TRAXION

What do you guys think about creating a better base image than the AUJP to start with? There are several things in the AUJP that can be changed to yield, IMHO, a better base image to start with from a performance perspective.

Some suggestions are...
1) Fix max Idle in Park to raise it from 800 to something around 1200 so that we automatically have the ability for higher idles. Guys with runner a bigger cam can't idle more than 800 in park without changing the actual backend code.
2) Fix the dependency of highway mode on CCP. This is annoying because if you disable CCP then you have ALSO disabled Highway Mode without even knowing that you disabled highway mode.
3) Change the IAC learn temperature to something more reasonable.
4) Increase the knock recovery rates for faster return from knock.
5) Fix for PE AFR being dependent on open loop vs. closed loop. If you go down the track in Open Loop vs. Closed Loop then the Base Pulse Width will be different. The ECM uses Open Loop AFR when in Open Loop and Stoich when in Closed Loop. This can be a reasonable difference and definitely cause inconsistent times.
6) Disable BLM corrections at WOT.

These are just a few. There's a ton that we could change. Just looking for input to see what you guys think .... and to also make this a group effort as opposed to just one person posting a bin.

Tim

1bad91Z

iTrader: (1)

I think it's a good idea!

Could also:

Change fan settings to come on at a lower temp

Offer a manual tranny and auto tranny version

Just a thought!

TRAXION

I've thought about that but it doesn't really make sense given the fact that people can use a 160, 170, 180, or 195 thermostat. The fan settings really need to be tailored to the thermostat you decide to use.

Tim

Doctor J

Since you are looking for ideas, I've always wanted to expand the VE tables to a larger matrix, like 16 X 16 or whatever is practical. I think RBob made a note about that; or the process was described here by Ken C (toward the bottom of the thread):
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/zerothread?id=547494

I've just never gotten around to trying to write & compile the code. There is also a MAP filter coefficient (for plenum volume) I need to find and get into the TDF one of these days.

Lest I forget, Matt S located the idle over/under-run RPM table here - which I've used to stabilize the idle with larger cams:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/zerothread?id=556467

gregger2k

Sounds like a great idea to me!! Count me in!

Wide band logging interface code would be nice to add.
How about a switch input to raise the idle speed on command?

Greg

gta324

Sounds like a good idea! Count me in too...........

/N.

Black 91 Z28

Sounds like a great idea!

I doubt I can help much though I'll do what I can.

Scott_92RS

MAP Filter Coeff is located at L86DC, stock value is 240, which equates to 0.9275. Found this on page 54 of the ANHT hack. What does that value do?

Swapmaster

Yea, how about extending the VE and Main Spark tables out to 6500 or 7000 rpm so we can tune to real world rpm's. We could then have Tunercat and the others make definition files for it and be good to go.

You could also use extended tables to program a custom rev limiter. Just pull spark and fuel from above a pre-determined RPM and the engine falls flat on it's face.

JPrevost

I think some of you are getting the idea that adding code is "easy." It would be if you source coded and compiled, then checked that it worked with a test bench.... any takers?
I believe Trax just wants to make all of the universal "good" changes and have it as the starting bin for a new tune. I like the idea but I think it comes with experience AND tuners preference. You can do many things differently like disable PE and just use the main table. There are lots of things that can be considered good, I think he already has a good start. If you're going to go through all the trouble of making a starting bin somebody might as well make a program that is a wizard and spits out a starting bin. This way it's dummy proof AND useful to advanced users. I'm working on something right now but like much of the stuff I do I just keep it to myself. Never seems like there is much interest.
One idea is to have the program input the thermostat temp (for fan temps), engine size w/ injector size and fuel pressure (for inj constant), cam profile (derive VE table), exhaust and intake (derive with cam input for a base spark map).
It really isn't too much work, just how much of a demand is there?

TRAXION

You are absolutely correct. I was just thinking that there are always a bunch of parameters that I always automatically change .... as you have indicated, learned through time. Thus, IMHO, there can be a starting BIN based off of the AUJP that is just a better place to start. A good discussion of this topic by experienced tuners could lead to a really nice starting BIN. I do agree that what you suggested regarding a program that builds a bin is a better choice. But, that takes time .... and would be less collaborative since not everybody knows how to code (and I definitely don't have the time to do a project like this alone).

