VE Master
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 299
From: Clinton, MA
Originally posted by The Highlander
How can that be possible??? I thought cell 16 was idle only...
As I see it you use the map vs rpm and not the cell itself... you use the cell to make the average... but when you are going to apply the changes the ve table doesn't relate whatsoever to blm cell, but map and kpa.. in that case my recommendation is to:
Weigh it using hits... if you hit 30 on one cell and 70 on the other.. the average x the proportion.. or something like that?
With that wild example you will only make one richer and the other one leaner!! I dont think you can be like that or something... .
Try to weigh it against the most cell hits...
How can that be possible??? I thought cell 16 was idle only...
As I see it you use the map vs rpm and not the cell itself... you use the cell to make the average... but when you are going to apply the changes the ve table doesn't relate whatsoever to blm cell, but map and kpa.. in that case my recommendation is to:
Weigh it using hits... if you hit 30 on one cell and 70 on the other.. the average x the proportion.. or something like that?
With that wild example you will only make one richer and the other one leaner!! I dont think you can be like that or something... .
Try to weigh it against the most cell hits...
Weighing on hits is probably not the best idea, since it takes into consideration how the data was logged, and usually that means more 16 while you're setting up the laptop and such.
Hell, it's very easy to adjust the ve manually at idle It should only involve a few VE cells. I'm gonna do some more thinking on this.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,009
From: so close I can taste it...
I'm not sure why this is turning into such a big deal? 
If you're screwing with the VE table in order to lean out your idle it should have very little effect on part throttle. Think about what rpm your at while idling.
Do what Joe says and just note what rpm and map the idle is at and adjust that cell, and some adjacent ones, manually. Easy as that.
VEMaster shouldn't need to do this for you.
Joe, I would like to see you leave the program the way it is now. I don't see a need for it to incorporate cell 16 at all when any adjustment needed for idle can be made manually pretty easily.
Unless I'm missing something?
If you're screwing with the VE table in order to lean out your idle it should have very little effect on part throttle. Think about what rpm your at while idling.
Do what Joe says and just note what rpm and map the idle is at and adjust that cell, and some adjacent ones, manually. Easy as that.
VEMaster shouldn't need to do this for you.
Joe, I would like to see you leave the program the way it is now. I don't see a need for it to incorporate cell 16 at all when any adjustment needed for idle can be made manually pretty easily.
Unless I'm missing something?
Last edited by Dan K; Mar 10, 2003 at 10:44 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 299
From: Clinton, MA
Originally posted by Dan K
Joe, I would like to see you leave the program the way it is now. I don't see a need for it to incorporate cell 16 at all when any adjustment needed for idle can be made manually pretty easily.
Unless I'm missing something?
Joe, I would like to see you leave the program the way it is now. I don't see a need for it to incorporate cell 16 at all when any adjustment needed for idle can be made manually pretty easily.
Unless I'm missing something?
I'm with you on this one. I was pretty tired last night and maybe not thinking too clearly. I will leave the program alone.... I'm behind in requests to port it to other ecms anyway.....
Joe
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 299
From: Clinton, MA
Originally posted by The Highlander
ls1????
ls1????
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 346
Joe,
I have used your VE Master with very good results. As you have mentioned in an earlier post that there are mixed thoughts on whether it works with a PCM operating in closed loop and using a MAF sensor.
I have tuned several cars, mostly 94/95 Corvettes and a couple F bodies with cams from a small ACCEL/LPE 211/219 cam to a CC306 cam. All of which worked well after using your VE Master. I don't beleive that GM installed the VE tables into the workings of the PCM as just a fail safe limp mode home incase of MAF failure. Or just for open loop operation in the interim time before the PCM switches to closed loop. I am sure that the tables are used for much more than what many of us think.
I know of a couple pro tuners that had manipulated the VE tables for cam tuning as well, long before you came out with VE Master for the OBD1 cars. I know t heres a lot of argument out there over this one subject, especially on the LT1 edit lists. But I for one and few of my buddys swear by it.
Keep up the great work!
I have used your VE Master with very good results. As you have mentioned in an earlier post that there are mixed thoughts on whether it works with a PCM operating in closed loop and using a MAF sensor.
I have tuned several cars, mostly 94/95 Corvettes and a couple F bodies with cams from a small ACCEL/LPE 211/219 cam to a CC306 cam. All of which worked well after using your VE Master. I don't beleive that GM installed the VE tables into the workings of the PCM as just a fail safe limp mode home incase of MAF failure. Or just for open loop operation in the interim time before the PCM switches to closed loop. I am sure that the tables are used for much more than what many of us think.
I know of a couple pro tuners that had manipulated the VE tables for cam tuning as well, long before you came out with VE Master for the OBD1 cars. I know t heres a lot of argument out there over this one subject, especially on the LT1 edit lists. But I for one and few of my buddys swear by it.
Keep up the great work!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post