[radz28]

Originally Posted by clg82

That begs the question, (i know it varys by tuner) but do most tuners get this granular with their tunes on peoples cars, or are you seeing some sort of annomaly in your tune you're trying to fix?

THAT - good, sir - is what I'm trying to verify

[Megahurtz]

RadZ28

If your throttle blade opens up at a much different rate than your accelerator pedal, then your airmass model, torque model and/or Driver Demand table is out of whack.

There is no "correct way" to tune. I'm sure tuning on your path will eventually get a good driving vehicle. This is why it wakes GM calibrators so long to test and tune these cars before they are released. They have to tune drive-ability.

You're taking the long hard road. There is a much simpler road to get great drive-ability. That is all my point was. I have a lot of experience so for me, scaling the airflow model and getting these cars to drive great isn't usually very difficult. Now go back to when the Gen V was just released and tuning these cars was a real headache. I'm only sharing my experience. I'm not offended at all that you want to go down your own path. I just think scaling the air and torque is a much easier way to go. Then you can drive and enjoy the car instead of constantly trying to tweak 100 things. But maybe you like that lol.

Anyhow, no issues with me. I'm not trying to argue any way is correct.

[Megahurtz]

Originally Posted by radz28

After all that @$$ ki$$1ing (much owed on my part ), I do have a related TORQUE MODEL question:

Can anyone comment on what they see when they roll into the THROTTLE in a locked gear? What I mean is, let's say you're cruising at 70 MPH in 10th at around 1400 RPMs (or whatever RPMs that would be). If you lock the GEAR in 10th, so it can't downshift, and you roll into the PEDAL to about 50%, do you see a larger THROTTLE opening? For example, in this scenario, I can depress the PEDAL about 50%, but see the THROTTLE open well above that percentage (as much as 75-100% in some circumstances). Depending on PEDAL %, the difference in THROTTLE trends along the same ratio as the PEDAL does, but the logic can defy me a little.

I understand, generally, the TORQUE REQUEST from the PEDAL. Me depressing the PEDAL is going to create TORQUE REQUEST the ECM is going to back calculate into an AIRFLOW REQUEST, which triggers the THROTTLE to open to achieve the desired AIRFLOW that was calculated, yes? If I got enough of that correct, then it might seem like, in this scenario, I can be requesting more torque than the engine can deliver at that RPM (because I'm lugging it), so the ECM is going to open the THROTTLE to it's PREDICTED AIRFLOW in order to try to reach the TORQUE it thinks I am requesting through the PEDAL, no? OR - is my DRIVER DEMAND table off or something?

During this excursion, I can see I'm within a couple % correction, and my VVE/MAF/DYN are pretty much stacked on top of each other, so it looks like VVE is okay. I'm running a VTT that's close to OEM in this area (because stock cam/heads) so it's a little higher than stock values. DD is not modified too much except WOT (increased at 100% across the SPEED axis, and blended to around 80% - below 80% is very close to OEM). I think I added 10-20% to the 200KPH (or whatever that unit is - I forget at the moment, but the highest speed on the right column), and blended from 0 KPH to 200.

During transients, I get a fairly good PEDAL to THROTTLE tracking. If I'm depressing the PEDAL 30%, the THROTTLE is within about 5-10% for the most part. I get 100% THROTTLE at any point I go WOT, so I feel like that's okay.

I'm just asking if the THROTTLE behavior, in the scenario I described, makes any sense. I can see my little TURBO SONIC exhibits a similar behavior, but it's my understanding TURBO-cars work a little differently. This is NOT how I drive the car, but this is part of the vet'ing I'm doing to try to validate this whole thing.

Thanks for anyone who can share!

CHEERS!!!

My opinion on your 10th gear pedal scenario. This behavior is not surprising. I imagine your tune has the torque limits raised at lower RPM. Also, I suspect you may have Dynamic Air/VVE cutoff RPM lowered to an RPM that the vehicle won't see, which many tuners do to "sort of" put it into MAF mode. It isn't a true MAF mode on the Gen V stuff, it just weights the filters closer to the MAF. I've found keeping the Dynamic Air cutoff RPM in tact, or at least high enough of an RPM for part throttle, gives better drive-ability. But you have to tune VVE. Your Driver Demand is also likely raised in the trouble area.

