Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Vararam
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Forced Induction - V6


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-03-2013, 04:17 PM   #35
Matt @ FSP
 
Matt @ FSP's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro SS
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 2,614
Sure would love to see it Rhino.. I don't do too much in EFILive, but have past experience using Doug's EFILive cables up north. So I understand how to get myself around the program, what all your tables look like, but my speed in that program is terrible vs. hptuners ha.

- Matt
Matt @ FSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 05:22 PM   #36
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino79 View Post
Well what I have done was increase the tq response tables a bit in the 83-100% area. I also Increase the torque control tables by various percentages. It seemed to help some, but according to ross at efilive, we can mimmic the setting on the Torque model tables in the ECM to those that the buick regal turbo uses as it is factory fi. He said it will change the throttle response dramatically. According to him there are no magical throttle limiting tables, that these ecms use the torque model coefficients to alter reported tq. This is not new as efilive cracked open the torque model tables in the e38s a while ago and bumping those up dramtically helped tcm tuning. It does so by adding a blanket coverage to the tcm, since everything is tq based, by increasing the amount of tq the tcm sees, it allows that increase to the hundreds if not thousands of tables we dont have access to.

Now that may be causing an issue with the throttle issue on the e39 as Ross indicated, so I am awaiting the file from him of the turbo buick to see what gm is doing as a baseline, then we can go from there. I will email the file to you if youd like matt, and derrick.
Sure!
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 07:26 PM   #37
Rhino79



 
Rhino79's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS L99/Auto
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cabot, AR
Posts: 2,514
Hey Derrick, can you email me your current tcm and ecm files? Id like to compare to this buick. Ill forward Ross's email to ya too.
__________________

Specializing in LS performance and calibrations.
Custom Grind LS 3 bolt and VVT Camshaft packages.shop.Gwatneyperformance.com
Ryan@gogwatney.com Aaron@gogwatney.com
Rhino79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 07:38 PM   #38
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino79 View Post
Hey Derrick, can you email me your current tcm and ecm files? Id like to compare to this buick. Ill forward Ross's email to ya too.
They are on their way.
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 08:25 PM   #39
Rhino79



 
Rhino79's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS L99/Auto
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cabot, AR
Posts: 2,514
Okay, here is a screenshot of one of about 88 tables that contribute to tq calculations. I have sent Derrick an updated file, after 30 mins of copy and pasting and bloody finger tips....lmao.

These are the tables in question, we shall see if this is the key to the lfx dilemma.
Attached Images
 
__________________

Specializing in LS performance and calibrations.
Custom Grind LS 3 bolt and VVT Camshaft packages.shop.Gwatneyperformance.com
Ryan@gogwatney.com Aaron@gogwatney.com
Rhino79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 09:29 PM   #40
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 11,844
Good stuff guys. Very interesting....loving the teamwork
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 09:49 PM   #41
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino79 View Post
Okay, here is a screenshot of one of about 88 tables that contribute to tq calculations. I have sent Derrick an updated file, after 30 mins of copy and pasting and bloody finger tips....lmao.

These are the tables in question, we shall see if this is the key to the lfx dilemma.
Thanks man, got the files. I'll try to load them tomorrow, but I may not get to test until this weekend.
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 11:14 AM   #42
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 11,844
So to recap, here is how I see it. Tell me if I'm wrong lol.

Stock tune only allows so much throttle input either up to a certain rpm or MPH. If you take the table, and "max" it outs...it will basically do the same. In other words...it doesn't like it.

So instead, you take the tables and increase those values up from stock, but less than max until you find right where you want to be?

If that is the case, could an LFX owner running a full bolt on N/A but untuned (or perhaps tuned but with maxed out tables) run into this same problem??
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 11:25 AM   #43
Rhino79



 
Rhino79's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS L99/Auto
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cabot, AR
Posts: 2,514
Yes, we may even be in a situation where we could have to reduce these values. The tables we see are just a touch of the complex calculations in the background of an e39.
__________________

Specializing in LS performance and calibrations.
Custom Grind LS 3 bolt and VVT Camshaft packages.shop.Gwatneyperformance.com
Ryan@gogwatney.com Aaron@gogwatney.com
Rhino79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 11:43 AM   #44
Matt @ FSP
 
Matt @ FSP's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro SS
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 2,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
So to recap, here is how I see it. Tell me if I'm wrong lol.

Stock tune only allows so much throttle input either up to a certain rpm or MPH. If you take the table, and "max" it outs...it will basically do the same. In other words...it doesn't like it.

So instead, you take the tables and increase those values up from stock, but less than max until you find right where you want to be?

