ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay - Tuning Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Monday, December 22, 2008 11:25 PM
I've noticed lately that there's a lot of confusion as to how the ecotec ecu operates.

I've read some intelligent posts changing my mind or setting me straight on some things, and others that will argue against things I know as facts based solely on speculation.

To satisfy my ego, and at the same time, do the community a service, I've had the idea to start a series of topics on my investigations of the ecotec ecu, in hopes of putting these myths to bed with PROOF.

lets establish the basics:
the ecotec ecu is an alpha-n fueling setup, whereas it bases its calculations primarily on RPM and TPS inputs. MAP is NOT taken into consideration when calculating fueling. The MAP is used primarily for spark tables, and for zero-throttle conditions (such as idle, and coast-down fueling). The only other feature the MAP is used for is for a multiplier which effects injector pulsewidth. This tab will be investigated in a future MYTH.

There was a lot of problems getting proper fueling to the ecotecs in the past that were boosted (without the reflash) and not many knew why. This was because of what I realize now to be 2 problems:

The first problem was nobody knew it was an alpha-n efi system. This was only realized after HPT gave us our first glimpses into the programming tables. So everyone kept trying to modify the MAP signal, and would do nothing to the fueling but would mess up the ignition advance.. causing even more confusion.

The second problem was nobody knew about the PE delay number on the power enrichment tab. There's been a lot of theorizing how this particular feature works, even people claiming that the number was 'ignored' on cars and only used on trucks.



Well tonight I figured it out with log data for PROOF.

my test vehicle is my daily driver.. .a 2004 ecotec cavalier 5 speed.
the engine is STOCK except for an rksport intake I salvaged from the skwirl.

MYTH: J-body ecu does not utilize PE Delay feature
I decided to test this theory.

I used my 2004's narrowband voltage output as a 'power enrichment' detector. When the vehicle goes into power enrichment, the O2 sensor stops switching, and stays at a fixed value because the car is no longer trimming for stoich, and instead shoots for a pre-programmed AFR for maximum power (in the case of the jbody, 13:1 AFR is the target). The further operation of this function is irrelevant to the point of this post, so we'll move on for now.


The ecu on my 04 is untouched, so I did a basic test. PE delay on a stock ecotec ecu is set to 6200rpm.
I let the car warm up to operating temperature, and simply took it out on the road and mashed the throttle.

take note of O2 mV and commanded AFR when TPS = 100%


notice how the O2 is still switching. Strange. Also, take note that commanded AFR remains at 14.6:1


This time, I decided to take it all the way up past the delay RPM, and continue the pull into the next gear.
What happens is pretty interesting.. again, take note of the O2 mV and commanded AFR:


another go.. same as above:


as you can see.. once the delay rpm is surpassed, the O2 STOPS switching and then enters PE mode.
This changes my theory on the system because I always assumed it would only be in PE mode for the last 300rpm (until the rev limiter), then enter back into closed loop until 6200rpm is reached again.

But apparently, the way the system works is that when the TPS threshold is met, and the PE Delay RPM is met, PE is engaged.
there must be some other variables such as TPS drop thresholds, or something to tell the ecu to go back to closed loop, because as I changed gears the ecu carries PE with it (even tho the TPS and PE Delay settings are lost). There is clearly other settings we do not see here.

To be certain of what I was seeing, I set the PE Delay to 0RPM, flashed the ecu and ran the same tests:

mashing the pedal in a single gear:


taking it through a few gears:


single gear again:

as you can see, with the PE Delay essentially disabled (set to 0 RPM) the O2 mV stops switching, and commanded AFR drops to the calculated PE value the instant the TPS threshold is met.

MYTH BUSTED. The Jbody ECU does, in fact, utilize PE Delay RPM


I have several other tests I will be starting threads about. Hopefully the mods will allow separate topics for separate issues, that way it can be searched individually, and be easily found in the future.






Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:13 AM
hmmmmm did this all just arise yesterday and ur on top of it already? good work.


i guess i never knew there was an issue tho, the 2.4 pcm doesnt have PE set so high so it really didnt throw any curve balls like the eco tune.






Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:24 AM
no, just stuff that seems to be coming up more and more lately so I figure now that I have a stock car I can evaluate, and a more in-depth knowledge of HPT and the ecu and how it works, I can satisfy my own curiosity on some of the more interesting 'quirks' of our ecus.

I already have another one for injector sizing for the ecotec, but I won't post it up until the end of the week, or perhaps even a few days from now.






Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:40 AM
cool sounds good, i look forward to these. i like things that are actually worth a read. you start to go crazy over the will this intake or the OFFICIAL this or that post.
thanks for bringin something good to the table yet again pj.






Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:31 AM
He posted this on EcotecForum and HPTuners Forums. I already posted this stuff in the "STFT tuning" thread, but since we're copying everything all over the interwebs, here it is again:

I just discovered you were talking about alpha-n. Mine is speed density. Might be a little different, lol.

My PE enable Delay RPM is set to 3400. My car entered PE at 33% throttle with an RPM of 2550. If you look at the PE Enable TPS vs. RPM table, under the 2400 RPM column, a 32% enable TPS is the data in the cell. (At least on my MP45 tune)

The AFR does ramp down to the target 11.8 in a smooth curve and then remains static at 11.8 once it reaches it, throughout PE. It does this also when I entered PE at 35% throttle at 3478 RPM (meaning, past the PE Delay RPM), started at 14.68 in closed loop then ramped down to 11.8ish.

I can't see your screenshots since I'm at work, though, but mine doesn't do an instant drop like yours does.

Straight from Chris@HPTuners:
Quote:

PE Delay is disabled in all car calibrations.

Changing these numbers doesn't affect anything.

Quote:


it is only very rarely used on some trucks
[q/uote]



2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
650 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:04 AM
I would have thought with all the hardships boosted eco folks faced prior to HPT, there would be no dispute that there is a "PE Delay" based on RPM threshold. I "think" a lot of the V8 apps have a disable threshold, probably MAP or TPS or a combination, if you care to search the HPT forums. I would be nice to know what this threshold is on our cars, although it may not be incredibly helpful to change it. Nice write up - this is similar to what I was going to do, although not as thorough



Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:11 AM
Another quick tidbit. Most of the V8 (and V6) apps have a PE enrichment rate table, which is pretty self explanitory. Once all the thresholds for PE are met, the commanded AFR is ramped down to the desired value based on this table. It looks like on PJ's logs, the ramp down to 13:1 is instant. On other vehicles (maybe a 2-bar SD LD9 tune), the PE thesholds may be looser, but the enrichment rate may be slower as [ion] C2 describes above.

This tuning stuff is fkn awesome - looking forward to some more great discussion/myth busting



Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:42 AM
[ion wrote: C2]He posted this on EcotecForum and HPTuners Forums. I already posted this stuff in the "STFT tuning" thread, but since we're copying everything all over the interwebs, here it is again:

I just discovered you were talking about alpha-n. Mine is speed density. Might be a little different, lol.


Quote:


it is only very rarely used on some trucks
[q/uote]


lol agreed. it seems the jbody ecu is just total garbage.. we really got the short end of the stick on a lot of things.

and don't think of this as an argument thread or pissing match, I'm just trying to prove or disprove a lot of speculation/theory/ guessing in terms of how this particular ecu works. Thats why I'm spreading it around to different boards.. not everyone crosses paths.. I know a number of people who will NOT come here which is why I figured I'd spread it around.

One of the other big questions I want to answer is: what happens when the RPM value is higher than all the tables go? That's a huge question I want to answer.





Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:52 AM
wish Shifted had the time to work on his more. lol



Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”


Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 11:56 AM
Wow now that I'm home that IS weird...

Nah I don't want it to be a battle, I don't know much about it, just going off what other people said, and my own experiences with it.

Also you don't have a wideband logging?! O_O




2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
650 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:07 PM
Interesting post. I was going to run a similar test myself on my LD9 (probably still will). I remember Ecotec's having the fueling issue back in the day with FMU's. I also know of one that is tuned using HPT, and the dleay is the stock 6200, but yet it has a solid AFR in the good range.