All of these together will make the ECU try to deliver the torque you're requesting. If the commanded timing advance is low, the ECU will use the throttle to try and get there. The early Gen V OEM tune's, primarily in the Corvette's, would simply limit the maximum throttle angle at low RPM. Later on they used torque limits mixed with very low timing values to keep things safe.(There are also some referenced airmass tables and surely other unknown tables).

Anyhow, you've removed the limiters, added more timing and power, requested more torque etc. So the ECU is allowing the throttle to open a lot. You can try increasing the MAF values in this area, increasing the VT or reducing the Driver Demand. But....then you might introduce a strange behavior somewhere else. People often cause this when they blindly increase the Driver Demand table because their car is modified. Many tuners would just globally increase the DD so as not to run into Torque Management issues but this was an early on "standard" when we didn't know as much about the Gen V's.

Lastly, when reading all of the info on tuning Gen V stuff over the past 10 years, you have to consider the date of the post. Some of the info is actually wrong. Some is correct, but somewhat inaccurate. Some was the ONLY way to tune at the time, but since we have new tables. And some is still accurate. One of the best way to learn is to do exactly what you're doing. Hands on, testing theories, reading, asking questions etc.

[radz28]

Thank you VERY MUCH for all your time putting those posts together. I will be touching all of your points right away. I'm starting with DD, mostly because that's the one I found seemed less like OEM (I forgot about a lot of the details since I messed with it last, because I wasn't doing this silly lugging-thing, and otherwise, I was getting throttle behavior that closely tracked pedal position).

It's funny how you hit the nail so many times. All of this "tuning" has become my hobby, and I've accepted I'll be spending a lot of time doing it. I can afford to, whereas a customer of yours (rightfully) wouldn't allow you to. A good thing is that through the generosity of others here, like you, I have a tune I could fall back on, anytime I want, and be good.

I'll check back in after I get some seat time with these changes. Thank you, again!!!

[radz28]

07.21.25 Update - minor (more musings)

This is a small update, but with something new for me to look at more.

First - Scaling the DESIRED FUEL PRESSURE (RAIL) [17071] table seems to be pulling together. I was getting some wonky'ness near redline (at lower loads), but believe that was a correlation between the REFLEX coming in (CL TRIMS would start going RICH), and adjusting RAIL PRESSURE a bit. I was seeing CL TRIMS go a little RICH in this part of the table, but after pulling some pressure out of these cells, I'm getting reasonable, near-ZERO, trims. A lot of these spots are right before the REFLEX comes in, so that seems to jive, as far as I can tell.

BTW - I know it was stated that the REFLEX shouldn't be adding fuel well past where I'm bringing it in. I've been thinking about this, because I'm not sure if that's not possible for me, or - maybe it's the way I have my tune configured at this time. I think it's a little of both, and have some evidence to support some of that (I think), which could be relevant. I'm not, yet, sure of how much any of that could be objective/subjective, but I'm no tuner, so all I have to fall back on is research I've done, with not much practical experience with experimenting on anything but my combination.

Initially - it seemed the REFLEX fueling convention was to bring it in around 6000Hz. From a few examples I've seen, this seems to be the case. I know an argument was made it should come in a lot later in the MAF CURVE, but I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the examples I've seen being STOCK CAM LT4s. There's just not a lot of help from the HPFP, so we're out of high side pretty early. I know I can see RAIL PRESSURE/IPW go nuts pretty early on in a hit under some circumstances (probably not typical driving behavior - I'm just trying to cover all bases of drivability, as much as I can), so maybe I'm looking where it's not too important, so I'd keep that in mind. For example - I could be lugging the engine, in 9th, around 60 MPH, and mat-it, and (sometimes) see RAIL PRESSURE/IPW go nuts and NOT recover, and other times see it come in really "bad", but start to recover after some RPMs start pumping the HPFP. There has been new information that's been shared that dispels some of the old IPW convention, so what I WAS looking at before might not really be an issue. I've been playing with SOI in these areas more, too, so I think that's helping, because I'm not seeing the crash in EOI that I had, so I might be onto something for my situation. I've seen some commanding around 400* in SOI, and it was my understanding 370* is about the limit on a stock cam LT4, but maybe that's helping some of these other cars delay the REFLEX from coming in as early. I don't know, and I'm probably the only person worried about this stuff, but I hate to leave any information out there that could be wrong, and something happen to someone that tried it (you shouldn't, lol). I also read some posts from a couple very smart people, over on the HPT Forum, talking about not spending too much time out on the fringes of the tune, in some aspects of the file, so I'm trying to keep that in mind, too. I think that's relevant, too, in my situation. Anyhow - it feels like I get more stability from the HIGH SIDE if I have the REFLEX coming in around 6000Hz, for now (right or wrong - probably wrong, lol).

