TRAXION

Another thing that I think would be appropriate to change is the BLM cell and MAP boundaries. These can be improved upon based on the stock settings for the stock head/cam/intake/gearing. However, I need input because I don't have part throttle scans of my car from when it was stock. The following numbers stick in my head for new values in these tables but input is needed from those with stock heads/cam (GLENN? Where are you?) that can comment ....

25, 50, 75
800, 1400, 2200

?

Tim

89 Iroc Z

Why did you remove EGR, CCP and smog, what about those who need to pass emissions.

John Millican

iTrader: (1)

Bravo Tim. :hail:

TRAXION

Great question ... and a very appropriate one.

EGR was disabled because just about anybody and everybody I know disables the EGR when developing a performance chip. You can re-enable it if you want.

AIR was disabled for the same reason. Just about everybody I know that is going for max performance always installs headers. Eventually they get rid of the AIR system all together. Thus, AIR is disabled. You can reenable it if you want.

CCP is the only questionable one. Most people keep this ... unlike the EGR and AIR which most people get rid of. I removed CCP because I see no point in allowing a fresh intake charge to become contaminated with CCP. Again - this can be reenabled via just changing things back to stock.

Tim

18436572

Tim,
I realy enjoy this thread, I apologise for not being able to be a part of this. I have made it my winter project to be able to understand this code. One thing that I have learned is that it is going to take longer than the winter to learn all I want to know about this. However, I have made great strides in my understanding of this and it doesn't matter how long it takes because I realy enjoy it.

I noticed that you refer to the anht for certian routines. I would like to know what is the differnce in the anht and the aujp and why you don't just start with the anht? I don't doubt your choice of the aujp, I would just like to know for my own personal learning experience.

Thanks and keep up the great work,
Ed

TRAXION

Hi Ed,

Simply put, the ANHT was designed around the corvette. It was structured for a motor with aluminum heads. It also uses the oil temp sensor. The reason that we all start with the AUJP is because the AUJP is the latest code released for the F-Body. Thus, it is the most appropriate place to start for an F-Body (iron heads, no oil temp sensor, etc.). It would be very to make the ANHT run in an F-Body (only a minute or two of work) but, I still feel that the AUJP is a better choice due to the simple fact that it was the latest code release by GM.

I admit to the fact that I could be wrong on choosing the AUJP. However, I don't think I am. This site is thirdgen.org .... which means F-Bodies. So, IMHO, it was best to start with an F-Body binary. If we would have started with the ANHT we would have had to fully change the spark tables due to how aggressive they are .... which is TOO aggressive for iron headed f-bodies.

Tim

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

Tim,

When your done, you should diff it against a stock AUJP bin, and produce a patch file for folks who allready have modified AUJP's but would like to take advantage of your changes.

-- Joe

John Millican

iTrader: (1)

From my experiance with F-body people, about half of them are running some sort of either factory or aftermarket ALUMINUM heads. I am one of them too.
I have found the stock AUJP timing tables to be a little low. Seems for these people running the ANHT timing table MIGHT be a good place to start tuning since every time you touch the timing tables you have to go back and change the VE tables to maintain 128/128.

Any thoughts on this?

87_TA

I think it all looks pretty good but except for changing TCC forced lockup threshold to 120 mph.
Usually for maximum performance you want to lock converter about 300 RPM past peak torque .
Its all about taking maximum advantage of you peak areas and not allowing car to bog when TCC locks, there is a fair amout of time to be gained by using it "properly".

Grumpy

If the TCC can take it.
I shreded several TCC linings with just a 13 sec daily driver. It wasn't until the second or third overhaul we figured out what was going on. Not to mention the fiber getting into every nic and cranny. While the later Kelvar and mystery composite linings they have it's getting easier and easier to get a TCC that'll take alot of abuse, but the stockers, aren't going to take a steady diet of it, from what I've seen.

Grumpy

I'll probably take some heat for this, but, have you noticed that your in the lead, and few others have stepped up to the plate to offer any help?.

I constantly get ridiculed over my attitude, but I perfer to get people thinking and experimenting rather then having them playing follow the leader.

