Another 6.2 for 5.3 swap going on.

[PatDTN]

Too late. I was forgetting that when I hit start my Tahoe will take over and crank it until it starts. Which it did almost immediately. In a panic I glanced at the oil pressure and I had 60 psi. The most the 5.3 had been managing was 40 on the highway turning some revs.

I had a pretty bad exhaust leak where the right manifold connects to the exhaust. I only had 5 of the nuts for those studs and what I thought was going onto the odd one was the wrong thread and had stopped while I tightened the other two. I found a correct nut and backed things loose and drew it up evenly for a snug fit.

At this point I'm trying to figure out why it started and ran for a few minutes then cut off. My guess is it's to do with the partial programming I got done and some signal the computer isn't seeing. Of course I got backed out of my nice warm garage into the cold rain when it quit.

That run showed me the exhaust leak and knew I had some crawling to do. It took 45 minutes but I managed to get it pushed back in up a slight grade by myself. Then I fixed the exhaust.

While I was doing that I kept getting dripped on from a coolant leak somewhere around the back of the right head. Gotta figure out where it's from.

 

[Tonyrodz]

Too late. I was forgetting that when I hit start my Tahoe will take over and crank it until it starts. Which it did almost immediately. In a panic I glanced at the oil pressure and I had 60 psi. The most the 5.3 had been managing was 40 on the highway turning some revs.

I had a pretty bad exhaust leak where the right manifold connects to the exhaust. I only had 5 of the nuts for those studs and what I thought was going onto the odd one was the wrong thread and had stopped while I tightened the other two. I found a correct nut and backed things loose and drew it up evenly for a snug fit.

At this point I'm trying to figure out why it started and ran for a few minutes then cut off. My guess is it's to do with the partial programming I got done and some signal the computer isn't seeing. Of course I got backed out of my nice warm garage into the cold rain when it quit.

That run showed me the exhaust leak and knew I had some crawling to do. It took 45 minutes but I managed to get it pushed back in up a slight grade by myself. Then I fixed the exhaust.

While I was doing that I kept getting dripped on from a coolant leak somewhere around the back of the right head. Gotta figure out where it's from.

At least you got it running, so that's something. Good job.

 

[iamdub]

Too late. I was forgetting that when I hit start my Tahoe will take over and crank it until it starts. Which it did almost immediately. In a panic I glanced at the oil pressure and I had 60 psi. The most the 5.3 had been managing was 40 on the highway turning some revs.

I had a pretty bad exhaust leak where the right manifold connects to the exhaust. I only had 5 of the nuts for those studs and what I thought was going onto the odd one was the wrong thread and had stopped while I tightened the other two. I found a correct nut and backed things loose and drew it up evenly for a snug fit.

At this point I'm trying to figure out why it started and ran for a few minutes then cut off. My guess is it's to do with the partial programming I got done and some signal the computer isn't seeing. Of course I got backed out of my nice warm garage into the cold rain when it quit.

That run showed me the exhaust leak and knew I had some crawling to do. It took 45 minutes but I managed to get it pushed back in up a slight grade by myself. Then I fixed the exhaust.

While I was doing that I kept getting dripped on from a coolant leak somewhere around the back of the right head. Gotta figure out where it's from.

Eh, I'm sure it's fine. Aside from the exhaust leak, how'd it sound upon firing up?

 

[PatDTN]

Sounds strong but...

I looked at the codes and it says crankshaft sensor variation not learned.

With the exhaust fixed it's nice and quiet. I got it to start again after fixing the exhaust and thought maybe the right side o2 sensors caused a problem causing the computer to shut it down. I decided to pull it out again. Shut down and the battery's dying so I dragged an extension cord and charger out to refresh it.

 

[kbuskill]

Sounds strong but...

I looked at the codes and it says crankshaft sensor variation not learned.

With the exhaust fixed it's nice and quiet. I got it to start again after fixing the exhaust and thought maybe the right side o2 sensors caused a problem causing the computer to shut it down. I decided to pull it out again. Shut down and the battery's dying so I dragged an extension cord and charger out to refresh it.

A crankshaft position relearn is very common when you reflash an ECM. The Tech 2 will tell you that when you reflash the software on the ECM.

Do you have a Tech 2?

If so it's pretty easy. You just go into the menu to relearn the Crank position and then rev the engine up to like 4k rpm or something like that.