Something that I knew had an influence, but didn't quite appreciate completely in my tune was PE PEDAL settings. While I appreciated not wasting fuel by having it come in unnecessarily, I always thought of it as a safety net, too. As a result of this, I've always been pretty aggressive about lowering when this threshold comes in (I have turned-OFF ENABLE TORQUE just so I could have consistency, and while I'm trying to touch-up my TORQUE profiles, I didn't want that getting in the way), so I'm WAY lower than stock. I was starting with PE coming in at around 50%, and trail down to about 35% by about 2500 RPMs. I found this was a little helpful in bringing the PE/REFLEX in around 6000Hz, after about 2500 RPMs, and [17071] didn't have to change too much for this (this seemed just fine for higher RPM/LOADs). It's probably too aggressive, but I'd rather be safer and waste a little more fuel (at least that's my logic). BUT - in my last drive, I found I could enter PE at lower RPMs (e.g. 1500-2000) and it seem a little lean (.90-.95 in these spots) since it was below the REFLEX MAF threshold. Moreso - I could roll into the PEDAL enough that I could be in PE as high as ~4000 RPMs, and be around that .90 EQ, because this was still below the REFLEX MAF threshold. That seemed too low if I was really into the PEDAL (even though that will still only around 37%), and even though I added a little more PE FUELING to around 2000 RPMs in the tune before this last one, I pulled it back to .95, leaving it pretty LEAN through 4000 RPMs. It wouldn't have been so bad if the REFLEX was coming in, but the MAF, in these specific circumstances was in a window of about 4500 Hz through around 5500Hz, the REFLEX wasn't there to add any fueling (again - I had it coming in at 6000Hz). So - I was in a situation where my PEDAL PE was low enough that it was coming in below where I had the REFLEX coming in (and again, that's still lower than where it's been said it should be higher), leaving a LEAN situation through 4000 RPMs. I understand that it's not a big deal to run PE LEANER in lower RPMs (e.g. less than 2000 RPMs), and because I'm using a REALLY LOW EQ of .95 (again - I'm trying to use the REFLEX as my PE, as much as I can - I'm also using [32447] EQ RATIO BASED coefficient to help with ENGINE TQ calculations, to help offset some of those model calculations), I had a LEAN window right there that I had either not noticed before, or that I created with some of these revisions (or something else). I know the OEM PE calibrations are pretty conservative, and maybe my logic is way off, but I'm looking more for safety than emissions or fuel efficiency. SO - I had a bit more PE from around 1200-2000 RPMs coming in, but started pulling it right back out, and down to .95 well before 3000, leaving this LEAN window, under this circumstance. I'm going to do a couple things to see what seems to work. I'm still comparing the OEM setting to what I've changed them to, and maybe it's okay to be that LEAN, at that low of a PEDAL % - I'm just not sure.

