyond that, honestly, you have so little real data for comparison, it's hard to say exactly what is going on. 2 or 3 datalogs isn't anything you can use to establish what true norms are. Thats why you've taken so many rips on your data collection or lack thereof. And maybe now you can see why some people harp on it so much.


BTW, i'm roflmao at grumpy and his points about efi-tuning.org. I mean here you are having basics of your MAF ECM explained to you by a SD ****. The irony of you and your cronies allegations that SD guys are mindless drones who just don't understand MAF has been duly noted. Especially the part about MAF going into non-standard modes when datalogging. I mean, it's only one of the basic shortcoming's of the ECM that make it so undesirable to guys like me. I guess how fast you go really doesn't have much to do with ability to understand and tune after all. But i digress.

 

ski, now that you mention it.... Dammit I wish I had datalogs!

Ok last year, I went to Stanton in the middle of Michigan on a farking HOT day... 80-85* or so. I brought an arap.bin chip with me to test out. Didn't have a datalogger yet. I unhooked the battery and plugged the chip in. The car took a bit to get started but when it cranked over I went right up to the line. Clicked off a 13.7 @ 99.3 mph on the first run. A few weeks before I was at another track on my stock chip.... ran a 14.4 @ 94.

Ok, so.. later on in the year with the arap.bin chip that I had been driving around on for a long time, I went back to the slower track and ran only a 14.3 @ 96 or somthing...

Interesting.

Block Learns really do "learn"? I thought the opposite.

 

Ohh, ski and Grumpy... quit with the fighting. ski, quit calling names man. Come on. I'm trying to learn here!

 

Guys give it a break, really! I mean come on. Ed thanks for the information in the begining of the post, but the rest really wasn't necessary. It really showing the level of immaturity you guys can stoop too. If you want to argue the facts of tuning that is one thing, but really the rest people could care less about.

As for the EFI site, great there is another site that I am frequent and help out with. But are you going to crusify everyone that participates in another site. If you recall what I said, it wasn't about the site itself, its was in regards to what some continually do. This post again is a perfect example of EXACTLY what I expressed. Especially from a MOD, really let it go.

I could post in either one of your posts and turn this entire board into a pissing match. Instead of stooping to that level, and ruining the board for others that care to learn. I choose not to post in either of your posts, as I know no matter what I say, it will results in an arguement.

If the above is what you wish for, fine. But be careful of what you wish for

 

I don't recall calling names? Can you explain? I too am trying to promote and learn something here. Maybe i am going crazy, but that is what I thought I was doing anyways. I kknow its hard siffting past all the non-sense that is interjected by some.

 

Yep, after name calling as many folks as you thought you could get away with.

Now that you have no idea of what's going on, and don't want to bother with the archives, you figure folks will just run forward with the info you seek. And then play some better than game trying to avoid the ridicule of having your own advise handed back to you.

Speacking of non-sense your story telling is a true waste of time, EFI wise. Living in glass houses, etc..

 

Opps double posted computer foze for a sec and did not think it posted, after a refresh

 

What ever grumpy. Sounds to me like your the one that can't let go. I was not asking for your help in any way, so don't flatter yourself. So please do me a favor and do what I do with your posts, don't post in mine.

No I can admit I don't know EVERYTHING and I'm sure others are not 100% sure why my injector pulse widths decreased with nothing more than an increase in pressure.

So please give it a friggin break, your the only one pushing the war scenerio. As I said you might want to stop while your ahead, and spare everyone the grief. So stop your sniffling and move on as I have. Thanks.

I'm done responding to your petty comments that everyone can see that your just trying to stirr the pot of hate.

 

Ok From this post so far we have learned:

#1. ) There are 3 or 4 modes to the 165 ECM.
I have seen 1 of them(other than normal driving). The subtle changes in the drivability of the car with a scanner hooked up. More spark advance and changed idle. Am I correct?

B.) Based on #1, tuning is kind of like being drunk and walking a straight line assuming that everything isn't linear. I.e. Spark tables change for data transmit mode. Scalars change... etc.

#4.) A change in FP ONLY resulted in shorted PW at WOT eventhough the WOT settings are supposed to NOT be determined by the O2 sensor at WOT and not be dependent on the BLM. Appears the ECM is "learning". Although, numbers can be skewed due to a scan tool being hooked up as well as elevation, baro, and temp.