I think the overall problem with what I suggested is that we NEED experienced tuners in order to do this. No offense to the newer guys ... it's just a matter of fact answer/need. I have lots of ideas based off of my experience with the AUJP but I'm not making a TRAXION BIN. I want an overall BIN that is agreed to by most of the experienced AUJP guys who have used this BIN in performance applications. It's obvious that we can't custom tailor a BIN that is a magic bullet ... I'm just talking about a better starting point.

Tim

gta324

I agree....

So if all "exp. tuners" write down what they think is a good general change in the *.bin, then someone could collect all data and make a list of the changes that could be done. Then some exp. tuners should decide what changes to be done......

If it's ok I can make the list, just PM or mail me the changes......

/N.

Scott_92RS

I'd be interested in making such an application. I'd have to get forumlas and all that, but I can whip something like that up if I had some specs!

gregger2k

I realize that this effort will not be easy, hardly anything worth doing ever is. I should be easier as a team effort though.

Although I do not have that much tuning experience I do have a good bit of programming experince and have done quite a bit of assembly language programming (a long time ago on 6800s and Z80s)

A good starting bin based on stock AUJP code might be a good first step.

The secong step might be to gather all the tools together to do a full compile of the AUJP source code.

Third might be to get a good, cleaned up, and verified hac that will compile without any errors.

and on from there.....

I do not think that we need to do many major changes to the code, just change some hard limits in the code and to collect and roll in some of the patches and modifications that have already been done as individual efforts.

Greg

Scott_92RS

Could the BLM Cell boundries also be determined based on the cam profile? That would be a great feature for the "BIN Wizard"

TRAXION

I fully agree. This is exactly where I was going with it.

Tim

11sORbust

If people is going to really revamp the aujp, it needs wb support in there. How hard could it be to actually display the words a/f ratio? I thought that other GM ecms show a/f ratio through the aldl. Couldn't that bit of code be adaped for the wideband?

Why couldn't the wb sensor be directly pinned into the ecm. I could see that you would need to make the diy-wb circut when using a spare input. But if you use an existing 5v input wouldn't there be a circut to support the wb inside the ecm?

I know that there is something like this out there. But if we are talking Super AUJP, then WB support is a must.

TRAXION

First, I want to make it clear that we are not talking about revamping AUJP. I'm just talking about modifying it slightly to give a better starting point with regard to constants and 2D tables .... and to also add a few patches that I mentioned in my first post.

Second, WB Support is already available and as been available for quite some time. See: http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~davis/z28/WB_hacs/
I've been using this extensively for all my tuning. Mike pushes the actual WB AFR to the AFR line in the ALDL.

Third, I don't think it's possible to wire a WB directly into the ECM. There's just too much going on ... you need the heater circuit, etc. That's just not happening. Right now I have my WB Box velcroed to the top of my ECM and am feeding the Vout to the stock ECM on the pin that Mike indicated. It work great.

Tim

11sORbust

I know about that but it would be nice to have at least the wb patch in a "super AUJP"....

Swapmaster

Some must do permanent changes for the masses would be:

Constant- "Update BLM Rate" set to 1 second

Constant- "Min Coolant Temp For High Temp PE AFR" set to 150c

Constant- "Low Octane Knock Retard Amount" set to 0

Table- "PE Spark Advance Vs. RPM" set to all 0's

Disable CCP, Set HEX Byte 486E from 25 to 23, then change
Constant- "Min Canister Purge Duty Cycle (Low TPS)" to 0%
Constant- "Force BLM Idle Cell CCP %D.C. Threshold" set to 0%

The last one will disable CPP while retaining Highway Mode
and avoid being stuck in cell 4

All of these edits were taken from the board from people a heck
of alot sharper than me so keep the ideas coming. I would like
to see what I have missed so I can play with my Bin some more.

JP84Z430HP

If I'm not mistaken, couldn't some of these things be accomplished in the ECU file? Such as injector size, have the ecu file do the math (would the ecu fole need to be different to allow lengthy formulas?)

I would be very interested in helping, but I am a newb. One problem I'm having is in finding commented hac's. I have the basic one's, but I want to find all I can so that I can learn from them and be able "pick stuff out" of uncommented source. I know I have many hours of frying my retina's (and brain) here in fron tof the computer for that!

Isn't the scan tool display dependant on what the scanning software is told to call a value?

I can see where this project COULD go if there was to be a "Super AUJP", it would be a great thing, but it would require many more hours than what Trax is talking about.

A refresher here please.....How close is AUJP to ANHT? From what I recall, they're pretty close.

novakm

This sounds like good stuff.