If that is the case, could an LFX owner running a full bolt on N/A but untuned (or perhaps tuned but with maxed out tables) run into this same problem??
Pretty much KM... A STOCK LFx will not have wide open throttle until about 4k RPMs (It flutters in the 55-60% range), then it's fine from 4k to redline. Once you add boost or other modifications, it will start reducing throttle even more because you are over the calculated torque. Then you'll also have the issue upstairs too. So those tables you need to modify just a bit until you achieve the full throttle, these in HPT are called driver demand maps, it's under ETC.

ALL the new Gm calibrations, whether or not V6 or V8 are now based upon calculated torque removing actual throttle position to meet the actual driver demand torque.

Here is the example of the driver demand tables, you have to watch how far you go with these. As you can see the first table below is stock and the second one is a modified SC tune. Before I modified that the throttle would start closing down to 40-50% over 6000 rpms.
Attached Images
  
Matt @ FSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 11:58 AM   #45
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 11,844
Appreciate that info guys.

Pretty easy then to see how the car might fall on its face at launch, or fall on its face on the other end of the strip when you hit say, 4th gear.

I'm not sure I understand why GM would limit throttle input under 4,000K rpms. Is is really all about reliability, or do you just really not want to send 100% throttle until you are up and moving?

I can remember other times in the past where V6 owners at the strip would complain about how it felt like their car just seemed to slow up towards the end of the 1/4 mile. Makes me wonder if things like this were the case, and the tables needed to correct the issues were never altered....maybe nobody every had access to them.

Anyways, glad to see you guys digging in to this on the LFX.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 11:59 AM   #46
Matt @ FSP
 
Matt @ FSP's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro SS
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 2,614
Also.. Here is a quick clip from some logs..

** JUst a note, because of how the scanner reads the signal, 84% Accelerator Pedal and Throttle Position is WIDE OPEN throttle.

Notice in the first screenshot, that the Accelerator Pedal Position is 84% (Wide Open), however the Throttle Position is at 59% and the ETC Commanded TPS is at 67% (ETC Commanded is read on a 0-100 scale, that is why it is scaled up a bit from actual TPS). So YOU are commanding full throttle with your right foot, but the ECU is pulling it back from being wide open because of the calculated torque being higher than what the ECU will allow at that pedal position vs. VSS.

Second Screenshot: Notice that the Accelerator Pedal Position is 84% (WOT), Throttle Position is 84% (WOT), and Commanded ETC is 100% (Commanding WOT). Thus now we are at full throttle commanded and actual full throttle mechanically. You'll also take notice a few more items in the log such as ETC Source : Torque (This means the Electronic Throttle Control is being controlled by Torque).
Attached Images
  
Matt @ FSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 12:07 PM   #47
Matt @ FSP
 
Matt @ FSP's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro SS
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 2,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Appreciate that info guys.

Pretty easy then to see how the car might fall on its face at launch, or fall on its face on the other end of the strip when you hit say, 4th gear.

I'm not sure I understand why GM would limit throttle input under 4,000K rpms. Is is really all about reliability, or do you just really not want to send 100% throttle until you are up and moving?
That is a good question, I do not know GM logics on this one. I was originally thinking someone to do with saving the 6L50E transmission from abuse down-low, but the manual cars have this same affect...

Here is a graphic log showing the the ramp up of throttle position, then full throttle, then ramping it back out. This is stock GM logic on a supercharged LFX. I don't think I have a save of the stock bolt-on one that I did showing the reduced throttle under 4k rpms (But this one did have full all the way through, the SC car removes it upstairs because it goes above the calculated torque vs. vss)
Attached Images
 
Matt @ FSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 12:16 PM   #48
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 11,844
Very cool. So now I can see exactly why in many cases, so much extra torque can be gained in the lower rpms with a tune. I love this stuff.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 12:57 PM   #49
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,069
Tunes are installed and I have sent some logs to Ryan. Overall, I think we made some good progress on the pull to 40 MPH, but some other issues cropped up. Great first try and I'm sure we'll get everything worked out. May be quicker for me to just take the car back to his shop and let him do it, but right now it is giving me a chance to learn the EFI tool (way different than the old version I used).
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 11:18 AM   #50
TJ91
:chevy:
 
TJ91's Avatar
 
Drives: 2LT/RS
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,876
Wow. This is some very cool information. I wonder how much more powerful my car would feel without this limitation. Always hated that lag type feeling
Definitely going to get a tune if this can be tuned out. This is my new reason for a tune lol

Btw great work guys. Wish someone could write an article on the work you guys are all doing together. True car guys
__________________
CAMARO
Consult your doctor before taking Camaro
Side effects include Sudden increase in Heart Rate, Insomnia and occasional hallucinations
If you experience Permagrin exceeding 4 hours after taking Camaro, seek immediate Camaro5 Help
CAMARO Bringing excitment back into the Garage
TJ91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 11:45 AM   #51
SC2150
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro RS, RX supercharged
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 6,070
This is whats needed to sort these out....excellent input from all.
SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.