Back on track guys!

 

Bruce,

Easy there. I think we can all agree to let the other board do it's own thing while we do ours. Each board will proceed in the direction that it is destined to go. No need to dig up the past or stir things up. Things have already been stirred up in the past a little bit too much and I don't want this board to turn into a forum for a verbal war. Let's just talk tuning

Tim

 

If you want to just let the list proceed in the direction it's destined to, then why do we need moderators?. It would seem to me to be the moderators that need to shape and mold the direction it takes, or all you'll wind up with is anarchy. It's a trait of mankind that goes way back.

Then why did you let the name calling to on for so long in the past?.
Can we have a clear definition of the penalities for violating the name calling and advertising clauses.

I think this just reinforces my earlier board comments.

 

ski, i'm not trying to start a fight. Just seems to me you could dish it out all day when it was 'i'm faster than everybody so why should i listen to you' and 'you guys are just SD ***** and just don't understand MAF'. Not my fault you ran around talking dumb **** for months only to tuck tail and ask us how it works.

I think we can all get along. I don't have anything left to prove, actually i never did, i mean, i knew i wasn't full of **** and who are you to matter to me anyway. But that you could drop pretenses and ask for help was all i needed to know that maybe now you're facing reality too.

 

BTW, if i were in your shoes, i'd wish i had an ECM bench right now. Would most likely jump right out at you then. Going to take a lot long to really explore on the car.

 

Hmmm... I thought us slower than thou wern't QUALIFED to talk tuning with you... and I qoute...from me..

"Again Ski points out the unless you are waving a better than 11.14 timeslip in your hand... that you are not qualified to judge his tuning.
I have yet to see any ground breaking, myth shattering never done before results..
But than again.. I'm not waving any sub 11.15 time slips either.. "

from this thread.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=180457

Your reply was...

Nuff said. BW

 

Look...I understand there has been a lot of heated talk on TGO lately...I can understand some hard feelings.

However...

Does this mean that NO ONE has an answer to this? I have a MAF setup too...just because Ski asks the question doesn't mean that others (myself included) don't want a response...after all, I am learning a lot here...or trying to filter out the useful from the BS.

Anyone? Bueller?

 

Ski, what Im thinkin is that the BLM of whatever cell your in is used as a basis for WOT fueling along with the other variable (MAF and PE fuel enrichment based on RPM, PE fuel enrichment versus temp). I highly doubt that the computer doesnt take BLM into account during WOT and heres an easy way to find out. Put the fuel pressure back down to where u had it and burn the same chip only lock the BLMs to 128. That should drive fine cuz the BLMs were so close anyway. Then(and this is the scary part) raise your fuel pressure to 55 again. I say its scary cuz the car will run rich and not correct itself but a WOT blast will most likely show the same or close PW readings. Oh yeah dont forget to reset the computer before hand.
Now you could just reset the computer and blast on the car in open loop to see if they are close but there are different factors at play there so I think u would have to lock the BLMs.
Now that thats out of the way I wanna say u 2 (u AND grumpy) need to grow up. Your both knowledgeable and go about tuning in different ways. Thats fine. But enuf of this going back and forth cuz its just too much to read and it makes people think less of both of you.
OK? ..... Good now back to our hobby and/or jobs.

 

Now that's something I really don't worry about.
I try to post factual stuff, and when I get trashed repeatedly by the same guy, you can bet, I'm not going to go out of my way to be nice to him. His name calling went way too far way too long with no action from the moderators. If they want to condone that kind of behavior that's fine. If you want to condone it that's fine, but just because he them or you think being popular to just be popluar makes anything acceptible, don't think for an instant it goes for everyone.

And all I did was refer him to his list. Now what's the crime in refering him to a place that he told people to go to from this list because of the alledged abuse around here. At worst I was just making him correct about what allegedly happens here.

Be sure to read Saturn 5's post.

If that's the kind of folks that this list wants, well, this lists days are really numbered. If your in doubt about what the long term effects of poor moderating are look at some of the other GM tuning lists. Once piracy, and being popular takes over, it quickly declines into posts about how to select fuses, or wax.

Like Yogi said, it's amazing what you see when you look.