A question I have for you PJ. Your single gear runs, were they first gear runs?





FU Tuning




Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:12 PM
John Higgins wrote:Interesting post. I was going to run a similar test myself on my LD9 (probably still will). I remember Ecotec's having the fueling issue back in the day with FMU's. I also know of one that is tuned using HPT, and the dleay is the stock 6200, but yet it has a solid AFR in the good range.

A question I have for you PJ. Your single gear runs, were they first gear runs?


not every time no. I'm pretty sure they were either 3rd or 5th gear. if you check the rpm vs speed it'll kinda give an idea of what gear I was in at the time.

the only time I started from a low gear (either first or second) was during the multiple gear tests.. I didn't want to get up too fast.

I am contemplating throwing my LC-1 on this car to see what the AFR is like in reaction to the delay/non delay stuff just for curiosity's sake. Also, I'm sort of interested to see what the AFR is in comparison to the injector duty cycle.

I think you guys will be shocked at the numbers I got for IDC with STOCK injectors and a STOCK tune.





Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:18 PM
I think more than anything this shows there is tables we do not have acess to.



FU Tuning



Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Wednesday, December 24, 2008 2:35 AM
sweet pj... good work!



LE61T PTE6262 Powered

Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:07 AM
Add +1 to the 6200 rpm delay. I don't have pics of my logs, but it was commanding 14.6:1 up to 6200 rpm, and I also observed PE staying engaged between shifts even if the revs dropped below 6200 rpm. What I couldn't figure out, is with the stock tune my commanded afr was 12.6 : 1 to 12.3 : 1 in PE. The stock table said 13:1 The wideband said about 12:1, but i think its clipping. IDCs were close to 100% 30lb/hr will go in this week, but why is my commanded AFR different than the table? The mult vs RPM are all set at 1...



Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:02 AM
commanded AFR and actual AFR are very rarely the same.. I think it has to do with the IAT multiplier that I have a feeling we cannot see.

I took logs last night, and under WOT my commanded AFR was different from the night before.

I put 93 octane in the car because I noticed that I was getting quite a bit of kR (check out the kR readings on the pictures I posted up top.. this is on a STOCK tune!).
the only other thing that changed was outside temp and IATs

Once I figure out a way to do it, IAT in comparison to commanded AFR is going to be another subject of one of these threads






Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Wednesday, December 24, 2008 2:49 PM
I found the answer to my problem - AFR CMD drops due to resolution in the mult rpm table

The answer was here all along...



Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:34 PM
Thanks for looking into this PJ. I think it was pretty obvious to most of us w/ boosted setups, and also evidenced by Hypsy's early dyno sheets.


Looks like its time to tune out that KR too !! LOL


___________________________________________________________________

Mitsu TD06-20g |3" Turbo-back Exhaust | 61mm Bored TB |
HP Tuners | Innovate WB02 | Spec Stage 3 | Team Green LSD | TurboTech Upper | Full Addco Sways | Sportlines & Yellows |
Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:18 PM
BlackEco wrote:Thanks for looking into this PJ. I think it was pretty obvious to most of us w/ boosted setups, and also evidenced by Hypsy's early dyno sheets.


Looks like its time to tune out that KR too !! LOL


More than anything this proves that HPT needs to do more work for us (yeah like that is going to happen).



FU Tuning



Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Thursday, December 25, 2008 1:14 AM
John Higgins wrote:
BlackEco wrote:Thanks for looking into this PJ. I think it was pretty obvious to most of us w/ boosted setups, and also evidenced by Hypsy's early dyno sheets.


Looks like its time to tune out that KR too !! LOL


More than anything this proves that HPT needs to do more work for us (yeah like that is going to happen).




x2






Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Friday, December 26, 2008 4:34 PM
DaFlyinSkwir(LS61) /PJ/ OEM+ wrote:commanded AFR and actual AFR are very rarely the same.. I think it has to do with the IAT multiplier that I have a feeling we cannot see.

I took logs last night, and under WOT my commanded AFR was different from the night before.