I'm going to add fuel up to around 4000 in PE, and I'm going to raise PEDAL PE %. I figure adding fuel will help with safety during this testing, while I try to see if raising PEDAL higher will cover this area that I'm seeing the LEAN spot. Part of the reason I was pulling so much PE EQ out was when it was cold, if I pedal'd the THROTTLE (because of wheel spin) sometimes I'd see RAIL PRESSURE/IPW go crazy. So, I pulled fuel out of the E92 PE and leaned on the REFLEX to cover. That helped a lot for pedaling, but that left this hole where I could be loafing along at highway speed, roll into the THROTTLE, and get into the lower part of the MAF CURVE where I was in PE, but it was low (on account of me pulling if because of wheelspin and trying to pedal out of it), and found the car in a condition where RPMs were going up, but it was LEAN because I was below where the REFLEX was coming in. So - I'm RAISING PEDAL PE to see if that helps. I'm still WAY lower than stock PEDAL PE is set to, but just need to see if it covers this LEAN area I just discovered/noticed. I see that OEM settings have 70-80% TQ ENABLE, 70% PEDAL, and about 1.150 EQ, so that seems like it means the engine's under a pretty high load before it's into PE, so I'm worried about a spot that would be completely safe in the OEM calibration.

So - that's the update right now. To sum up: It looks like I'm going to have to evaluate how PEDAL PE and the PE tables have to harmonize with everything else I'm touching. I'm going to have to, perhaps, add a little more fueling back to the PE table to cover the middle areas where PE EQ and MAF Hz are too low for the REFLEX to be coming in (again these are frequencies starting around 4000Hz through almost 6000Hz, and the REFLEX isn't really coming in until 6000Hz). It doesn't look like the OEM settings really bring meaningful PE well past this, so maybe my situation isn't a big deal. I'm battling some THROTTLE FLUTTER, at STEADY STATE cruising, but it's in a very specific window. I'm trying to verify VVE/VTT/DD, for that, and can see my VVE is about 10% > MAF/DYN in this area, so I'm playing with that, and will circle back to DD. I have VTT/DD, in these areas, OEM, so I'm hoping I can get this nailed down. I've been battling it for a while, and though I know I have a bad TB CONNECTOR LOCK (it's come lose a couple times and threw the car into LIMP MODE), I'm wondering if this is part of the problem... BUT - I see I'm off, so I need to get that resolved before I can compare everything else. VVE/MAF/DYN seem to be good across a lot of the rest maps, but I've been fighting this one a good bit. After playing with PEDAL PE and PE EQ, hopefully I'll find a good balance and have this spot covered appropriately. I can cheat and bring REFLEX PE down, and just dribble fueling in this spot (and I think that's what I did before, and why I didn't see this phenomenon until now, but that's okay). I don't know why that would be too big a deal if I needed to, and when I had been doing that before, the car seemed completely fine (not surging or jerking about). I know injector spray is not optimal, like it would be for a PI engine (as this is not, obviously), but it didn't seem to affect drivability noticeably. Maybe I'm completely off on my logic in why I'm trying to do this this way, but I'm always willing to learn.

To be continued...

[radz28]

04/02/26: Update

I'm pretty much wrapping up the major aspects of this endeavor. I hate how a lot of the plumbing has laid out, and did think I'd come back to try to make my OCD a little happier, so that's what I'm moving toward next, but that's separate from the tuning part. I might add some pics' as i complete what I think I want to do for the plumbing, but everyone has their own ways and ideas, and they're probably better than mine. I don't do this for a living, and seek ideas from others that do, and that know are effective ways to do this stuff, so I'm just trying to do what I can do. Anyone may ask why because I tried to create a solution there was not really a problem for, but I started this mess so I wanted to finish it. Anyways - to wrap up the tuning part I've continued to update:

I wanted to present some visuals on what I'd been chipping away at for the last while. I've been describing relationships I thought I'd found among a few of the DI fueling tables I've been going on about and am showing a screenshot of the tune that I was running for the datalog I'm presenting. I've indicated some datapoints of interest that I've been trying to do some validating on to better understand what's going on and what happens when I do what. As Megahurtz had already said, and I had a loose understanding of it but feel like I have a good grasp of it now, because this fueling compensation method, essentially, started with me recharacterizing the INJECTOR MULTIPLIER ([33355] is the table I focused on, but I copied that table to the MULTIPLIER 2 table, too) tables, there were other compensations I needed to understand and make, too. It took some time for me to interpret what was going on and then understand why it was doing what it was, but I came to the conclusion (right or wrong or incomplete) that there was more than one thing going on, and without understanding what questions I didn't know I needed to ask or find answers to, it was a learning curve.

