Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
121 - 140 of 145 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
I thought you could purchase another vin license to use on the autocal?
Tuners manage the number of available VIN slots they wish their AutoCal devices to hold using their FlashScan device. AutoCal ships with a default maximum VIN slot count set to 1.

AutoCal is configurable to a capacity of 221 VIN licenses. Each VIN License is capable of tuning one supported engine controller. Supported transmission control modules do not require a VIN License.

To ensure VIN Licenses are delivered to you within 10 minutes of processing, your AutoCal Serial number and Auth Code will be validated before you can place your order.
Yes you can. Do you have EFI live and a flash scan device as well? Or are you trying to take a tune file saved on the autocal and import it onto another vehicle (VIN) ?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Yes you can. Do you have EFI live and a flash scan device as well? Or are you trying to take a tune file saved on the autocal and import it onto another vehicle (VIN) ?
I just found out I have a friend that has efi live and a flashscan v2 that he uses for trucks.

Also does anyone know who I can contact to get a downpipe? If so u can message me that info
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,447 Posts
Discussion Starter · #125 ·
Would there be any issue applying the tune before it's deleted? I found someone to make a downpipe but I would would like to apply the tune before I drop the car off. Also with the EGR valve and this tune do you leave it connected or does it NOT matter?
You’d need to tune it to do that. I nor anyone else can really help you there.

But yeah all of that should be possible.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
This is awesome stuff.

Snipesy, out of curiosity, what exactly were the mods you had on your CTD with the two example files you attached from your github page, and what sort of results were you seeing at the time (issues, power, etc)? Just trying to figure out where exactly those two files are in the story. I'm assuming completely stock for the 90_emissions.ctz file since all the tables look much more "tame" comparatively speaking.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,447 Posts
Discussion Starter · #133 · (Edited)
This is awesome stuff.

Snipesy, out of curiosity, what exactly were the mods you had on your CTD with the two example files you attached from your github page, and what sort of results were you seeing at the time (issues, power, etc)? Just trying to figure out where exactly those two files are in the story. I'm assuming completely stock for the 90_emissions.ctz file since all the tables look much more "tame" comparatively speaking.
We did dyno runs stock over peak 220hp. In theory we could have hit higher, but we got stone walled by the transmission. And yeah it got bad.

The stock baseline is in the 150hp to 160hp peak range.... And what I mean by that is that is what the stock tables are configured to hit. That's not what a stock vehicle does. So 200hp stock should not be surprsiing at all.

Exceeding that 160hp (or even just adding more area under the curve) led to transmission issues. Even a small amount was enough to cause issues. There is some sort of internal torque model in the TCM which throws a fit when it doesn't match the ECM.

There is only 1 option and it's a manual swap. But I was never able to figure out how to make the stock ECM give the correct TCM messages sooooooooooo I started working on my own TCM but then I stopped. And then I sold it. It was just taking too long.

The c90 tunes were a last heil marry to break past the TCM. The theory was if we modified the tables, we could maybe get more torque while keeping an accuruate torque model, and to an extent it works but it wasn't good enough. There were too many torque limitations I couldn't disable. The goal was simple though: A stable 190hp peak. Now those example tunes are tuned back from that, but much of those mods are still there.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Exceeding that 160hp (or even just adding more area under the curve) led to transmission issues. Even a small amount was enough to cause issues. There is some sort of internal torque model in the TCM which throws a fit when it doesn't match the ECM.
I can't help but wonder if the load calc table could be found and you could spoof the tcm by altering that table and doing the reverse on your airflow calcs. So the calculated load is lower yet allowed by the MAF/MAP/VE readings etc. So instead of telling the tcm to allow it, it just doesn't get accurate info. That's kinda how you go about DCT tuning on Evos, but I'm unsure if the proper tables are even there to try something similar. I'll have to dig around I suppose.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,447 Posts
Discussion Starter · #135 ·
I can't help but wonder if the load calc table could be found and you could spoof the tcm by altering that table and doing the reverse on your airflow calcs. So the calculated load is lower yet allowed by the MAF/MAP/VE readings etc. So instead of telling the tcm to allow it, it just doesn't get accurate info. That's kinda how you go about DCT tuning on Evos, but I'm unsure if the proper tables are even there to try something similar. I'll have to dig around I suppose.
One possibility is lying as much as possible.

We touch the MAF signals such that less air flow is present. We then exclusively use injection pulses width to increase fuel.

Then torque to fuel remains stock. And thus the torque calculation looks okay. In addition since we fudged the MAF data the increases torque from our increased fuel will be entirely hidden.