 

[PatDTN]

Yeah, no tech2. I'll get AAA to tow it to the shop that did the preliminary tune.

I'm more concerned about the coolant drip. I wonder if I heated the plug at the back of the head when I was removing the broken exhaust manifold bolt. I know there's a warning about voiding the warranty if that plug is melted. I didn't examine it closely either before or after removing the bolt.

 

[Geotrash]

Yeah, no tech2. I'll get AAA to tow it to the shop that did the preliminary tune.

I'm more concerned about the coolant drip. I wonder if I heated the plug at the back of the head when I was removing the broken exhaust manifold bolt. I know there's a warning about voiding the warranty if that plug is melted. I didn't examine it closely either before or after removing the bolt.

You mean this one?

 

[iamdub]

I'm more concerned about the coolant drip. I wonder if I heated the plug at the back of the head when I was removing the broken exhaust manifold bolt. I know there's a warning about voiding the warranty if that plug is melted. I didn't examine it closely either before or after removing the bolt.

The parts yard probably glued a heat tab to the freeze plug. The center of the tab is designed to melt at a certain temperature. If that center of the disc (looks like the back end of a bullet) is missing and/or molten, they'll know the engine was overheated and won't warranty it. The tab itself isn't sealing the coolant jacket, though.

I doubt you got that area so hot that the head warped enough to spring a leak at the freeze plug. I'd double-check the coolant block-off. Did you use new O-rings on them?

 

[kbuskill]

Are you sure it is leaking from the engine and not the plastic T-connectors on the passenger side of the firewall?

 

[PatDTN]

Are you sure it is leaking from the engine and not the plastic T-connectors on the passenger side of the firewall?

T-connectors? I had the stud on the end of the coil pack hook up a couple of places pulling the engine. You might be onto the issue. It's dripping down across the end of the exhaust manifold so it's kinda far back for the engine. More inspection to come.

Thanks all y'all for great ideas. Seriously I doubt I could have pulled this off without the forum.

 

[PatDTN]

Today's update. I had AAA take my Tahoe to Lethal Performance in Morristown, TN who did the preliminary tune with just the computer. Checked with them later and they've had it running and idling and I think they even drove it into their secured parking.

Hopefully tomorrow they'll call me to come get it. They're going to tune it for the 93 octane. Later when I can I will see if I can run E85 and get it retuned for that. I'm hoping (someone let me know) that both programs can reside in the computer and it'll switch between them based on E85 detected like stock does. Also, being cheap it wouldn't be a bad thing if I could run regular which is $0.40 cheaper a gallon.

 

[iamdub]

Today's update. I had AAA take my Tahoe to Lethal Performance in Morristown, TN who did the preliminary tune with just the computer. Checked with them later and they've had it running and idling and I think they even drove it into their secured parking.

Hopefully tomorrow they'll call me to come get it. They're going to tune it for the 93 octane. Later when I can I will see if I can run E85 and get it retuned for that. I'm hoping (someone let me know) that both programs can reside in the computer and it'll switch between them based on E85 detected like stock does. Also, being cheap it wouldn't be a bad thing if I could run regular which is $0.40 cheaper a gallon.

On the FlexFuel vehicles, I'm not sure they tune specifically for E85. My understanding is that they tune for 93 and the PCM will adjust from there based on the alcohol level it detects ("virtually", but that's a whole other mess of a subject). E85 is rarely, if ever, 85% ethanol. It's actual percentage varies considerably from something like 30s to 70s. Also, what you get on one tank of E85 may not be the same content at the next fill-up, even if from the same store and pump.

Mine was tuned on 93. I have run E85 since then but couldn't tell a difference in power. The drop in fuel economy was quite apparent, though. Also, the PCM showed the alcohol content to be something like 22%. A tester I bought showed it to be much higher, 60-something percent, IIRC.

Unless you can reliably get the same alcohol content every time and any where you fill up, I think you should tune for 93 and let the PCM adjust accordingly for what it sees you running in the tank.

 

[PatDTN]

Thanks Chris.