In the DESIRED RAIL PRESSURE [17071] table, I've found I needed to do a few things and balance some others to keep everything, as far as I could tell - happy. I started with the OEM table, first, and have rescaled and adjusted the crap out of it multiple times, and reverified by going back to the OEM table, and seeing I needed to make changes again - pretty much back to where I'd gotten in my modified tables. I validated what I thought I needed to by trying to force the car to stay in CLOSED LOOP (CL), because there IS some overlap with how I've smoothed the MAF CURVE in the REFLEX so there isn't a big surge in power that might upset the car. Keeping it in CL allowed me to better understand what and how the E92 was seeing and making compensations. I could, then, apply what I was interpreting into useful changes that started getting the compensations, in all areas I could force the car into, closer to "0%". There are theoretical circumstances I can think of wherein I can be in the middle of an on-ramp, in the rain or whatever, and before coming out of it, roll onto the THROTTLE and if the smoothing wasn't effective or smooth enough in these compensations and balancing, that the surge of power might upset the car and I could spin out. I don't drive it in the rain, but this is the kind of behavior I wanted to try to preserve from the OEM calibration, and I'm not suggesting I have the ability to, but that was my goal. SO - by trickling-in the PI fueling from the REFLEX, I found that the E92 could be in CL, and try to compensate by pulling fuel - the E92 and REFLEX would be fighting each other in this overlapping area. Another scenario is the car could be in OPEN LOOP (OL) and if [17071] was not manipulated correctly, the E92 might over-fuel, or under-fuel, and that could result in the REFLEX getting weird WIDEBAND (WB) information to correct from. This could cause the REFLEX to bring fuel in-and-out-and-in-and-out, causing that surging if it was bad enough. So - I wanted to get [17071] dialed in as good as possible and keep corrections as tight as I could - it's not perfect, but my goal was within 10% RICH, for safety (I'm a fair amount closer in correction than that, but that's what it was in the beginning). I, also, knew that I was working with good MAF CURVES, from both the E92 and REFLEX. It was difficult to do because I run a pretty low POWER ENRICHMENT (PE) after around 2500 RPMs, but I validated well to 6000Hz on the MAF, so I knew I could rely on that to try to balance [17071]. PE would have a little role in this, too, so I had to find a good balance there. How would I get the EQ I was looking for and stay within the bounds of the DI and was that even possible? Lastly (for the most part - I might update this again later if I can remember what I thought I wanted to post), I had to rescale the LOAD AXIS, because (at least with this blower) I found I could put the car into a configuration the car wasn't really happy and I just didn't like, and was hoping I could get it closer to where I thought I'd be comfortable, even if I never put it into that configuration. That is a high load, low RPM situation, where I'd be locked into 10th-gear and mash the throttle at 1400 RPMs and not allow the car to downshift. I needed to address all of these to some magnitude.

In beginning with the OEM table, most of it was okay. Understanding that because I modified [33355], as soon as I changed the MULTIPLIER value greater than OEM, I'd be, effectively, pulling fuel (as the term implies - duh). So - any value after around 18MPa (in my case), I knew the DI would be producing LESS fuel and the REFLEX needed to be compensating. BUT - because [17071] seems to represent a compensation of AIRMASS/RPM with the MAF CURVE, the correlation was if I found a consistent RAIL PRESSURE value matched well to a certain MAF FREQUENCY value, the cell in [17071] needed to (at least) be CLOSE and consistent for all cells in [17071] I.E. If (by using a GRAPH in the SCANNER I made) a cell in [17071] at 0.101/1400RPMs saw 6000Hz relatively consistently, and I saw COMMANDED PRESSURES of 16MPa at 0.030/5000RPMs at 6000 Hz, I should make the cell (0.101/1400) about 16Pa, too, and log what that change does for me. I started trying to see what cells produced what FREQUENCIES that matched my good MAF CURVE as I was populating in [17071], and after a while, I could see that even though the OEM value of a particular cell might be 19MPa, that with this compensation method, because of modifying [33355], I needed to LOWER the requested RAIL PRESSURE for that cell, and I would see a closer to ZERO in CL correction, and when in OL, I wouldn't see a huge RICH spike. Even though many HIGHLY intelligent people have answered questions and volunteered comments throughout this thread and others, it's just confirmation they know what they're talking about, which can't be proven oftentimes. I was worried RAIL PRESSURE was, still, going to tank in these spots, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Others have stated as pressure increases, it has the propensity to fall really hard after it reaches that threshold, and it looks like I'm not there yet. I thought with commanding higher pressure (where I was pulling fuel through [33355]) that it wouldn't be so bad, but this proves that theory wrong. FINE BY ME! So - using the SCANNER to create a graph where I could see MAF FREQUENCY populate cells I was working on and adjusting the pressures in those cells to match known good pressure value cells in other parts of [17071] was definitely helpful in getting me (at LEAST) close to where I needed to be, especially as I was transitioning the REFLEX fueling in. When I wasn't diligent, I COULD see the E92 fighting with the REFLEX by compensating to a lower EQ than I was looking for. Even though it was, pretty much, in areas I don't think this was a problem, I was challenging myself to make it how I thought OEM would try to make it. If anything - I'm close enough that I'm not really concerned.