 

Tim, please don't lock this thread. Let people vent, give them one thread. Do the opposite of what efi-tuning.org accuses you of. Let all those guys that post over there come here and explain to Ski why he has this strange scenario, without fear of their responses being deleted or changed or the thread being locked. Also, to everyone else reading this thread, please go to efi-tuning.org and read the general discussion board about TGO. See for yourself why people won't answer this question. According to those guys over there all the info coming from over here is invalid. Imagine that and they still ask questions here!!!! Not only that but they have a whole section on the DIY-WB which was put together with lots of help from two guys on this board that have no idea what they are talking about, according to them. So why aren't they fixing the DIY-WB because if those guys had so much input into it's production, it must be bad!!!! Like one person there likes to say: Correction, the only time you can be right by being wrong is when everyone agrees with your wrong assesment!!! Imagine someone thinking that a NA engine will never see pressure but always a slight vacuum!!! Correction: all those Pro Stock boys must have bad data acquasition!!!! Please go over there and look for yourself! Please don't lock this thread! That's more begging than anyone should be allowed to do so I'll stop now! And yeah, I am pro-Grumpy even though I do wish he would keep some of his responses to tech only but we all have a right to defend ourselves and our believes when obviously attacked by others. Besides, how many times does a man have to say that his replies are not attacks, they are just the way he writes and not to be interpreted any other way. Obviously the shallow can't see through that.

And to put some tech in here even though I know those that know don't want to say. The ecm has base timing and fuel tables regardless of what "mode" you might think it's in. If you add timing by way of turning the dist. forward, you get more timing universally. If you add more fuel by cranking up fuel pressure you add more fuel universally. Can it be any easier than that "scenario". And that is from a know-nothing prom burning amateur!!!!

 

im sort of keeping things to myself right now on the hows and whys of what exactly is going on mostly becuase ive been trying to comment out the actual algortyhms that are in effect here influecning things.

its very time consumming. as to my thoughts and opinions im going to fire away.

what you really need to due is hook up to a dual trace scope and find out exactly how many injector firing events your getting Vs Ref events. once you sort that out then it will all become clear.

if youve got 8 ref events per injector firing then you arent close to being static. if
if youve got 1 injector event per 4 ref events then your static.

as for the declining PW's what the tempature difference between the 12etc msec and the 9.etc msec pws ? could be the MAF sensor is reading less air. also lets not forget the things the ECM to calcualte the actual WOT tables. still working on the actuall math scheme to find the last bits. there stuff in there nobodys looked for or cared to and to be honest the more ive learned the more i realized i didnt know. and the even scarier parts is the more i learn the more i realized that i needed to know more.

As for Bruce.

Some love him Some hate him. I can say that He's pushed me to learn study and understand things i probably wouldn't have normally cared about.For that thank you. I dont see eye to eye but thats ok. Were both headstrong people with strong opinions. Ive jumped up his *** a few times and hes jumped up mine. But the one thing i dont normally argue with him about is Code. He knows his stuff. We could always use to learn more. Just agree to disagree im done firing round into people and i think everybodys a bit fed up.

As for this PW thing there other things going on that maybe we cant see. Im still trying to figure out if PW is summed or actual ? could be confusing depedning on the actual firing strategy.

Anyways have a nice day.

 

Do you know if your PW durning your runs is based on calculations or on tables.

 

I think Funsticks post pretty much clarifies that there is alot of unknown interactions in the ECM that we are not yet away of. The question I brought to the table is one that we clearly do not understand what and all the interactions are.

Hectorsn, is making the mistake that other I think are, and missing the entire purpose of my question. Your last paragraph is not even close to what I am asking and YES I do understand all that is going to happen. I clearly pointed it all out, and the reason I am pointing out your misunderstanding of what I am trying to convey as my question. I am only doing that not to say your are mistaken, but so others do not become confused also.

The reason for the post, and I knew I would have the abuse I am taking, and that is fine, I just hope everyone gets something useful out of the post. The purpose was to point out that other infractions influence the final PW that we ALL yet do not understand. Anyone that can't admit that and see the usefullness in the question, obviously doesn't care to take the time to understand the question first of all.

And as a side note, no I don't think you have to understand every detail of the ECMs workings in order to be able to tune a car to run well. A good understanding of the way an engine works and how to manipulate the table to get a desired effect is all that is needed. And I think sending the message that you do need to know every detail before being able to tune a car well is wrong. Hell as you guys said, I'm proof of that right? LOL.