So with you going it alone what's really to be gained here?.
The balance of the lurkers, to doers is getting further and further askew. It sure seems that with as many people, and hits some of these threads get, there should be more folks willing to get involved, but maybe that's just a reflection of the way society's going lately.

Just meaning to be contructive, and sounding a wake up call.

TRAXION

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. Stock Torque Converters (and even single disk Vigilante Torque converters) are not meant for locking up at WOT. Doing so WILL eventually destroy the converter.

I would also like to add the following...
From my own experience I have noticed that locking up the TCC does NOT always produce a better 1/4 time. Admittedly, maybe I wasn't using it properly as per what you had stated. However, it seems to me that locking the TCC affords better ETs in higher horsepower applications and slower times in lower horsepower applications. FWIW - I even ran my 11.6@117 time with the TCC fully UNlocked. I'll be doing some dyno testing soon and will compare locked vs. unlocked.

I have also noted that most people tend to increase the forced lockup from 75mph to a higher value in order to get rid of that bog that accompanies the lockup. Unfortunately, we can't do a mandatory lockup at only WOT. Thus, if you set the TC to lockup just past peek torque then it will do this at that MPH all the time. That means you either lock it up only in third or don't lock it up at all. I've taken the latter because it's safer, because most people do this, and because IMHO it works the best for the lower horsepower cars (which is most of the people who would be using this as a base image).

Tim

TRAXION

Unfortunately, Yes, I have somewhat noticed this. What I was hoping to get was more of what LBSZ28BLOWN did - suggestions, modifications, etc. I was trying to be optimistic and hoping that more people will respond after the holidays (maybe taking a break from computers over the holidays?). But, maybe I am just being too hopeful? I did notice that the bigger players like you, RBob, Saturn5, etc. are also not participating much. Maybe this subject was doomed from the start due to the political stuff behind it (helps the newboobs and the money makers but does nothing for the die hard DIY'ers)? I guess I'll keep pusing forward for a little while longer and see what happens. I still think that it is a really good idea and the resulting BIN could be modified further and further in the future with more hardcode changes, etc.

Tim

funstick

im totally behind trax for doing this. but if i do tunning on a $8d cal typically its totally custom and i might or might not disable those things depending on what state the car is plated in.

Good job trax. if there anything i can do let me know.

Grumpy

I think it's a good idea, but I have other issues, and things going on. Plus I nothing to test any 8D code on. Like I was saying earlier, using the most versatile code would gather the most helpers. But, with no *offers* of help, I wonder even about that.

Hopefully things will pick up.

TRAXION

John - I agree. I just would like to hear what others have to say. The ANHT timing tables are LESS than the well known ARAP so I think they are a great place to start. We could even blend the stock AUJP with the ANHT to yield a VERY nice middle of the road place to start ... which would be much better than a stock AUJP (IMHO).

Tim

87_TA

Ok I see your point,
I have been abusing my TCI for over 2 yrs now (knock on wood)
and its been treating me well. But there is a danger involved.
But I also can't say that locking it @ 120 is better ?
Nor can I say if GM was not confident that the converter could handle it, they would not have done that.
Its also not a rule that your car will go faster, Like in your case you you turn such an rpm, and not alot of gear. you are not crossing the traps at peak RPM, and locking would keep you further from that goal.
just a thought

PLANT PROTECTION

iTrader: (6)

What about altering or disabling the auto idle spark correction? Adding some changes to help with startup such as delivery delay and PW would be a good addition also. And is there any downfall to making super AUJP from the AUJP with the WB02 hack?

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

What about when your done making a 5-spd version for us manual guys?

I'm still curious over the. differences between the auto and manual bins.. Other than enabling manual logic, is there any functionality differences..


That was one of the questions I had with $58. since there was no manual sy-ty's right.

-- Joe

LBSZ28BLOWN

Here's somthing eles I think would be good in the Super aujp.

Dissable this goofy Knock test that is enabled at 95deg C coolant temp and above.
.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LBSZ28BLOWN
But where is this additional 10deg of SA coming from if its not in the Main spark table and its not in the "Base Cool. Adv. Correction Vs. Load Vs. Cool. Temp" table.

