Is Trimalyzer for SD tunes only

[A95Y]

Is Trimalyzer not intended for cars with MAF?

Thanks

[steveo]

it has a poorly tested maf analyzer, but for an LT1 i think eehack's built in analyzer would be a better choice for maf tuning

[Stokes1114]

I'm trying to use MAF mode on my 0411, as of now the hard part is datalogging. I can datalog ok, just nothing as good as obd1 with the history tables in tuner pro. Very tough to figure them out without the tables. MAF mode did work on my $OD MAF truck.

[steveo]

why not try to run trimalyzer on your logs

[A95Y]

This might be obvious, but how does the analyzer correlate to the changes I can make in the MAF calibration?


AFGS.jpgMAF cal.jpg

[NomakeWan]

This might be obvious, but how does the analyzer correlate to the changes I can make in the MAF calibration?


AFGS.jpgMAF cal.jpg

It's actually kind of complicated at the moment. So first, take a stock MAF curve and look at it in the graph view in TunerPro. When you're done changing things, you'll want your curve to look something like that.

Second, the "AFGS" value in Trimalyzer/EEHack refer to the number in the second column in TunerPro's MAF table. So if Trimalyzer says "add -19% to 16-20," then go to all the values in the MAF table that have a value of between 16 and 20, and use the multiply function in TunerPro to multiply them by 0.81.

Once you're done with all the values, open up the graph view again, and try to smooth the curve as best you can.

I look forward to the day MAF tuning will be a little more automated, but for now, that's the method.

[A95Y]

Looks like I'm finally making a positive change! You would laugh if you knew how long I've been struggling with this. I still have a long way to go. That was 61 minute test drive. I didn't floor it because I didn't want to go in open loop.

Thank you

[steveo]

I didn't floor it because I didn't want to go in open loop.

why?

this isn't some tunerpro history table with no filtering

eehack is smart enough by default to not use your open loop data for tuning closed loop trims.

it rejects other types of data too (like in cells with not enough data to average in and stabilize, and data from before the engine has warmed up enough)

you can 'floor it' all you want and it shouldn't affect anything

by the way you're definitely on the right path but what's up with those knock events!?

[A95Y]

I'm wondering that myself. That's why I posted the pic. I am decreasing my advance 2* in those areas and see how it takes it.

[steveo]

i really doubt that's spark knock just by the pattern. if it is i'd drop more than 2 degrees just due to the insane quantity of knock. maybe start with 5.

[A95Y]

I just got back with a 2* change before I saw your message. What does the pattern suggest? My headers are close to knock sensors. I had to a put a 5 qt. pan back on and remove my winged pan. I nailed it a couple times on this 32 minute drive.

[steveo]

usually real knock runs along the map axis, like your WOT knock where you 'nailed it', that looks like real knock (in red)

the many tiny knock events around 2k rpm could be a rollerized valvetrain or some other harmless mechanical noise that really peaks out near that 2k rpm point screwing with your knock sensor

[A95Y]

Thanks for the reply. I have CTS-V lifters, Scorpion non-aligning aluminum rockers with guideplates. Are these inherently noisy?

[steveo]

could be but who knows
every engine is different

[LeMarky Dissod]

… CTS-V lifters, Scorpion non-aligning aluminum rockers with guideplates. Are these inherently noisy?

Oh Yes indeed.
The nonmetallic valvecovers and the hard-to-find overpriced 16214681 knock module were specifically for the LT4's noisiER valvetrain.