There are different levels of learning that everyone must go through. I got to where I am with knowing what I wanted and using the tables to my best ability. Hammering on people that are not at maybe the same level is just plain wrong, not matter how you shake it.

I am not tucking my tail, I can just see that Bruce, Saturn, Ed, and others including myself are never going to see eye to eye with each other. I give you guys the respect not to post in your posts, so that trouble is not stirred up again. If you guys honestly care about this board, I think you would offer the same respect back. If you want to comment to help, fine, if not that is understood also.

Now as Trax said, back to Tuning Talk!

 

not so grasshopper. the problem is the more i dig in the more i realize that i needed to know what i didnt know before. You cant possiably make use of a larger MAF sensor if you dont know how to make the LV8 calculations bring the Timming table back to normal. Even though companies like C&L and Pro-M racing cut MAF voltage to reduce PW to scale for bigger injectors doesnt mean its proper to due.

For instance if this were the thoery applied then ok go ahead and run

say what a lv8 at 2500rpm or say 128 and 40btdc of spark with a WOT adder of 7 so no 47 btdc on pump gas and the problem becomes rather apperant.

Just becuase things have been done so for a long times doenst make them appropriate.

The Bigger issue is the damage that just a smiggen of knowldege can do to a engine. if you know enough to say that editing a table is easy ( and it is) tha dangerous. not having a good fundemental understadning of how the tables and code interact make tunning impossiable.

The good news is that from Manufacturer to manufactere even though there are some differences there is basically one frame work that can and does work.

even GM code to GM code with there difference the stuff all has to preform the same function so at some point tunning does become a bit generic.

You must realize however that having a good functional understanding of the ECM offer huge advantages. It means doing it Right the first time and not destroying engines in teh tunning process.

Just becuase people belive they understand mostly they dont. and when ive been able to truly get a good in depth understadning of something ive made it avaable for people to use.

The Core issue is competence.

Due you want so and so from the billyraybobs shop on ez street to tune you motor or would you prefer that Mr perfect **** tune does your car from We get it right on perfect street ?

the questions is how much is your investment ( engine etc ) worth to you.

And if you were a professional just how good do you think one needs to be ? is adequate to open tunnercat play with the grapphing and burnning a chip really good enough ?

sure looks like somebody knows what there doing but there sad dsiplicable truth of the tunning business is that pro and diy'ers alike maybe 20% of the folks really know what going on in there. and that ****s pretty important.

As siad you cant really make it happen till you get the bigger picture. there is no magic pill no this table fixs all. ive seen what pure incompetence can do and let me tell you its astoudning the people they let play with cars.

 

First things first, Tim, KVU, funstick, whatever your name is. Everyone knows what you really say about Grumpy when you're with your friends over at efi-tuning. So drop the act.

Next there are no magic business glasses, no magic server-healing pixie dust, no universal business adapter. Your friend was static with his injectors and he added 12 lbs of pressure which added about 16% (this is speculation as I don't have the formula or know what size inj's he has) of available injector flow. That's it, nothing else. It really is that bloody simple. Study the code all you want and you might just confuse yourself more or find another "mode" the ecm operates in.

 

i dont post there. secondly i might like/dislike bruce but i have respect for him.as for studying code bs on confusing yourself. i already posted how to solve this debate a while back i did it again today. i will just have to borrow a car and get an mpeg this time.

 

Hectorsn,

Listen fella you have me confused with a different person, LOL.

I am not Tim, KVU or any of the other names you posted. I have never been banned from here or anything else. PLease, read before you jump. Sure Bruce and I have had our differences but I think we are both a little guilty, I have been making an attempt to bury the hatchet, the rest is up to him.

____________________________________________

Funstick,

Yes you are absolutely correct and I went back and read what I wrote and I did not share with you my enire thought that passed through my mind. I should have stated that, no matter where I am or you are or anyone thinks they stand in the scheme of tuning that more knowledge of how the system works is key.

I knew darn well I was going to get blasted into the next century by these guys when I hit the submit button. But I think if you read through all my posts, I never claimed to be all knowing. But I do know enough to get results. But that doesn't mean that I am done learning about the systems etc. I posts most of the time, and post my finding as a possible eye opener to others. I sifted through many many posts here there everywhere to learn what I have up to this point, but yes, just as you said the more you learn, the more you realize that you really knew very little before.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I am tired and going to bed!