Interesting

Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I just may have figured it out. The $8D mask has a forced knock test (I didn't know this!). It may very well be this test being invoked. Here are the DTC43 test parameters from AXCN:

code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;------------------------------
; ERROR 43, KNOCK
;------------------------------

L8298: FCB 100 ; 10 SEC TIME REQUIRED
L8299: FCB 181 ; 3.62V UPPER VOTLAGE THRESH
L829A: FCB 72 ; 1.44V LOWER VOTLAGE THRESH
L829B: FCB 1 ; Add 0.3 deg SA for test
L829C: FCB 180 ; 95c, Min cool for for ERR 43B
L829D: FCB 75 ; If MAP < 75 THEN DISABLE ERR 43B
L829E: FCB 71 ; 24.9 Deg MAX S.A. for ERR 43B TST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Needs to be above 95c and will add up to 24.9 deg SA to force knock. Hmmm. . .

Stevie

Nice info there Tim,

I've got mine to where I'm pretty happy with it's driveability and pretty much everything I have done to the AUJP you have covered. Very minor differences on the TCC speeds, I'm using 44 and 48mph. I set my cell boundaries to 900, 1500, 2000 rpm and 32, 45, 60 kpa. It uses lots of cells in ordinary driving which is what I wanted.

I've got the VE tables pretty good, the BLM's are running pretty close to 128. My only uncertainty is in the spark tables. With VE there is a way to adjust the table to get a desired result (at least for us closed loop guys) which is 128's. But with spark, I'm kind of stumped. Obviously if you have way too much somewhere you will see knock and know to back off, but other than that how does one know if it's enough? or too much? or just right??

Steve

TRAXION

NORMAL DISCLAIMERS APPLY. I HAVE NOT TESTED THIS ON ANYTHING. I HAVE NOT EVEN BURNED A SINGLE CHIP WITH EITHER OF THESE FILES. THEY ARE THEORETICAL BINS. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

<FONT COLOR="RED">YOU MUST USE 92-93 OCTANE WITH THIS BINARY!</FONT>

Bruce was right ... this topic is basically dead. I was hoping some others would reply during this week (after the holidays). I guess not

Anyhow - the work I put together can be found at the following link (since I can't seem to attach items to this board besides pictures). There are two ZIP files. Each ZIP contains a bin and a description of the changes. I was very torn on keeping the CCP in the AUJP ... and have decided that it would be best to keep it. But some really don't want it. Most thirdgen people disable the EGR and AIR eventually. However, most tend to keep the charcoal cansister. My theory is that if people tend to keep their charcoal canister then it's a darn good idea to purge it in order to ensure that it doesn't get all nasty. There's 2 bins ... one with CCP and one without. I put them on Craig Moates' File Manager site under Custom Modified Binaries. The one with "CCP" in the filename is the one with CCP implemented. The other one does NOT have CCP implemented.

http://www.moates.net/fileman/

NORMAL DISCLAIMERS APPLY. I HAVE NOT TESTED THIS ON ANYTHING. I HAVE NOT EVEN BURNED A SINGLE CHIP WITH EITHER OF THESE FILES. THEY ARE THEORETICAL BINS. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Tim

gregger2k

Tim, don't give up yet. I am still a ways of of getting the TPI in my Monza project car but I am willing to help with the cause if I can.

Does anyone have an AUJP source that will compile and compare to the stock bin yet? Most of my assembly programming was with a Z80 and 6802's but I think it will come back to me in time.

If anyone does not have a head start I guess I will just have to get out the dissasembler and start hacking.

Anyone can reach me off-line if you are worried about the non-DIYers stealing our work. Maybe we could GPL it or something (probably not to valid because it is GM's code anyway)

Wishing that my AUJP testbed was ready
Greg

91Z28-350

This is a good idea, and I'd like to help, but I don't have the experience.

The only thing I've done with AUJP is to modify it so that I can use a T-56 with it, without using ANHT or the 305 T-5 bin as the base...and the basic fan operation. I also don't know if it's entirely correct, but it works for me.

LnealZ28

I'm right there with ya man. 6502 guy here. Many of the commands are familiar, I'm just having a helluva time finding an assembler that will work properly.

Tim:
This Super AUJP is an excellent idea that many should find useful. I'm still new to this PROM tuning thing so I don't know of much I can contribute other than moral support. I hope you don't get discouraged.