Over-fueling could/would happen in OL just like in CL, especially in these overlapping areas of [17071]. It was, mostly, easy enough in in the higher LOAD/RPM regions of the map, but transients and these lower-RPM-higher-LOAD parts were tricky. It took some time to figure out if and where I could add some PE fueling from the E92, keep it as close to right as I could understand it, and then hone the REFLEX in. I'm running the REFLEX in CL, and intend to keep it that way, but I'm not intending on using it as a crutch for crap fueling on my end. It is QUITE helpful in see what needs to be done, especially when the E92 is in OL, but helps when BOTH are in CL and if they're fighting each other. This, really, only happens in these transient areas, and I've been close enough that they don't make the car mad or get out of shape o anything, but - I'm going for as close to OEM feel as possible. The biggest problem, especially when in the beginning, was understanding what I was seeing in the data, and why it was doing that. Most of these problem areas were in the transient zones, and in the beginning, I would get SERIOUS bucking/surging. It was almost funny, because it would surge, my foot would come off the pedal, then the car would let up and my foot would go back on the pedal, then surge again, and repeat and repeat, lol. As I said, after getting things closer and closer, I could see where I could cheat a little by getting the E92 PE to cover earlier/lower spots and pull it back out and have the REFLEX trickling in during that time to make the transition smoother and not that noticeable, if I may say so.

It looks like we can run a little LEANER than when we're at WOT for lower RPMs, so I found I needed to have the E92 cover some of the lower RPM cells at high LOADs. This was because the MAF was registering a lower FREQUENCY than I was having the REFLEX add fuel, and a lot of people said to keep the REFLEX FUEL lower than around 6000Hz. I'm down to about 5400Hz, which is what I'm finding gets me to where I think I need to be, but this low RPM/high LOAD configuration could be as low as the mid-4000Hz range. So, understanding I could run a LEANER PE at low RPMs, I bumped the E92 PEDAL PE table to add more than the minimum I'm running at WOT (I think it's about 15% or so) from around 1000 RPMs to about 2000 RPMs and trickly down to about 5% by 2500 (and it stays at 5% for the rest). What this showed was I could reach around .85 LAMBDA, keep good IPW/RAIL PRESSURE, and trickle it out by 2500 RPMs so the DI FUELING says within reasonable limits after that, and for any part of the rest of the MAF CURVE.

