disable cot, and piston protection. these mess with the final a/f ratio while in pe.

14.7 / 1.270 = 11.574803

you're getting the hang of it man, just give it time. rome wasn't built in a day, neither was a tuned lsj.

 

THAT IS AWESOME!!!! +rep for that

 

lol thank you dude. that deserves +rep and a sig quote

Area47 - "yep, your injectors are pissed!
rome wasn't built in a day, neither was a tuned lsj."

 

Here is a thread I started over on the HP Tuners forum....a few posts down I posted my tune and a scan.

http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14364

 

wow. thats crazy KR. i am running the same gm tune and only get at most 2* of burst knock during a shift. you also need to config your scanner to log a few things like commanded afr and the correct IPW / IDC.

back to my problems, i am still at 105% idc after making the suggested changes. it is slightly better than the 125% i was getting but still i think too high. i am commanding an 11.7 afr after playing with it and doing some logs. my pulsewidth is between 17 and 18 ms (down from 21ms at 125% idc). in first gear the car feels like its falling on its face. idk wtf to do. with winter approaching and teh ambient temps dropping, im thinking of just ditching the pulley in favor of the stg 2 3.06" pulley, tuning my PE for 11.6, and saving up for some 60#ers and a 2.7" or 2.8" pulley this winter.

 

Well, the good news is that by the time you get the 60s there will be a couple of people that can help you with smoking tunes for them (if i do say so myself). The fueling tables are a major bitch to tune on the 60s. I have about 30 hours in on them (trying to get them right, not just workng) and I'm getting really really close.

 

yeah i knwo the 60#s are a bitch to tune. i was planning on just using the ve and maf tables that someone else set up then tweaking it from there, and then setting up PE. i wish i had the time and patience to put 30+ hours on a tune. what little i am doing now is pushing my time constraints

but back to my orig. concern, my injectors.... what idc and pulsewidth are considered static for the GM 42# ? im pretty sure mine are there if not hella close...

 

Well, the point I was trying to make about the 60s is that I put in the work so you won't have to. Fueling tables are fueling tables. They change with the injectors, not the car. You will still need to dial in your MAF a bit if it is not already dialed in, but the flowrate, modifier, offset, minPW and adder will be done.

In answer to your question 100% is static. Static is where the injector needs more time to inject the ammount of fuel needed to acheive your commanded AFR than the engine has to receive it. The faster the RPMs, the less time the injector has to spray. HPTuners uses a calculation based on ms and RPM to reach duty cycle. Most people that know fuel injection agree that safe duty cycle is around 80%.

Back to the 60s, you can tune for 60s by adjusting MAF and VE, but I don't recommend it. You are adding fuel, not air. Get the fueling tables correct, then fix the air tables that GM screwed up when they gave us the stage 2 tune, and that you tuned wrong because GM gave you bad info for fueling tables.

 

what you are viewing as % is what the ecm is commanding the injectors to do. this does not mean they are doing it.


wrap that wound your head for a section.

as SJ said, the 60lb tune he is working on, will throw a brick into the window of thinking. as **** as he is, and i am with the tunes on these cars. you will not be dissapointed.

also. im runnin a 2.8 on 42's with water injection. keeping the idc down isn't going to happen without an auxilary fuel source. mine sit at 90% usually, unless i zing it to 7300. then it touches 100%

 

No disrespect intended (and I for one appreciate your enthusiasm) But you guys should be very careful. It's VERY easy to start jabbing numbers in tables in a "trial and error" fashion and burn down an engine. (in fact there HAS been NUMEROUS cases of this right here on these forums)Unless I'm missing something, I highly doubt someone that's been tuning for all of 6 weeks is going to be throwing many bricks anywhere. Trust me every brick that can be picked up in this calibration has been thrown in one way or another. But hey, you can certainly prove me wrong- I'm not a a calibration softwar engineer or anything, but there ARE people that have been using aftermarket tuning solutions for MANY years ans still havnt mastered it.Generally, I suggest you try to find tuning shops or tuners that have been tuning since the OBDI days for best success.

I would just hate to see a bunch of tunes posted somewhere, that resulted in a bunch of lemmings dropping from the cliffs!
Just remember the cardinal rule of "free thought" tuning... "Baby Steps"
Regards
WopOnTour

 

it stems from him spending the time and money to get the correct numbers for the injectors. those same people that have been tuning for years have thrown out tunes, and burnt down engines. their trial and error resulted in more error than trial. everyone tunes different, but we all end up at the same results. doing the math for the calc tables before putting the numbers in, getting the flow of the injectors at the specific fuel pressure that these cars run, instead of just guessing. me personally, i have had my fingers in aem, v-pro, autronic, carbs, afc's, dsm link. a little of this, and little of that. everything has it's own way of achieving the same goal, it is just gone about in a different fashion. there are people who have tried this particular map, and have raved about it.

we are working together on this one to come out with a final result. which is better than some results, or maps that i have seen to date. some of them are just down right scary. i myself have stayed away from putting the 60's in my car for this simple fact, there is way to many maps floating around right now that people claim to be good.

im just babbling, but i do fully understand where you are comming from on this. no disrespect taken sir, i have seen what you have done for this community, you are years ahead of most people as it is. so kudo's!