FWIW most people haven't a clue about what we're doing anyway. I get some of the strangest looks from fellow hotrodders when I tell them I burn my own "chips", a lot of them don't even know you can. And don't go talking to any auto mechanics about anything to do with this! I'm just trying to say that we are a rare breed and pretty much, at least from what I've seen, we're on our own.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

So is every other board. This place has been dead lately. What did everyone finish their project and now they're done?

-- Joe

18436572

I snagged the zip's

Now I am pulling my current project of of the test bench to hook the 7730 back up. This will take a few hours. When I get the 7730 flying again on the test bench I will test your hacked bins.
I will get back to you later today If anyone wants to wait before trying them in their ride.

Thanks Tim,

ED

18436572

Things went faster than I anticipated.

First off, my test bench doesn't take things into closed loop. Now with that said, both bins run as they should on my test bench.
The only thing that looks amiss is that they both set the codes
41 and 54. This could be my test bench but when I run the ANHT code that I use in my camaro these two codes do not apear.

Take this with a grain of salt.
Thanks
ED

TRAXION

Code 41 is a MemCal error: Faulty or incorrect MemCal. This shouldn't have anything to do with the BIN.

Are you sure that it said Code 54? In my factory 1990 Camaor Helms manual there is no Code 54. It stops at Code 53. I found a code 54 on the internet but it refers to a low fuel pump voltage which also shouldn't have anything to do with the BIN.

BTW - THANKS A BUNCH FOR DOING SOME TESTING!! That is awesome

I think that John McMillan will also be doing some live testing. Can anyone else do any live testing? I can't. My setup is too radical to plug and play this binary.

Tim

RBob

iTrader: (1)

Code 41 is a cylinder select error. MEMCAL from a 6 banger? Code 54 is low voltage at fuel pump relay. Run the bench's B+ supply to pin E13. This is the pin that monitors the voltage at the fuel pump feed from the relay.

RBob.

JP84Z430HP

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I bet the parameters for the AUJP to set code 54 are more in line with what would be low in the real world. Therefore, your voltage may be a bit low on your bench. I was looking at the ANHT code, and it looks like it has it set to about 2 volts, therefore you will probably never see it! I need to look at the AUJP code some more.

I'm getting much better at lloking around the code, and figuring out what SOME things do, but I'm not to the point of actually making useful changes yet. I don't have any way of testing these changes yet anyway.

LnealZ28

I blasted the S_AUJP to a chip today to try in my car. I will try to test drive it tomorrow, however I won't be able to do any scans until later on. My motor is a bone stock 1987 LB9 test mule (see sig) so it should tell us how it'll work for that situation. BTW all I changed was the injector constant, VATS, VSS and the cylinder displacement using TunerPro. I'll get back when I have some results to report.

John Millican

iTrader: (1)

I ran the S AUJP CCP bin today with the following changes:

Unchecked the mag VSS installed because I have a MAF to MAP conversion in my '86 Camaro.

I increased the TCC lockup to 53mph because that's where I like it.

I imported my VE and spark tables from my own custom bin.

I increased the idle rpm to 750 rpm due to my cam.

I changed the "add to idle in park" from 100 rpm to zero.

I increased the cc's from 713 to 784 because I have a 383 stroker.

The engine started and ran flawlessly. maybe a little better then before. My surging at around 2200 rpm went away.
I did not have a stock AUJP before, I had a custom bin made by me. A stock AUJP won't even idle in my car.

Off topic now slightly.

I still have a very annoying data error every few second while scanning with Datamaster version 3.4.1 though. I had it before I ran Super AUJP too.

I thought it was a faulty memcal maybe so I loaded S AUJP on a brand new GM speed density memcal, no change. It still gives me a data error every few seconds. I have swapped ECM's and checked the wiring at the ALDL. I even connected my scan cable directly into the back of the ECM to rule out the interconnect wiring. No change. I even dropped the scan rate down from 10 per second to 1 per second, no change. Still that annoying data error.