L8r

 

That's the flaw in your logic. I mean, you're right, you don't necessarily need to know 'every' detail. BUT. Just manipulating tables has left you scratching your head as to where 25% of the pulsewidth went. You can either say **** it i'm so fast, weeeee. Or you can dig into the code or score yourself a bench and try to figure out what is happening. Or maybe blow your engine up because your MAF is going bad. You never know.

 

im not here to tear anybody down or bust chops. thats not my style. ill call BS when i see it but somebody has to be the bad guy and do it.

the question is if you couldnt tune your car your self and had to have somebody do it who would it be. i tell you what as much as i might not get along with bruce his would be the first phone i would ring.


just making a point. there are alot of tuners. Pro/amature alike that honestly have no business being in the box. the level of incompetnce out there is amazing. I m not critizing those who want to learn more. These are the folks that should be doing the tunning. its the guys who use tunercat or similar software and open the file and say oh yeah thats easy. i fell like grabbing these idiots/morons/jackass's by the neck and choking the living hell out of them. It fustrating to watch someone do something wrong and then when you politely try to point it out they do it again and pop go's a motor or any other venurable part.

the bigger picture is that dont ever think you know enough. i did at one point and i fell like a jack *** for ever thinking that way. when i came here i was a bit cocky and arrogant and thats gone now. what has replaced it is confidence and competence. i got good results before but now i get excelent results.

The most sure fire way to see if somebody is drowning or swimming is often to walk away and see if theyve gotten anywhere or still thriashing.

ive watched people trash is painful. its fustrating and to top it off exspenvise.

To those who have kicked my *** thanks. Professional amaturer etc this is one place we can all share. there are a few pro's who read this. i know there are . and there are those who are incompetent and look out im comming and im well armed. im not going to due anything but further the hobby and help those who ask for it. what ever my day job might be i still have a passioan for cars and EFI and helping people. its the 10%90% rule.

10 will DIy and 90% will pay somebody.

if youve got the patience to learn im willing to teach. and help anyway i can. for those 90% out there to lazy or unwilling to learn well in the great honor of jesse james

Pay up sucka.

 

Listen to Ed, I think he's pointing you in the right direction. Just for fun why not try burning a prom with an inj constant of 30.

 

From all I have read over the past 2 decades about these ECM's, they are a learning computer, they don't just go by what is hard coded in them for air/fuel/spark.
You seem to have proven that even though you are running open loop, the ECM has retained knowledge of what was needed for correct A/F in closed loop and extrapolated that into the open loop mode.

You may have stumbled onto something no one ever realized before, the ECM is still looking at at least one sensor during open loop...which if I remember correctly it was said in a book I once read that if the coolant temp is above 145ish then the ECM will use O2 inputs for A/F calculations, so maybe it is looking at the O2 at ALL times above the set temp, no mater what throttle position is.

 

Exactly. This list is being shaped and molded. However, times change. It use to be that you spanked your kids for every little thing they did wrong. Now there's alternatives that are better in almost all cases. Not everything requires violence - argument - stabs - punches. Sometimes things are so evident that nothing even needs to be said. Ski said he would never post here again - yet he is. Crystal.

Actually - I originally didn't. I immediately locked the post. Then I learned that trusting our members a little more to step up to the plate and work out their differences could be very beneficial. I experimented and left some posts open and it worked out pretty well. In most cases where I have left the post open things took a good turn. I will eventually lock a post if it becomes clear to me that absolutely nothing is going to come out of it.

There are no clear definitions.

Regarding advertising: If I catch anyone advertising directly then I say something to them. In all cases there was an apology and they changed / refrained. Chip selling is not permitted. Period. If anyone is selling chips via this board or via advertising on this board then watch out - because it will not be tolerated. They will get banned. But, like I said, anytime this has happened the people apologized and stopped.

Name calling is usually a 2-way street. If it's not then moderators will usually watch the single individual to 'figure them out'. If they turn out to be a sack of fecal matter then they'll eventually get banned whenever the time is right. In cases where the name calling is a 2-way street then the following could happen...

- There will be a warning to the guy who threw the first punch.
- There will be a warning to both.
- Any of the above along with locking.
- Any of the above along with deleting.
- Any of the above along with banning.

The order presented above is important. That's the order I go by depending on how nasty things get.