I can't program, but I like this idea. If there is a desire to work on some of the code itself, It would not be too hard for me to make a clean compilable source code with mostly correct comments as my contribution to the effort. I have ANHT, and other than thousands of constants, it's almost exactly the same as AUJP. only 3 or four extra lines of code, forget exactly what they are.

I'd like to see flags added to disable some functions completely. The CCP is a good example. Can turn it off easy, but being off, it affects lots of other things. Be nice to have a flag that turns it off everywhere it's used.

Another mod might be the option to turn off closed loop at low RPM's, so you could idle your big cam in open loop, cruise in closed, and go open again for WOT.

If you really wanted to get fancy, how about adding closed loop operation based on WB input?

I know none of this is trivial. It would take me a while to make all the changes to get a good compilable AUJP source code.

gta324

1) Fix max Idle in Park to raise it from 800 to something around 1200 so that we automatically have the ability for higher idles. Guys with runner a bigger cam can't idle more than 800 in park without changing the actual backend code.

6) Disable BLM corrections at WOT.

Where in the code is this done?

TRAXION

Max 800 idle is hardcoded and is not a constant. This exists in AUJP. It does not exist in ANHT. I don't know about other code. I have posted about this previously a long time ago.

BLM corrections at WOT are located as previously illustrated in a discussion we just had. Check out the post on how AFR is used in PE Mode in $8D.

Tim

TRAXION

Regarding the 800rpm limit in AUJP ...

#$0040 is hexadecimal for 64 decimal. Since we are talking about RPM/12.5 ... 64 is actually 800. You need to modify BOTH 426C and 4270.

What I find very surprising is that you would think a lot of people running the bigger cams would have complained about this now ... but this issue is hardly ever brought up. Maybe it is because they aren't looking at their in-gear target idle ... or maybe they have a manual.

Tim

B4Ctom1

if a major code change is going to happen like that could it be similar the the code used in a 749? I.E. have the ability to be be used with different bar sensors? and the ability to sense boost and react to it? or is that a pipe dream without the user having to use another .bin or ECM all together? I was just curious because ven member Anesthes was trying to modify the bi for his 730 to make it do that. I dont think he made it happen, but is it practical as an new option by integrating some of the parts of the code used in the bin for 749's? if this question seems stupid please take it easy on me, Im at the beginning of learning about this stuff.

Scott_92RS

Interesting. So both 426C and 4270 would need to be set to the same value, right? Maybe 0x58 for an 1100 RPM Max Idle?

ULTM8Z

Sounds awesome!

Maybe put in an option to run open loop in idle too.

John Millican

iTrader: (1)

To The Top- I'd like to hear some more great ideas for AUJP.

Grumpy

Welp, looks like another grand idea, dies by the wayside.

But, maybe, things just need rethought.

While the 8D code is pretty nice, it ignores a large segment of the EFI world.

Maybe a surgey needs to be done, and see what it is the gets the largest support, and then try organizing things. Like when we did Programming 101, it quickly narrowed down to the 42 code.

Maybe, if the Syclone code was considered, there'd be more interest. Since that gets all the S/C and T/C guys in on it.

TRAXION

Bruce,

Trust me, it isn't dead. I have a pseudo head start already. I'll be posting more within the week. However, it is starting off as simple constant changes along with simple hardcode changes according to the stuff I have been posting recently. I have been keeping an eye on this post for awhile now.

What is really needed is somebody to take the AUJP, convert it for real 2-bar / 3-bar applications ... and then distribute it for free. This person needs to be proficient with assembly, have a test bench, and have access to a supercharged f-body (or know someone with one that would be willing to test). That's ... rare

If nobody does it then I will do it one day. But, that's approximately 10 years from now

... in the meantime I'll work on a halfway decent 1-bar AUJP.

Tim

Grumpy

If only one guy is actively doing anything, it's going to take a really long time get anywhere. Unless all you want is a moderately or slightly modified bin. I just took Super to mean actual code changes to really enhance EFI.

Why bother adding boost sensing, when there is good realiable code that already does that?. The Sy code is that. Adding 2-3 bar is only part of it, it'd pay to have wastegate control, and boost to knock reduction, something the Sy code already has.
Not to mention that it also uses a MAT, in it's timing and fueling strategies. The Sy stuff is about the perfect blend od usefulness. While there is more sophisticated stuff out there, the Sy is short does about anything with a min of muss and fuss.