I have checked the laptop and cable on another speed density Camaro and it does not give the data error. Any ideas? Here's a link to my scan. Right click and "save target as" to download it.

http://www.lt1intake.com/1-10-04.uni

JERRYWHO

Hi John

It looks like you have RF noise in the ALDL stream.

Do you have a MSD or other aftermarket box on the car.

Jerry

MTPFI-MAF

Ok Here is my 2 cents...
I have been reading Every and all posts in DIY PROM since mid December, including Prom programming 101 and I am no stranger to engines or Computers and I am still A little Confused,Intimadated when it comes to Programming a Chip that Can make a difference in the way My car Runs or Dosen't Run and that I might make a Mistake and Kill The car (lol), I personally think that Most the Die Hard people that Did research, bench testing, Hack's and have contributed enough and want TO help the Newer generations coming here to beable to learn and help exceed more and more. Now With that said I see a few Problems that I am Having is Too Much Info to quick Out there for a newbie to just Learn without Getting confused and slow down the learning curve. Maybe alot of the info I need is archived some where I havent found yet, But If there Was a Tech Article That was a Out line On Where to start,Very Inportant to knows, What to learn First,What not to mess with yet, And why. It took me 3 days to Find, 5 different Posts with the Abbriviations for Just so i could understand what was being said which I compiled into a Word Doc. For on hand viewing. for example: I work with two Guys that just Built a engine with about $6500.00 Worth of parts, They Baught the Biggest Baddest parst they could Find, all mismatched and wondered why it ran like ****. When Newbie's Like my self come in here I read a couple Posts that made All Kinds of sense and Was ready to order My PP2, Tuner Cat and a Definiton File untill I read on later in the post Just To be confused so much that I didn't even think I understood the part That I knew I understood. Ok I downloaded Tuner Pro just to look at ECU files and .Bins I am still confused on A few things like under Tranny Flags there are boxes that say
b7
b6
b5
VATS
b3
b2
b1
Man-T

I under stand the VATS FLAG is to be unchecked to disable VATS
But what are the b7, b6 I don't understand, and have sat at this computer for 4-6 hours a day everyday since I joined these forums reading and copy and pasting posts (so I can print and read later off line if I want) maybe so that After I Get a hold of the whole concept I can Design a Basic outline Man For Newbies to help Speed up the learning Curve and reduce the headachs For The Veterns of the board form so many questions.


. I want To run SD I think there is more tuning capibilities possiable but some of the posts I read Seem Like It is a lot harder to Tune and set up A correct .bin because it dosen't measure Direct air flow.Please By No Means I am not, I repeat am not trying to bring the MAP vs. Maf arrgument into effect. All the arrgument does is cloud the main issues.I have a 870ECU, before killing me I know I need to upgrade A 86'-92 Maf or a 91-92 SD Ecm. But which one is better for my correct needs, I see a place for both maf and SD just depending on what the users specific needs are.

I will be buying a Brand New Crate Engine From SDPC2000.com

Engine Name: 350 LM1
Horsepower: 249 HP @ 5,000 RPM
Torque: 304 Ft/Lbs @ 3,500 RPM
Compression Ratio: 8.50 to 1
Block: NEW 4 – Bolt, 2 Piece Rear Seal, 4.000” Bore
Crankshaft: Cast Nodular 3.480” Stroke
Heads: Cast Iron, 76cc
Valves: 1.940” / 1.500”
Camshaft lift: 0.390” / 0.410” Hydraulic
Duration @ 0.050”: 195° / 202°

I want to change the cam before the engine goes in. Not sure what I need Yet Cam WIse because Later Down the road I will Add set Of A.F.R 180cc Street Heads. I will also Be adding a Holley Stealth Ram Intake With 24lbs Injectors and a AFPR. And The Car Has A T-5 With 3:42 Gears. This will not be a Drag Car But Rather a Streetable, Daily Driven, Road Race Car (for lack of a better Term) I think I will have to give up a little H.P for Daily Driveabilty but I think I can Find a happy Medium. I want to beable to jump in the car and go visit my family in Indiana, from where I live in PA. that is a 310 mile 6 hour drive or Get In and Blow the Doors off the Mustang On the highway, and having driveability Problems is not Acceptable.
So What Ecu Would I benifit form For Tuning This Set Up. I am Very Willing to Help Out in any way Possiable But with out a Basic out line to learn form I woun't have the Knowledge needed to do I can't even Pick tuner cat Def. file be cause I don't know WHat ECU to run Yet For my specific needs.