 

[randeez]

gm flex fuel tuning is actually great and quite reliable - the worst part about it is the "virtual" sensor

theres a lot more involved than this but in laymans terms:

gm sets a high octane and a low octane table, this isnt according to what octane you put in the tank - this is if the engine senses knock it drops into the lower octane table for a set amount of time without knock then back to the high table.

the engine doesnt really care what fuel is in it so long as the appropriate afr is accomplished. it is set up around gasoline, gm does some fancy math to determine how much "e85" is equivalent to gas needed for the truck and is just a sliding scale from 0% to 100%.

in addition to that there are modifier tables for spark, if the ethanol content is higher the more(or less in some instances) spark advance it allows. there are modifier tables for engine temps, power enrichment modifiers with more ethanol.

gm (obviously) tunes these tables very conservatively, mostly centered around the average user who just throws e85 in it cause its cheaper. so there is room for improvement

the virtual sensor is set up to calculate the ethanol content after filling up for a few minute window by monitoring fuel trims. i would notice after filling up with e85 if you beat it the ethanol content would always be higher than if you babied it. the ecm can accept a physical ethanol content sensor, required the sensor to be installed inline, powered, and a pin put into the ecm harness , but its a whole lot more accurate than the virtual sensor

 

[PatDTN]

the ecm can accept a physical ethanol content sensor, required the sensor to be installed inline, powered, and a pin put into the ecm harness , but its a whole lot more accurate than the virtual sensor

That's pretty cool to know. That'll make a nice little reward for folks looking at this thread. Way beyond my pay scale though.

 

[iamdub]

gm flex fuel tuning is actually great and quite reliable - the worst part about it is the "virtual" sensor

theres a lot more involved than this but in laymans terms:

gm sets a high octane and a low octane table, this isnt according to what octane you put in the tank - this is if the engine senses knock it drops into the lower octane table for a set amount of time without knock then back to the high table.

the engine doesnt really care what fuel is in it so long as the appropriate afr is accomplished. it is set up around gasoline, gm does some fancy math to determine how much "e85" is equivalent to gas needed for the truck and is just a sliding scale from 0% to 100%.

in addition to that there are modifier tables for spark, if the ethanol content is higher the more(or less in some instances) spark advance it allows. there are modifier tables for engine temps, power enrichment modifiers with more ethanol.

gm (obviously) tunes these tables very conservatively, mostly centered around the average user who just throws e85 in it cause its cheaper. so there is room for improvement

the virtual sensor is set up to calculate the ethanol content after filling up for a few minute window by monitoring fuel trims. i would notice after filling up with e85 if you beat it the ethanol content would always be higher than if you babied it. the ecm can accept a physical ethanol content sensor, required the sensor to be installed inline, powered, and a pin put into the ecm harness , but its a whole lot more accurate than the virtual sensor

Can you tune the E85 tables exclusively?

How is this done- tune it on the strongest alcohol content you can find at the pump?

When I filled up on "E85", I was under the impression that I should drive normally/civilly for the first seven miles for it to calculate accurately and adjust accordingly. Maybe I should've beat on it. When I saw a PCM-calculated 22% alcohol content with a measured 60-something percent actual content, I decided it wasn't worth it to run E85 for power gains cuz the PCM would only advance the spark tables for that 22%.

 

[ls1frc]

Id swap to a real sensor if doing e85, its not hard to do. It was a 15hp gain on my cammed G8. Of course the only statiom that offered it around me closed down

 

[randeez]

Can you tune the E85 tables exclusively?

How is this done- tune it on the strongest alcohol content you can find at the pump?

When I filled up on "E85", I was under the impression that I should drive normally/civilly for the first seven miles for it to calculate accurately and adjust accordingly. Maybe I should've beat on it. When I saw a PCM-calculated 22% alcohol content with a measured 60-something percent actual content, I decided it wasn't worth it to run E85 for power gains cuz the PCM would only advance the spark tables for that 22%.

you put in max timing adder you want to add for "full" e85. whatever percentage it reads it gives you a percentage of the adder timing.

this isnt real numbers: 10* of timing on e85, if you have e50 it adds 5* to whatever your base timing table shows

 

[randeez]

Here's a few of them

 

[iamdub]

you put in max timing adder you want to add for "full" e85. whatever percentage it reads it gives you a percentage of the adder timing.

this isnt real numbers: 10* of timing on e85, if you have e50 it adds 5* to whatever your base timing table shows

Here's a few of them
View attachment 263956 View attachment 263957 View attachment 263958 View attachment 263959 View attachment 263960

Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the education! Now I'm gonna research adding a physical sensor...