A large part of what makes a given code popular, and powerful is it's versitility.

JP84Z430HP

I'm wondering if the $58 code converted to 1-bar may even be better then a super AUJP? I do like the AUJP name since it has my initials in it .

I'm really thinking that what would work best would be a "modular" approach. Say you need 1-bar code, use this "module" with, whatever other option "modules" you need for you app. I know this approach would be a tremendous effort, and way out there, since it would take 10's of thoushands of hours to get it all working together, but it would make it possible for everyone to have exactly what they want, and nothing more than they need! Sort of like add-in modules in PC programming.

Grumpy

It's already an option, you just set a flag. Just a matter of setting a 0 or 1, in the right spot.

SMasterson

https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=155755

Well, I tried to sort this out once and actually have it working in my code. I just don't know exactly where I did set the Max Idle or how to put it into my editor. I can idle above 800 now though.

;-------------------------------------
; INTERGAL GAINS, (PID)
; *** NOT USED IN ANHT ***
;-------------------------------------
L8654: FCB 48 ; 48 steps Pk/Nut int gain if RPM rate <
L8655: FBC 64 ; 64 steps
L8656: FCB 12 ; 187.5 RPM/(RPM/SEC), PK/NUT max RPM rate
L8657 FCB 12 ; 187.5 RPM/(RPM/SEC), Drive max RPM rate
;----------------------------------------
;----------------------------------------
; PARK NEUT SCALING GAINS
;----------------------------------------
L8658: FCB 255 ; 0.996, (Neut stp's/Drive stp's)
; ARG = VAL/256
;----------------------------------------

I can't add much to the thread because I don't understand much of the 'code' but I'm watching it. When I was having trouble with setting code 42 I solved that problem by changing the 50 restarts to 2. The problem code only showed up about once a week and has since went away with a different Moates adapter. It was a minor hack that came in handy though and couldn't have been done without all the information I learned HERE!

Thanks guys,

11sORbust

So the $58 is better than 8d?

JP84Z430HP

Exactly what I'm wondering (just not directly asking!) I plan to take a look into the code (or at least a few bins in TunerPro) to see what's there that might make a difference for me.

Grumpy

Looking is only part of the answer.
Heck fire up the PP and try it. I think the hac is out there, just use a hex editor, and rough it out, and see how it does for you.

The timing table is a direct swap, and you probably could use you VE tables and play with the BPC to get them close enough to have a base .bin.

Not to mention if there's a chance of going Non N/A, then you have most of the battle won, without firing a shot.

And since it uses a VE adder, you have a smaller VE table to work with, and for those that think the big VE tables are such a headache, this also lessens the chore of so many points to calibrate.



Shhh, just don't tell the MAF-only guys.....

And beings that it fits on a 128 type prom, rewritting it to occupy a 256 shouldn't be all too hard, and that'd give all the room in the world for JSRs and the like.

But, what matters most is getting folkS involved. ie those that know code, and some that know tuning.

Grumpy

And after closer review, I like the AE vs TPS vs RPM table more the not having it, ie the 749 has it the 8D not.
And I consider the start up routine on the 749 also much easier to work with.

If someone would point out one thing they've found better on the 8D over the 58 mask, please lemme know.

11sORbust

well... the aujp is very nice. Is there a $58 bin that compares?

TRAXION

The use of a true injector constant.

Tim

Grumpy

Why is that an advantage?.

funstick

Im gonna wiegh in here if nobody minds to much.

$58 much better code. Way easier to tune and just as accurate as $8d. In fact i switch alot of n/A application to $58 ust becuase i like to tune with it. The AE tables make about 90000% more sense. the VE tables seem to tune more effectively.

The spark etc is nice.

however the $58 does have a few draw back's.

Small VE table. Would be nice ot have it goto 6000 or 7000 rpm. It proven it works with DIS. really its a simpl patch. Just set up the max and min advance settings to be bit selectable and store the piar of them in some blank space.

It would be nice on the $58 to increase the resolution of the 2bpw boost multiplier for 3 bar applications and add a bit more to the timing table as well.

IT would be realy kewl to use the $8d injector constant ad cylinder size. Would make it alot easier to do injector size changes.

$8d does hav e afew advatanges. It seems to tame and rowdy idle a bit easier. But if somebody decided to make the ISS spark params in $58 active they work just as well.