I put 93 octane in the car because I noticed that I was getting quite a bit of kR (check out the kR readings on the pictures I posted up top.. this is on a STOCK tune!).
the only other thing that changed was outside temp and IATs

Once I figure out a way to do it, IAT in comparison to commanded AFR is going to be another subject of one of these threads


I can build that histogram.




Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Friday, December 26, 2008 10:23 PM
John Higgins wrote:
BlackEco wrote:Thanks for looking into this PJ. I think it was pretty obvious to most of us w/ boosted setups, and also evidenced by Hypsy's early dyno sheets.


Looks like its time to tune out that KR too !! LOL


More than anything this proves that HPT needs to do more work for us (yeah like that is going to happen).


I've called hpt before asking questions about why we don't have access to certain tables and such. The answer...there's not enough interest. I understand the J is a dead platform, but seriously not enough interest? I hope to hell they were kidding. There's more 2.2 cobalts out there than any other kind yet we don't have the ability to tune them. They say no interest, there's no interest because there's no support. GM got balls deep into the ecotec and proved it to be the most dominant 4 cylinder to date w/ 1/4 mile records for a 4 cyl car and also top speed records in the same category yet hpt claims no interest. Yes GM proved what's possible with virtually limitless funds while we remained stuck in reality.

Great work PJ. Loving the curiosity bug bitting hard and getting results from it.




---------------------------------------------------
4 Cams...32 Valves...5 Liters...This Could Get Fun!


Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Friday, December 26, 2008 11:42 PM
Skunk wrote:
John Higgins wrote:
BlackEco wrote:Thanks for looking into this PJ. I think it was pretty obvious to most of us w/ boosted setups, and also evidenced by Hypsy's early dyno sheets.


Looks like its time to tune out that KR too !! LOL


More than anything this proves that HPT needs to do more work for us (yeah like that is going to happen).


I've called hpt before asking questions about why we don't have access to certain tables and such. The answer...there's not enough interest. I understand the J is a dead platform, but seriously not enough interest? I hope to hell they were kidding. There's more 2.2 cobalts out there than any other kind yet we don't have the ability to tune them. They say no interest, there's no interest because there's no support. GM got balls deep into the ecotec and proved it to be the most dominant 4 cylinder to date w/ 1/4 mile records for a 4 cyl car and also top speed records in the same category yet hpt claims no interest. Yes GM proved what's possible with virtually limitless funds while we remained stuck in reality.

Great work PJ. Loving the curiosity bug bitting hard and getting results from it.




sorry to clutter the thread with more off topic posts but i think we should organize something and mass spam hpt with our interest. we need more access to our pcm.






Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:52 AM
I only want 3 bar tuneability out of a stock pcm is that too much to ask? The programming is there. All they have to do is crack a GM s/c tune and add a little bit to it.





---------------------------------------------------
4 Cams...32 Valves...5 Liters...This Could Get Fun!


Re: ecu MYTH investigation: PE Delay
Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:06 AM
gmanz24 wrote:
Skunk wrote:
John Higgins wrote:
BlackEco wrote:Thanks for looking into this PJ. I think it was pretty obvious to most of us w/ boosted setups, and also evidenced by Hypsy's early dyno sheets.


Looks like its time to tune out that KR too !! LOL


More than anything this proves that HPT needs to do more work for us (yeah like that is going to happen).


I've called hpt before asking questions about why we don't have access to certain tables and such. The answer...there's not enough interest. I understand the J is a dead platform, but seriously not enough interest? I hope to hell they were kidding. There's more 2.2 cobalts out there than any other kind yet we don't have the ability to tune them. They say no interest, there's no interest because there's no support. GM got balls deep into the ecotec and proved it to be the most dominant 4 cylinder to date w/ 1/4 mile records for a 4 cyl car and also top speed records in the same category yet hpt claims no interest. Yes GM proved what's possible with virtually limitless funds while we remained stuck in reality.

Great work PJ. Loving the curiosity bug bitting hard and getting results from it.




sorry to clutter the thread with more off topic posts but i think we should organize something and mass spam hpt with our interest. we need more access to our pcm.
Keep replying to my thread on HPT.....
http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20255





P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search