 

That's cool. It's already been proven that "constructive collaboration" is one of THE BEST way to work out the bugs in a tune. Many of the LSJ tunes being run today are a conglomeration of many dozens of people's efforts. But you can only make it so far in a day/week/month/year (circle one) taking "baby steps"

The most common mistake is getting ahead of yourself by making certain, sometime disastrous assumptions (like what HP Tuners calls a table is ACTUALLY what it is or does for instance) and droppining in numbers based on bad data or false science.
Keep your changes small and incremental, keep good records, and not only will you eventually get better results but almost entirely eliminate a costly error in judgment.
Wop

 

ah i see. i didnt know you and sjs were working out full tunes for the 60#s i thought he was merely going to tell me how to scale the injectors and build my own tune from scratch, which i don't yet have the experience to do safely
i have seen several "good tunes" for 60#s cause many engines to fail and leave their owners wondering how this could have happened on a "conservative 2.8 pulley size"

hmmm. so the injectors are not doing whatever the IDC% says because they cant? or because the pulsewidth isnt necessarily 20msec at 100% or so? also i assume my stock exhaust is not helping matters any? since i'm seeing over 100% no matter what a/f i throw at the ecu, im probably just going to put the 3.06" back on, tune it slightly, command 11.6, and be safe(er) until i can do the 60#s, 2.8, and some exhaust. can't hardly wait

Thank you sj, area, wop, and any others in this thread for all the help.

 

this is why i have countless runs on a dyno with my car, seeing what does what, how this number will affect X, so on and so forth. there is a few people i have entrusted with a couple of my maps to try out and see what they think of them. we won't get off the ground floor by ourselves.

if you actually saw all the maps i have for my car, you would be suprised. i have every bit of 50 maps for it, each one with changes here and there. that is one fatal flaw i did with my gsx, i never made small changes, i jumped too fast and had bad results.


i suck a the fuel side of cars. period, no if ands or buts about it, but timing? game on. that comes easy to me. always has. hence why you find someone who is good with numbers, and math beyond the level that you are, and you can back their map up with a killer timing table. pay dirt! one simply can not load a map into a car and expect perfection. elevation changes, temperature, different car. one must tweak certain tables here and there to get the most out of it. no two cars are the same, they should not be treated as such either.


wop. i have spent hours on another board and found some seriously great information that has accelerated my learning curve. so if you ever come to kansas city. i'll buy you a drink

 

I appreciate your caution, and you have every right to believe what you do. Especially not knowing me from Adam. As you are one of the people I would love to share ideas with, I will give you a little info around my brick.

First of all, I have looked at every single cobalt tune in the repository, especially those with 60s tunes. You know what I find? People flatlining the IFR table at 63.5 and making up the difference with the VE and MAF tables. If that is the common thinking, here comes the brick. Thanks to ssnipes for showing me how to do it using a by decreasing the percentage and using the flow rate modifier.

I spent a Saterday with Marcin Pohl where I learned more than I can stuff in my head. I actually had a theory on how to compute the actual true numbers for the offset table. He thought I was crazy untill we tried the formula with the few known truths that we had available, and not only does it work, but the math is irrefutably correct. If I had some more known truths for these injectors, I would have the entire offset table nailed solid.

Thanks also to Marcin for teaching me that adding a percentage to the entire MAF table is wrong, because the MAF is a 3rd order polynomial equasion, therefore it has to be figured in a curve.

The long and short of it is that I do not "drop numbers" in places to see what they do. I am interested in the correct numbers and do not believe in throwing the result ahead of the means.

Finally, I would like to add that I have a great deal of respect for all that you do. I even use a spreadsheet that I believe you created for my flowrates. I would love to pick your brain some time or even throw some of my theories and some of the other stuff I've learned at you one of these days.

 

IDC revisited...
still getting about 110% before 7k rpm. i'm running the PE table that SJ posted (11.6:1 command) and im using the 3.06" stage 2 pulley. what the hell am i missing here could my maf and ve be that FUBAR?

 

LOL. I am not surprised. Do me a favor, send me your tune and a log of your tune. I'll take a look at it.

If you decide to go with the 60s, I just did a bunch of work on the fueling tables, and with the exception of a few points on the adder table here and there, it is working well. I can actually idle at 850 rpms.

I'll pm you my email address.

 

^^^thanks. email sent