Changing the AIRMASS AXIS of [17071] was necessary because I was getting into areas that my compensations in [33355] could cause LEAN or RICH conditions, and the REFLEX might not yet be in the fight to help. The OEM table was commanding 20MPa (so I was pulling the maximum amount of fuel from the E92 anywhere in cells that were populated with values from about 19-20MPa) in most of these areas. But, the frequency the E92 MAF was reaching was low enough the REFLEX wasn't adding fuel yet (if you don't populate the MAF FREQUENCY cells with anything higher than "0", it will NOT try to hit whatever EQ you're commanding), so the car would go LEAN. If the E92 was in CL, would show it was compensating by ADDING A LOT of fuel, which was not what I wanted to leave it to do. The OEM [17071] cap'd out pretty early, and allowed the RAIL PRESSURE to go really high. That would be fine, but because I manipulated the MULTIPLIER 3 [33355]. BUT - the E92 would be pulling fuel here (causing a LEAN condition if I left this uncorrected) so it would just go LEAN. Seeing I was in the lowest part of the MAF CURVES that the REFLEX was trickling fuel in already, which was keeping me safe, I figured I needed to LOWER [17071] in these cells so I would stay in reasonable correction percentages, and keep IPW/RAIL PRESSURE from going crazy. And, because I was LOWERING RAIL PRESSURE in this area (again - pulling the E92 from trimming fuel from around 19-20MPa), IPW/RAIL PRESSURE was staying under control, AND I was getting closer to COMMANDED EQ and CORRECTED CL values. So - I changed the AIRMASS AXIS a little higher than the maximum values I'd see I would reach in the SCANNER, and max'd the highest AIRMASS row to the highest PRESSURE, and started to force the car into other AIRMASS/RPM cells to evaluate if they needed to be changed, too. As I did this, keeping the RAIL PRESSURES LOWER kept the IPW/RAIL PRESSURES happy and it just so happened to keep E92 CL CORRECTIONS happy and closer to "0", too. I'm not sure exactly why it changed this much, as I haven't really change the AIRFLOW MODEL too much from adding this blower, and maybe these areas weren't really calibrated by GM because only an idiot would knowingly force the car into this configuration, but it is what it is, as far as I can tell.

So - in conclusion (I think): the training video I watched for this method was not as well documented as it would seem to be. I mean, this training was part of broader training, that included the whole DI fueling architecture of this platform, so it is fair to say that was implied, but I believe the video, LITERALLY, said changing [33355] was the ONLY thing you had to do. Maybe it is! All I know, is I don't see it that simple in my data, and after manipulating what I have, I feel like I'm seeing what I should be. As I stated a long time ago - I'm no tuner, an certainly no calibrator of anything. No one should do what I'm doing, especially if you're not going to research for yourself. BUT - I feel better leaving this thread, with this information, up here. With the exception of my THROTTLE stuff from a little earlier (which is starting to make more sense of why it's happening after reading VERY helpful comments from VERY generous people), I'm feeling like the car is behaving quite well. Even though she doesn't want to, I wanted to make the car safe and comfortable enough for my wife to drive at any time under and condition. There's still some polishing I'm going to do, but the hard work is done. There aren't many spots my fueling seems to be out of line that I can't explain, or are such that you couldn't feel them in the drive and wouldn't know they were there without seeing data - and more importantly: not such that I can tell the car is unhappy. Corrections from the E92 are all better than 10% in about any configuration I've put the car into, and as [17071] tightens to as good as I can get it, I can manipulate the REFLEX to get it's corrections to where I'm comfortable. This is, unless something changes (and I WILL be watching), probably the last big update. I intend on capturing more screenshots to show the exact improvements at the exact areas to show and validate what I'm claiming. No one should listen to me anyways, but I only want to put out good information that I can defend. I've see other tunes, using the traditional "methanol fueling" method, and even see these transient-type corrections there (and they aren't big or crazy - they're there, too) in SCANNER data, and feel good that I see data I'm producing that seems to be, at least CLOSE (maybe even slightly better), so I think that might offer a little more validation for what I'm posting, too.

This has been a hard read, and I commend anyone that tried. I'm happy to try to comment if there are any questions or anything. I see that MOTIV has been posting information about an up-coming REFLEX PRO. As much as I've seen Mike at THPSI update software for us, I can't imagine he's not concocting something that could be even better than what the PRO is doing for us. Honestly - this car is scary to drive. I haven't been WOT at any time for a couple years now, lol - that includes when I was on DRs. I'm not going to try to suggest what kind of power I'm making, because I can't confirm it except anecdotally, but it's more than I need and maybe than I'm looking for. All that to emphasize all of this stuff from TOOHIGHPSI is AWESOME. I couldn't be more happy with it. Even with more recent additions in the market, while they might be less involved for the end-user to get up and going strong, I feel good that I had as much control as I want. Even if I have to work a little harder, any competent tuner could get me there if I reached out for their service. I'd do it all over again.

CHEERS!!!