Now with all that said. That's the way things usually go. If anyone here holds me to this then BOOHOO - because I truly attempt to follow this but if I don't then I won't accept being crucified for it. The majority of my life is outside this board so I don't have the time to be here 24/7 and think about every little thing for hours on end or write posts that are many paragraphs long.

Tim

 

Done :lala:

Tim

 

Morley,

You have hit on the exact point of my posting. My question was not intended to be here is the question: shoot me the answer type deal? I simply posted it here, knowing that some would twist it into that, so that we could all openly discuss the situation, and see if anyone else had seen this, or was aware of any definate detail of the scenerio. And it appears, while there is speculation to why, there is no definitive answers from anyone. Therefore I think its a pretty good topic of discussion.

If in fact the ECM does do that, you in a sense, if we can come to understand the way it does work, would have a possible avenue to control AFR using the O2, but a WB would need to be used and also other extensive testing would also need to be implimented to determine the accuracy. That was my sole reason for posting. Nothing more nothing less.

Now somehow my desire/determination/knowledge of tuning has become an issue, why I am not totally sure. But it was brought up, and I suspect it was because of the static injector scenerio. But just because I did not roll over, run out and buy a new set of bigger ones, and I wanted to see what kind of power I was making with the current setup, somehow that lead to me being a so-so tuner, that is happy with so-so results. Anyone that knows me, knows that is far from the truth and I always strive for better. But I want more than someone on the internet telling me that I need them. Remember fellas, I have only been able to run this car in this configuration 2x at a track, 1 dyno run in the 2 onths that its been together. If you live here in PA you know that rain is now the norm and sunshine is a thing of the past. I got one night, between work and 3 kids, and a very understanding wife to look into the injectors since I posted the dyno results. Believe me every night I sit in antisipation waiting for the rain to stop, to be able to tune the car further. So believe me I am far far from satisfied with the car's tune. MAybe when I said I was happy with the car's performance, as I am, that somohow was misstrewed to mean I am no longer gonna tune it further. But in my opening statement, I mention tuning part throttle again, then moving into WOT carefully and watching the injectors behavior. In the two months this car has been together, it has outdone lingenfelter 383s, Cartek's stage 5 vette packages, vette doctors C5s, etc etc. I think I have a pretty good handle on what I do. Granted I am not a code reader, etc, although its on my short list of items to dive into. Time is the killer. I often wish I was retired/wealthy enough this could be my full time hobby, but at 28 yrs old, that is far from a near possiblity. As so many of you, its learn as much as you can, in the little amount of time available.

Remember I only share my finding to spark some interest in learning more and bringing to light some topics that sometimes get overlooked.

Thanks.

 

Thanks Tim, it looks like we have a couple of guys from over there trying to figure it out. Lets see if they can. Honestly though, the answer is already in the data captures up above. Try burning a prom with the new corresponding inj constant. See if it "feels" stronger than before when the ecm didn't know. See if the exhaust isn't louder. It all goes back to the base fuel maps.

 

hectorsn,

I still don't think you get the question.

In theory the PW should not have changed with only an increase in pressure.

I can't spell it out any easier than that. I know what i need to do to tune the car, but that is not what the question is about. I understand why I am running rich. OK.

The PW with no other change to the tune other than FP *should* have stayed the same.

Why didn't it?

BLMs influence?
02 somehow being used?
MAF reading?

Or all the above.

No one knows for sure. Funstick probably is the closest to the answer, from his code reading experience and looking into it himself, as he said there is a way to test it using a scope. One of the mechanics that my parents had at the dealership they own had a scope. I will try to contact him to see if its possible to maybe use it. But I'm not sure where he is at, but I think his father lived in this town yet, so he might be able to help me find Mike.

 

Sheeeeesh....I come here to this BB to see what's going on, and I see that this BB is no different from any other. That is to say that there are questions being asked and no one seems to know the answers. Now, I may not have every answer for every question, but I do have the answers for the questions being asked here. And it all comes down to knowing the very basics of fuel injection operation. If you don't know the very basics, how the heck can you move on to the more complex operations?? So, instead of trying to educate the masses, I will offer my knowledge to Ski, and in turn he can discuss it with the rest of you if he chooses. The reason for this is, if I can't explain it to one person, then I won't be able to explain it to everybody. If you will contact me at the address below, I'll help you understand what's going on.