It dont think it would be hard honestly to expand $58 to be a 32k Code. Change the reset vectors and wham youve got more then 16k of free space to add functions like

Luanch control, Water injection managment. Shift lights etc etc etc in fact $58 has a shift light.

There are alot of things to wieght out. But i thin $58 is a superior coe to $8d $88 in many many mayrespects. i have been using $8f for a while and it doesnt run nearly as good as $58.

SO i think its time to pick a code and make it the super p4 code.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

Becaus it pleases the eyes more. I'm not sure if the logic in $8D is dead on either. I.e, going from 24 - 36, change the constant and all VE is happy.

But I.e in $58, BPC of a 355cid w/ 36# injectors is .116. When you enter it in tunercat, it rounds to .12

Guess what 24# injectors are for BPW? .124 which also rounds
to .12 in TC.

So unless this is a display issue with TC, Injector sizing on $58 is. well. dumb!


The other issue with $58 is the inability to utilize AIR injection, or CCP.. Obviously for california emissions applications, those are required.


I'll be trying the $58 code soon eough, though.

-- Joe

YenkoZ28

That is a tunercat issue not a $58 issue. Get the real programmer for $58 and just use tunercat for things like editing ve and spark via a romulator.

Grumpy

A simple patch takes care of expanding the table size.
The DIS mod is easier then that.
The adder takes the tables to 6,400 RPM anyway. And the adder is alot more efficent running that having 2 tables to try and get the resolution that you seem to think it needs.
There is a quasi 3 bar mod already out there.
I don't see where the 8D idles any better. Not that I've spent alot of time with the 8D, but the 58 will handle 60 PPH injectors on a little 3.8 easily.
It been run in a 32K version, but it takes more then just changing the vectors.
The 8F is bloated in my opinion.
I don't see where changing the BPC makes a tinkers bit of difference instead of changing the Inj Constant. Different ways to the same end.

Lessening the code that runs seems to let things run *just better*.

Grumpy

Here's a freebie.
Instead of having a PE spark timing adder.
Make it a PE spark subtracter.
The PE adder is for getting the *kick* of WOT, so the average nerd feels like their going fast. By using it as a retarder you anc run higher timing in none PE and try for better mileage. When I get some time, I'm going to be doing that to the truck cal..

BTW, my originally getting 9 MPG truck just broke 15 MPG. While I'd been running high 12s, the 15 is almost freaky. Also when I changed the oil Fri, is was no where near as nasty as in the past, so I'm more convinced then ever low timing has it place.

TRAXION

Guys,

I have a new AUJP with the following modifications ...

FIRST and FOREMOST, some ground rules. I wanted to make this Super AUJP (S_AUJP) so that a person with a stock F-Body could download this bin and run it. That means that we are assuming the stock thermostat, stock gears, stock intake, stock heads, stock cam, etc. All emissions related stuff has been deleted in this BIN as listed below.

VARIOUS CONSTANT CHANGES:
PROM ID Set to 1 from 571.
Fuel Cutoff decreased to 6600rpms from 10031rpms.
Fuel Resume decreased to 6500rpms from 9544rpms.
Fan on temps decreased to 97d C from 108d C
Fan off temps decreased to 94d C from 105d C
IAC learn Min temp decreased to 60d C from 88d C.
Cold O2 Closed loop delay timer reduced to 120 seconds from 190 seconds.
Warm O2 Closed loop delay timer reduced to 90 seconds from 150 seconds.
Hot O2 closed loop delay timer reduced to 20 seconds from 30 seconds.
Min Coolant temp for Closed loop fuel reduced to 20d C from 45d C.
Minimum BLM reduced to 96 from 108.
BLM update rate reduced to 2 seconds from 2.4 seconds.
Force BLM idle Cell CCP % Duty Cycle Threshold reduced to 0% from 23.4% in order to combat a BL Cell of 4 all the time.

SPARK ADVANCE CHANGES
Main spark tables changed to be more inline with a stock ANHT binary. Massaged somewhat also.
Spark Tables modifed to include PE Spark advance in the main spark tables.
PE Spark advance zeroed out.
95kPa and 100kPa columns set to be identical.
Closed TPS Spark Advance increased slightly from 20d to 25d in the very low RPM range.
Knock Recovery rate table increased threefold.
Maximum Knock retard vs. RPM (In PE) set across the board to a maximum of 10d.
Target Idle RPM vs. Coolant massaged slightly with 2 values increased.