Thanks for letting me VENT
Please understand That If I said anything to offend anyone I am sorry and I want to THANK all the people That Were here from the Begging of DIY PROM for giving us the ability to Be able to Burn our own CHIPS and tune with A keyboard not a screwdriver or a wrench.

18436572

Ok, I got in a hurry yesterday the only thing that I changed in the bin's before I burned them to a chip was the vats flag (the test bench doesn't have vats). I should have compared them to my current bin for a more complete test. For some reason the 54 was already unchecked in my anht. I unchecked the 41 flag in my bin because I didn't want to cut up a V8 memcal to install a zif. My test bench does have low voltage because my power supply only puts out 11.7 volts. So I guess that explains that.

I entend on doing some limited live testing soon but it will be very limited because my engine has developed an ominus little rattle and I have to eliminate this problem befor we have a catostrofic failure.

Hunter Motorsports

Your contribution on this board has always been and continues to be impressive. Wanted to say thanks a bunch.

I'll be using this new bin as a fresh starting point on a 92 Z with a StealthRam 355 - after we get the bottom end back together this spring (leaking injector - hydraulic'd the engine - bent rod )

Let that be a warning - a leaking injector can cost you an engine!!
We didn't know until it was too late.

The car was originally a 350 auto (92 Z28 - AUJP) - has been converted to a T5 manual, so I am wondering what steps have to be taken to make this a "real" manual bin ? The car ran well once we got some tuning done, but it seems that DFCO never worked on the car, and before the engine went I didn't have too much of a chance to dig into that.

Perhaps some of us manual guys could pull together and see what changes need to be made to the AUJP to get a viable man trans bin.

I have some 305 Manual bins (91 SD) I could dig up and start comparing stuff, but without source code for them are we fighting a loosing battle?

Lets continue the great work that Tim has started here. Please.

rkadair

Hi everyone

I'm very new to this programming I have a 88 Jimmy with a 96 Vortec motor with a TPI, headers 4.56 gears 35" tires
And I have been having issues with it.
I bought a new Dell notebook and using DataMaster for Data logging but also have a AutoXray hand scanner too.

The only thing I did to the bin was disabled vats or just unclicked
and everything worked good I did not run it down the street as I'm waiting for a new fuel pump which came as I was unplugging the notebook and it was getting too dark.

I see that my TPS % voltage was at .57 with this bin and .54 with my old one.

I was just Idling and gave it some gas from 800rpm to 4000rpm and it never got out of Fuel trim cell 6 and it sits at 0 Fuel trim cell at idle

The Spark Adv might be a bit stiff for my needs but it stayed at knock count 6 for 1057 Secs.

I can't wait to hit the Highway with the EGR gone I had to ground the park/safey sw to keep the ses light from coming on.

I do have problems with the BLM at Idle its running at 160 with int @137

But the only thing I did to the truck was a new Catco cat and ford purple top 21lb injectors.

so far so good keep up the good work there a lot of ppl the lurk I now I have for 3 years now and just signed up this week after seeing this bin:hail:

I know I have lots of work ahead of me with this programming


thanks Robert

TRAXION

The BLMs don't surprise me since you are running 21lb injectors but the BIN has a constant of 22. Set the constant to 21 and then make sure your fuel pressure is good. The TPS % won't be an issue and nothing was changed that would affect that. The Fuel Trim cell may not be a problem either. The real test is when you drive the car and can give it some load so that more of the cells will be utilized.

Tim

18436572

I had a chance to go for a little test drive with S_aujp_ccp.bin installed in my ride. I imported my VE tables from the anht .bin that I was using and I unchecked certain error code flags to match my old bin and everything else remained the same. I did not change the timing tables at all. The code ran very well in my car and I think that it is a great starting point. I logged the data on Craigs software and I would be glad to share it if your interested. My car still isn't completely tuned so some things aren't quite in line in the data scan. I did manage to get a little wide open throttle on the scan but my little rattle left pucker marks on the driver seat.