The only problem is having an artificially low MAF may throw some other things off…. But overall the ECM doesn’t give a **** about it. It may just give a code which can be tuned out.

That’s the only approach that could work. And sadly I never tried it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
One possibility is lying as much as possible.

We touch the MAF signals such that less air flow is present. We then exclusively use injection pulses width to increase fuel.

Then torque to fuel remains stock. And thus the torque calculation looks okay. In addition since we fudged the MAF data the increases torque from our increased fuel will be entirely hidden.

The only problem is having an artificially low MAF may throw some other things off…. But overall the ECM doesn’t give a **** about it. It may just give a code which can be tuned out.

That’s the only approach that could work. And sadly I never tried it.
A European Saab tuner in the Netherlands I was speaking with on email about the AF40 and A20DTH basically said that’s how you tune the transmission by manipulating the torque input from the ECU.

He didn’t give a lot of details but he did say that he used an 80% throttle input to give full power and it made the kickdown similar stock and allowed full torque acceleration in higher gears.


I can't help but wonder if the load calc table could be found and you could spoof the tcm by altering that table and doing the reverse on your airflow calcs. So the calculated load is lower yet allowed by the MAF/MAP/VE readings etc. So instead of telling the tcm to allow it, it just doesn't get accurate info. That's kinda how you go about DCT tuning on Evos, but I'm unsure if the proper tables are even there to try something similar. I'll have to dig around I suppose.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,447 Posts
Discussion Starter · #137 · (Edited)
A European Saab tuner in the Netherlands I was speaking with on email about the AF40 and A20DTH basically said that’s how you tune the transmission by manipulating the torque input from the ECU.

He didn’t give a lot of details but he did say that he used an 80% throttle input to give full power and it made the kickdown similar stock and allowed full torque acceleration in higher gears.
I should rephrase it a little.
It's not good enough to just lie about torque. That is precisely what leads to the problem.
The TCM seems to calculate torque using MAF, fuel rate, temps, etc.... All of this is transmitted alongside the ECM’s torque signals (plural) between 20 to 40 times a second. The ECM's torque signal seem's to be used for something else in the TCM.

The key to making the TCM not hard shift (or not shift at all....) is making all of that look stock. It's easier said than done, and there is no PID that really monitors this very well. Nowadays I have Gretio which 100% can monitor these things but back then I did not.

But from what is in the cax files today. All of this is possible... It would take a long time and lots of tweaking. But its possible
 

· Registered
2014 Chevy Cruze Diesel
Joined
·
4 Posts
Good Morning,
I am new to the forum and this is my first time posting.
My relevant vehicle is a 2014 Cruze Diesel (purchased new) and stumbled across this thread.
The car has been riddled with emissions issues since new and is paid off with only 76K miles.
I am looking to go with EGR delete, downpipe and straight pipe.

I have sourced places for the downpipe / EGR plates for $800 and the downpipe back exhaust for $450 if anyone is interested. (was not sure if I should post here or just DM on request)
I have also found a tuning company from Canada willing to do the delete portion of the tune via EFI live/Autocal, but would only be an "optimized stock" tune. I would prefer to get some performance gains from this as well considering the expense involved.

My Questions:
Do these files that Snipesy has developed allow for these deletes?
If not, is it possible to unlock a purchased tune and apply some of the mapping from this discussion?
Tuning is my main hurdle at this point, but I am not opposed to trying to do some or all of this myself.
Any feedback from all of your experiences would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Ben
 

· Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I purchased a used Flashscan V2 and successfully did it myself with the information I found on this forum. The car was in the mid teens to 20s for reported MPG with its clogged canister and now consistently stays in the 30s and 40s in town and hits the mid 50s in ideal highway conditions. We got it with 240K miles and have over 270K already. Our best average MPG over 25 miles, to the limit of how much I trust the ECM, is 57 MPG. The power is much better than I expected and it easily spins the front tires if you stomp on it. I swapped my canister only and did not disturb my EGR or the rest of the exhaust.

As an added benefit the lower of the two old mounting bosses on the front of the oil pan was no longer used to support the canister. It became my oil drain. It was impossible to remove the old oil drain bolt and carefully drilling a hole without damaging the threads on the opposite side worked great. Besides freeing up that bolt, the smaller size of the delete pipe opens up the front of the engine and makes it much easier to work on. I considered removing the canister guts and reselling the straight pipe but the smaller tube size is a big advantage in itself.
 
121 - 140 of 145 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top