Yes, the C5 has pretty much the same thing. There are four states available when I click the button on the console that controls traction control and active handling.
- Both traction control and active handling ON
- Traction control ON, active handling OFF
- Traction control OFF, active handling ON
- Both traction control and active handling OFF
I can't remember which button press sequence does what right at the moment. Honestly, I haven't used that feature since before I took my car into Chris Harwood's shop. But the one I used most often was option 3. I don't mind the rear tires spinning, but not so keen on going sideways at the same time. I think this car would be easy to get away from me without some sort of nanny guards in place.
Anyway, I took the car out for another run today and did some more data logging. Results are inconclusive, I think. Some cells in my map display are showing leaner than before, but others are showing richer. So I'm not exactly sure those supposed fuel modifiers were really doing anything to the AFR.
I need to bone up on that volumetric efficiency table anyway, as it really doesn't seem intuitive to me at all just trying to figure it out on my own. It's supposed to be a representation of the relative efficiency of the engine's ability to fill the cylinders with air. It is used to predict the volume of air entering each cylinder under varying conditions. That's pretty much a direct quote from EFILive. But how it actually WORKS isn't very clear to me.
Some of the problem is that there are three ways of looking at the air fuel ratio in EFILive.
- AFR (air/fuel ratio, ei: 14.7:1 means 14.7 parts of air to 1 part of fuel)
- lambda (1.00 is stoichiometric. 0.98 would be richer, 1.02 would be leaner)
- EQ ratio (1.00 is stoichiometric. 0.98 would be leaner, 1.02 would be richer)
From what I understand, the GM PCM uses EQ ratio natively for it's internal calculations.
I think you can see where confusing lambda with EQ ratio will have the opposite effect you are striving for. So the problem I have is figuring out whether the map function I am viewing is using a lambda or EQ ratio equivalency when applied to the VE table. Since the VE table is NOT in any sort of AFR units, just some sort of relative value concerning "efficiency", I'm just not sure if making the values smaller in the VE table makes the FINAL AFR leaner or richer. What does it mean if the cylinder is made to appear LESS efficient by lowering the number? It's little details like this that are not self evident but can have a BIG difference in reaching your goals with this tuning stuff.
AFR seems so much more intuitive to me, but to really get into this tuning stuff, you have to abandon that way of looking at the air/fuel mixture. And of course, there is no real consensus on whether working with lambda is better or worse than working with EQ ratio, so some tutorials and help pages will use one, and others use the other. Then you combine this with some tutorials using metric values, and others use SAE, and you REALLY have to keep your eyes on the ball to make sure you are putting apples in the apple bin, and oranges in the orange bin.