Dave
gnjones231@mchsi.com

 

Ive always found the best way is too rule out one thing at a time. So, like I said before, why not try locking the BLMs to 128, reset the computer and then drive the car with both the stock fuel pressure and then the raised. If the PW are about the same then it would lead one to believe that the ECM does in fact use the BLMs as a reference during WOT.


This idea that the O2 is used seems unlikely due to the fact that it is only accurate around 14.7 and no where else. Since GM never used a WB in any of these cars, why would they use the O2 for anything but trying to get the cars to stoich? It just doesnt make sense.

So if your really interested in solving your answer I would start with locking the BLMs first as you would be shedding light on something that seems to confuse a lot of us.

Goodluck man.

 

Mike,

You are exactly correct, and I will try this tonight if the sun comes out to stay It was just pouring here, now the suns out again. Unreal. PA "The New Rain Forest"

No doubt more testing needs to be hashed out to resolve the issue, unless GNjones has a definitive answer that makes sense. Those GN guys have been hammering around this stuff for quite a while.

Lets hope, as if this is happening on my car, its happening on many others too. If I would not have decided to go for a ride to my parent first, with no other tweaking of the tune first, I too would have not see this reduction in PW.

 

I think we can rule out a BLM problem here. Just looked more carefully at the pictures presented and you can see the BLM is 128 at 5350 with 9.7ms pulsewidths.

Seriously, getting to the bottom of this would be so much easier with a ECM bench. Even assuming you lived in Tx and could drive it everyday things would still go a lot faster if you could simply isolate everything and turn ***** till you reproduced it. With the amount of money that is no doubt in the engine, and the money you spent on a datalogging WB O2 unit, don't you think a few more bucks for an ECM bench would be a wise investment.

 

Ed,

Sure, I would love to build one. This entire project with this car has been lightspeed ahead. I figured I would have to hammer out 40-50 chips to get it to run where it is now, honestly that is what I antisipated on doing. Hell that is what I did for my 350 setup and I still wasn't happy with the tune. So believe me when I say I am far from satisfied with the current tune of this car.

The money is not the issue, it having the time to do it. But yes, I will seriously consider the bench. I am also looking at designs for a flow bench to test air flow for certain items like intakes etc. If I did not have so many other distractions, I would have my entire garage looking like a nasa command center for ECMs, but I have to be realistic and realize that the little bit of time I do have, that doesn't look very possible, but over a period of time, I would love to explore all these items. In great lengths.

Now who in their right mind would concider a flow bench to take on and off the SR intake to keep tweaking it to perfection with P&P if they were not serious about doing the best they can? Please understand I am serious about taking every step necessary to ensure that everything is right on the car, and nothing gets damaged. Believe me I am very **** about my equipement/car/my work. And I recognize that I have a lot to learn in the grand scheme of things. But the amount I do know makes me dangerous at best LOL

In regards to you pointing out of the BLMS at 5350 and 9.7ms. Do you think even though the BLMS not deviating from 128 at WOT, that the ECM could be using the correction factors at the higher load situations to somone trim back the PWs. For instance.

If the BLMs are mainly rich, as there clearly were, since nothing else to the tune was done except FP, that the ECM could make some global correction, including WOT PWs to correct for the overly lean situation? Remember I drove the car about 23 miles with it running low BLMs.

Here is what I am thinking: The car was tuned before the pressure change to 127-131 BLMs, and WOT to 12.8 AFR, giving the car static injectors during that WOT run.

I then went out, never unhooked the battery and changed the FP to 55psi, then drove the car 20 miles. During this time frame the car then recognizes the low BLMs and trys to recondition the fuel delivery to a closer 128 reading. Let for sake of easy explination say that the ECM is make a 15% trim to all the cells. Now this learning curve is over for the car, and now I take it WOT for the above logged runs. Is it possible that this 15% correction factor is somehow used in the WOT PE fuel delivery also? I mean why wouldn't it? Anyone designing a system like this would think, if all of a sudden car starts running richer at cruise, if someone goes WOT or into PE the fuel supply is going to be even that much more and that much richer, so why wouldn't they carry that correction over into WOT? To me that makes perfectly good sense. Remember they are trying to sut emissions mostly with these systems, that would definately aid in unused gas expulsion.

That is just my twisted way of thinking about it.

Thanks.