GaryDoug

The fuel trim cell number is available for the 97-2002 cars as PID 1190 hexadecimal. But that doesn't seem to align with the addresses shown in your log file. GM PIDs higher than 15 don't seem to agree with the offsets used by HPTuners.

Injuneer

This is a 24X conversion. I am not aware of what LS1 PCM is typically used. And that may also relate to the P0336 code for the crank position sensor. The 24X reluctor is sandwiched between the LT1 crank snout and the damper hub. The CKP sensor appears to mount on a sheet metal bracket. Might be the source of the code. The data logs show 0 misfires for all cylinders, but I would guess that the misfire detection is turned off.... there are always a few random misfires. And misfire detection seems to be pretty much corrupted with a cam the size of the one in this engine.

I'm also not sure why the TPS voltage is a factor. Looking at the manual, it appears to use the same strategy as the LT1, with the table of expected values showing a normal range of 0.4 - 0.9 volts normal, a statement in the diagnostic for low TPS volts that you should look for a reading of about 0.6 volts, yet the low voltage code doesn't set until the signal drops to 0.2 volts. Might have been a problem with the earlier throttle body.

This is an extreme case of "split BLM's" (LTFT's). May be related to the size of the cam. May be an idle air problem on the throttle body. Might be something completely different. The more the setup departs from stock, the less examples I have been given to look at in the past. Big cam and 24X is making me work harder . Have you pulled the spark plugs? Are the driver side plugs showing signs of a Rich condition?

It would helpful to have a complete log with the LTFT's active, and the cell numbers shown. From a cold start, idle 'til it goes into closed loop, then drive it under a variety of RPM and throttle conditions, with at least one full throttle pull from low RPM to 5,000+ RPM.

CamaroSS30thAnn

I can try lol

CamaroSS30thAnn

As far as the tps goes I was told the .67 "may" be to high for the ls1 pcm bc they generally like to sit at .55 ish
Also I know I'm running rich or have fuel getting into my oil one way or another lol

So if tps voltage isn't a factor her I'll throw that out th e window

CamaroSS30thAnn

I will throw this out there tho. Trying to keep it running the other day with the stock throttle body it kept stalling. No matter what I did.
When I took the throttle body off i did het some white colored smoke coming from the intake...... strong fuel smell. I'm gonna pull those plugs and see.
When I replaced them the other day they looked ok.
I did manage to foul out the #8 but I was also using the wrong heat range at that time...

GaryDoug

The P0336 code will appear almost every time you change pcm's in an OBD2 setup. The crank position sensor has to be re-learned by the pcm while the engine goes through a special procedure only available with an advanced scan tool like the Tech II. This is one of the rare differences between the cloned tools and a genuine Vetronics/Bosch tool. Most of the cloned tools do not have the power supply stability to do the procedure successfully without changing to a better power supply inside.
When I bought a spare used pcm for my 98, I could never get rid of that code. I did eventually change out the power supply module but haven't tried to re-learn the spare pcm since then.

CamaroSS30thAnn

Driver side , back to square 1. The last time I pulled plugs this didn't look this way.
I changed plus AND wires from last time. So it's one of those or something else.

Injuneer

Which cylinder is the one that appears it isn't even firing from? That would explain the high +STFT or +LTFT on the driver side. Seems like there might be a small amount of spark erosion on the "unused plug", so maybe it's firing and there is no fuel?????

Unfortunately wouldn't explain the low -STFT and -LTFT on the passenger side. The difference between the fuel being added on the driver side and the fuel being subtracted on the passenger side goes as high as 60%, and averages 35%.

Other number in the logs are beyond anything I have ever seen before. It 850 RPM idle, the indicated MAF is about 2.6 #/MIN, which converts to 19.7 GRAMS/SEC. That is at least 2X the max airflow I have ever seen in a modified engine. Stock LT1 runs about 6-8 G/S at idle. And the MAP is extremely high (= vacuum low). With a 14.5 PSI (100 kPa) barometer (normal near sea level), your MAP is 11.7 PSI (81 kPa). That explains the 5" Hg vacuum. Injector pulse widths at idle are also 2X to 3X larger than I have seen.

Maybe those numbers are OK for a big cam.... I just have not seen anything like that before. In order to get meaningful fuel control, I would assume the tuner would have to adjust the cell boundaries for the high MAP numbers.

CamaroSS30thAnn

This issue turns out to be a bad coil..

CamaroSS30thAnn

Before and after the coil. Fuel trims are MUCH BETTER even at their worst which the pictures show.

Injuneer

Which is before and which is after? In both of them Bank 2 is subtracting a large amount of fuel. And Bank 2 is adding a lot of fuel.

In top photo, appears LTFT's are turned off, and it's using the STFT's to subtract 18.8% of the "normal" fuel. Bank 1 shows it's adding 25.7% with the STFT. That's a difference of 44% in the fuel being used. Note that the throttle is closed (0.65 volts) but the RPM = 1,877. How does that happen? Were you revving it and closed the throttle, and the RPM hadn't dropped down yet?

In the bottom one, appears the LTFT's are turned on, and it's subtracting 3.9% using the STFT and subtracting 10.9% using the LTFT. Since those are multipliers, it's subtracting 15.2% total. Bank 1 is adding 4.5% with STFT and 5.5% with the LTFT. Total difference is now down to 25% between banks.... so "much better" might be better stated at "only 1/2 as bad". Note here there is no TPS voltage shown, but the engine is operating at 1,162 RPM.

You need to take these screen shots under identical (as possible) static, stable conditions. The reports need to use the exact same format, and all the settings (example: LTFT on or off) need to be the same. I'll be the first to admit that I am not familiar with this software, but the required data is simply not available in some of them.

CamaroSS30thAnn

Ok I get that the screen shots were just the "worst" numbers that I could find. The first one, no the LTFT were mot active.
The second the LTFT were active. The LTFT do come down to single digits and the stft do stay very low in the single digits
Also as far as the idle rpm I'm working on that. If u notice at idle it says .55v but the throttle still says it's open 1.6% it's odd bc it would start off at 0 . I heard i could do a tps reset. But idk.

It's all crazy tho bc the car is back to running crappy and om getting a crank code again. So I have an extra crank sensor I'm gonna throw in. But I'm really lost right. Now.

I also get Knock on the pass side when the motor starts running rough at idle. Idk if it's spark knock or what ..

Truly aggravating

GaryDoug

Did you read my post above about the crank sensor. Changing the sensor will not fix the code 99% of the time. It takes a special scan tool to run the sensor relearn procedure. Or simply have the code programmed out. It does not affect engine performance.

CamaroSS30thAnn

Gotcha.

What's your opinion on bad gas?

I have only put half to 3/4 a tank in since last November