Thanks,

ED

91Z28-350

Not a whole lot, you can probably start with the T-5 bin if it's a hassle. Zero out all the TCC stuff, add the throttle followers, some other IAC changes, and change a flag or two from auto to manual. There may be some bits that are not available in the templates out there, but all the information are in the hacs. I'll see if I can dig up some specifics when I have the chance.

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

The safest way to do it is:

1) find the T5 equal to AUJP (AUJN?)
2) Change all the tables in AUJP to match the manual bin,
prettymuch anything configurable via TC.
3) Change the broadcast and checksum to match
4) Decompile both bins
5) Diff them, and then go throught he difference. Whatever
functions are different on the manual bin, make a .patch file. Then patch the AUJP code, and recompile. Now you have a AUJP bin with manual logic right out of a manual bin.

Why go through this? I'm not 100% certain that flipping the manual bit is all that needs to be done. I honestly think the manual bins have some additional/changed functionality.

I don't have the time to do all of this, franky. I've got my motor apart right now. I will do some though. If someone delivers me a manual bin from the same year as AUJP, and a AUJP with all the settings set the same (ve,spark,iac,EVERYTHING) then I'll do the decompile, diff, patch file, recompile, and post the new bins. I just don't have time to go and compare every single editable value from the hack.

And if your still wondering why I'd do it this way; I'm a software engineer. Thats how we merge code when theres more than 1 person working on a project.

-- Joe

91L98Z28

personally, when I went from 700r4 to t56, I just used AXXD. It's a BIN from a 90-92 5.0 5spd G92 car. I think AXXC is fine too, it's the same thing but non-G92, if memory serves.

It seems to work fine for me. I basically went through tunercat and decided on field by field and table by table basis, what I thought would be appropriate to import, and what i thought i needed to leave behind. Seems to work fine for me so far.

there is certainly some differences (I think I've read that timing on a stick car can be a little different for the same engine but automatic and vice versa), but when I compared the 5.0 auto and 5.0 stick bins, the timing tables were identical, if memory serves.

either way, it's definately more than enough to get you going.

91L98Z28

I don't think it's dead....but maybe it could be taken a bit more slower? I think progress on projects such as this is measured in months, not weeks or days.

For example, I have every intent of coding the necessary code to allow me to run the reverse lockout on my t56 and posting it for whomever/whatever. I know I can do it, not a big deal, just have to get around to it. or maybe i'm just lazy I don't know.

Maybe with a bit more "structure" we could make it work. For example, using a phased approach. phase 1 would be discussion on just what should be added/changed..people toss their ideas out, and then somehow (voting/discussion/whatever) a list is picked and finalized on what is to be done. After that, phase 2, a list is established, folks could volunteer to perform one or maybe two tasks on the list. some of these tasks would/should be done publically, hopefully to show people that ROLX is more than just a watch . I'd certainly be willing to volunteer to do one or two, but there is just no way I could operate in a timeframe measured in days or weeks.

To me, I see the key points as establishing a solid list of changes that are desired (through discussion/voting/whatever) and then divvying up this task amongst the willing (and the willing to learn). if only one or two people makes the changes (people who already know full well how to make these kinds of changes), and the end result is just some .BIN that people download and use, then I don't think that's as useful as a public effort showing teh how's and why's where hopefully a few people can gain something.

91Z28-350

When I did my T-56, I just updated the existing AUJP bin I had. It works fine for me. I don't think there's any difference in the code between auto and manual, but I can take a look. Where can I get a disassembler for the bins?

If this is going to turn into a real open sourced project, it may be worthwhile to have a source control system, like a sourceforge project and to have work done in asm code and the tools to compile it into a working .bin.

devilfish

sorry for my lame question. Will this work for my -91 vette 6spd?

JPrevost

So who's putting the software together? Any takers?

TRAXION

What software?

Tim

JPrevost

Check out the first page of this long thread. I still think it would be a really good idea for making a universal starting point. Nothing is universal, the software/wizard would ask the simple questions and spit out something useful.

JP84Z430HP

I think something like this is what Jon is referring to. I would LOVE to work on something liks this, but I have have very limited experience with the source code and programming in general.

I AM trying to learn though!