FUEL CHANGES:
Pump Shot vs. TPS which was increased by 5%.
BLM MAP and RPM boundaries changed SLIGHTLY for better cell traversing with a stock cam (900, 1500, 2000rpms and 30, 50, and 75kPa).


HIGHWAY MODE SETTINGS
Highway Mode spark advance vs. MAP set to 4d across the board.
Min Coolant temp for highway spark advance decreased to 60d C from 151d C.
Min RPM for Highway Spark Advance decreased to 1200rpms from 3175rpms
Min Coolant temp for Highway Mode fuel reduced to 60d C from 85.25d C.
Min Vehicle speed for Highway Mode fuel reduced to 53mph from 255mph.
Unchecked flag for 4th gear highway mode spark check. Can now obtain full Highway spark advance in third gear.

TCC SETTINGS
TCC Lock speed (low and not low gears) increased to 43mph from 38mph.
TCC Unlock speed (low and not low gears) increased to 41mph from 36mph.
TCC Unlock prevention speed threshold increased to 120mph from 75mph.
TCC enable coolant temp decreased to 20d C from 50d C.
ALL TCC unlock and lock tables modified to match ANHT tables to allow for earlier TCC disengagement based on less throttle.
Unchecked flag for Unlock TCC in DFCO. TCC will now stay locked in DFCO.

LOW OCTANE KNOCK RETARD DISABLED...
Low Octane MAP retard Threshold increased to 100kPa from 70kPa.
Low Octane Retard Diff MAP Threshold decreased to 0kPa from 0.625kPa
Low Octane Knock Retard increase amount decreased to 0d from 17.6d
Low Octane Knock Retard decrease amount decreased to 0d from 0.7d
Low Octane Knock Retard amount decreased to 0d from 4.9d.
Low Octane Knock Retard Multiplier vs. RPM table set to zero across the board.
Low Octane Knock Retard Multiplier vs. MAP table set to zero across the board.

EGR DISABLED...
Min MAT for EGR enable increased to 255 counts from 30 counts.
EGR % TPS Enable Threshold decreased to 0% from 2.3%
EGR % TPS Disable Threshold decreased to 0% from 2%.
EGR Diagnostic Disabled.
EGR Diagnostic minimum Vehicle Speed increased to 255mph from 30mph.
EGR % Duty Cycle vs. Vacuum vs. MAP table decreased to 0% across the board.
EGR Duty Cycle Multiplier vs. Coolant temp decreased to 0 across the board.

AIR DISABLED...
Minimum Temp for AIR Enable increased to 151d C from 14.75d C.
Rich / Lean Difference decreased to 0mV from 100mV.

HARDCODE:
1) Removed Dependency of Highway Mode on a Minimum Canister Purge Duty Cycle.
2) Removed adjustment of WOT Pulse Width due to Lean BLMs.
3) Removed possible use of Open Loop target Air/Fuel Ratios at WOT.
4) Removed 800rpm idle limit when in gear. Now set to 1200rpms.

Current input needed on ...
1) Any ideas on modifying the timing/fueling tables? I have the following thoughts ...
a) We could level off the PE vs. Coolant table in order to ensure that the same fuel is supplied even when at different coolant temps. OR, we could level off the middle of the table and leave the ends intact for safety concerns. Why? Well, if you are dynoing then there is an 11% fueling difference between 32d C and 56d C. If the coolant dropped back to 8d (highly unlikely) then it would be a 21% change in fueling. I'd recommend changing the 32d C value and keeping the others intact.
b) Stock AUJP runs rich. Any thoughts on leaning it out? I say no.
c) What about timing? I can see increasing the light load mid-RPM areas (cruise). However, there are different schools of thought on this. FWIW, GM uses substantially more timing in the ANHT stuff (corvette) as compared to the F-Body (aluminum vs. Iron heads).

I'll post the actual bin after we talk about it more. I need input on the modifications I listed above.

Tim

LBSZ28BLOWN

TCC:
How about disabling the TCC disengagement during decell,
I like this it makes tuning more of the KPA tables easyer.

And I agree with switching AUJP TCC tables over to the ANHT tables to allow the TCC to unlock with less throttle pressure.

TRAXION

I agree totally. I have ...

1) Unchecked the flag Unlock TCC in DFCO
2) Unchecked the flag 4th gear highway mode spark check
3) Changed the TCC tables over to the ANHT TCC tables. Personally, I like these tables a lot better.

... the initial post has been modified to reflect the new changes.

Tim