Patches
11-12-2004, 02:09 PM
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Patches
For those wondering what would make an interesting patch. Here's a few ideas.
Instead of just a look up threshold value for the TPS enable, how about a little 2d table, by rpm?.
Then instead of a just a TPS enable via 2d table, how about a having the option of enabling PE by MAP value?.
That way, weither on a foot stomp, or just slowly rolling into it, when the load gets high, you enable PE, without having to use AE to fill the void, or trying to get enough duration out of the AE shot.
Just as a FWIW, I have the TPS% set to like ~25% at the lower RPM, and 35% at what would be cruise. Then the MAP enable at about 75 K/Pa at lower rpm, and 96 K/Pa at what would be cruise.
And for those working on say the 58/60 code you can get rid of the PEMAP 2-3-4s.
Then for the boost multiplier table. Set it up to be a 3d table.
BTW, it works out slick.............
And you can just get silly with spark and fuel table sizes......
Heck with big tables, you probably could just use a 3 bar sensor, for a N/A application, and still have all the resolution you can use.
If someone want to double check me, but the way I see it the MAP goes thru a A/D devise, so you wind up with 0-255 as an output. So with a 3 bar sensor you have 1 unit per K/Pa in rough terms, and IMO, that makes for more then enough resolution. The ecm does rounding off, and interpolating so after a point it really doesn't seem to matter if it's 1-2-3 units per K/Pa. At least from what I've seen in playing with 2-3 MAPs. And in N/A mode, I don't see where there's any room for improvement, other then to get just kind of silly on how accurate you can get. After all there is X amount of variance on each cylinders firing anyway.
Instead of just a look up threshold value for the TPS enable, how about a little 2d table, by rpm?.
Then instead of a just a TPS enable via 2d table, how about a having the option of enabling PE by MAP value?.
That way, weither on a foot stomp, or just slowly rolling into it, when the load gets high, you enable PE, without having to use AE to fill the void, or trying to get enough duration out of the AE shot.
Just as a FWIW, I have the TPS% set to like ~25% at the lower RPM, and 35% at what would be cruise. Then the MAP enable at about 75 K/Pa at lower rpm, and 96 K/Pa at what would be cruise.
And for those working on say the 58/60 code you can get rid of the PEMAP 2-3-4s.
Then for the boost multiplier table. Set it up to be a 3d table.
BTW, it works out slick.............
And you can just get silly with spark and fuel table sizes......
Heck with big tables, you probably could just use a 3 bar sensor, for a N/A application, and still have all the resolution you can use.
If someone want to double check me, but the way I see it the MAP goes thru a A/D devise, so you wind up with 0-255 as an output. So with a 3 bar sensor you have 1 unit per K/Pa in rough terms, and IMO, that makes for more then enough resolution. The ecm does rounding off, and interpolating so after a point it really doesn't seem to matter if it's 1-2-3 units per K/Pa. At least from what I've seen in playing with 2-3 MAPs. And in N/A mode, I don't see where there's any room for improvement, other then to get just kind of silly on how accurate you can get. After all there is X amount of variance on each cylinders firing anyway.
11-13-2004, 09:28 AM
#2
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 81 Turbo Trans Am
Engine: 301 T
Transmission: 200-4R
With the widespread availability and use of WBO2 sensors, I had some thoughts similar to what you describe below. And, like you, I'm interested in what a larger audience might think... While I've been working with $58 software, much of this should translate to others, too.
First, set up a desired AFR table based on MAP and RPM. Ideally, this should achieve the first goals you mention. "PE" could be comprehended in this table. This would also allow someone to run at non-stoich conditions at any/all points they desire. And, if desired, run lean(er) under cruise conditions as well. (I know not everyone thinks this is a good idea....
) I'd initially leave AE as-is. PE 2,3 and 4 could be calibrated in, if needed. The lowest AFR between the two would be what was used.
Next, set up a closed loop algorithm for the WBO2 signal. This would allow us to continue to update INT/BLM with the patch above. Some questions that need to be answered include determining when the WBO2 is "warmed up" and delivering a valid signal. And, how much of the existing NBO2 closed loop algorithm is applicable to the WBO2. Something like transport delay would seem to be a universally applicable event. Variable proportional gains relative to O2 levels probably wouldn't be used with the WB...
I've already modified the $58 code so the AFR(RPM,MAP) table is implemented and working. I'm still working on the closed loop algorithm details. The hardest obstacle is determining when the O2 sensor (Zeitronics) is ready and reading valid numbers.
You know, I've always wondered why this wasn't set up relative to MAP/Boost. I would have thought this table was there to figure out how much longer the injector had to be "on" to compensate for the pressure ratio difference between the fuel rail and manifold. Even if there wasn't room to make this a 3-D table in the stock EPROM, it should have been a 2-D based on MAP....
To add to your last point, it would be nice to be able to "dynamically scale" the MAP axes for almost all the tables. I agree you have enough resolution for the entire 3-bar sensor. The trick is that most applications have a sweet spot such that MAP values below (or above) that spot are seldom, if ever, seen. The $58 code has a MAP table scaling of 20-190kPa with 10kPa breakpoints. If someone who never sees less than 50kPa wanted, they could modify the scaling to 50-190 or whatever was needed. Then, we'd have to get in touch with Tunerpro to find a way to automatically change the displayed axis based on the calibration values.... Another variation would be to implement non-linear breakpoints on the axis. Instead of having 20, 30, 40, 50, you could spend the 4 points something like 20, 25, 30, 50. This would allow someone to tailor the tables to sensitive areas a little easier. The major downside is the computational time to do this type of lookup. These processors might not have the speed to do that much math.....
First, set up a desired AFR table based on MAP and RPM. Ideally, this should achieve the first goals you mention. "PE" could be comprehended in this table. This would also allow someone to run at non-stoich conditions at any/all points they desire. And, if desired, run lean(er) under cruise conditions as well. (I know not everyone thinks this is a good idea....
) I'd initially leave AE as-is. PE 2,3 and 4 could be calibrated in, if needed. The lowest AFR between the two would be what was used.Next, set up a closed loop algorithm for the WBO2 signal. This would allow us to continue to update INT/BLM with the patch above. Some questions that need to be answered include determining when the WBO2 is "warmed up" and delivering a valid signal. And, how much of the existing NBO2 closed loop algorithm is applicable to the WBO2. Something like transport delay would seem to be a universally applicable event. Variable proportional gains relative to O2 levels probably wouldn't be used with the WB...
I've already modified the $58 code so the AFR(RPM,MAP) table is implemented and working. I'm still working on the closed loop algorithm details. The hardest obstacle is determining when the O2 sensor (Zeitronics) is ready and reading valid numbers.
Then for the boost multiplier table. Set it up to be a 3d table.
To add to your last point, it would be nice to be able to "dynamically scale" the MAP axes for almost all the tables. I agree you have enough resolution for the entire 3-bar sensor. The trick is that most applications have a sweet spot such that MAP values below (or above) that spot are seldom, if ever, seen. The $58 code has a MAP table scaling of 20-190kPa with 10kPa breakpoints. If someone who never sees less than 50kPa wanted, they could modify the scaling to 50-190 or whatever was needed. Then, we'd have to get in touch with Tunerpro to find a way to automatically change the displayed axis based on the calibration values....
Another variation would be to implement non-linear breakpoints on the axis. Instead of having 20, 30, 40, 50, you could spend the 4 points something like 20, 25, 30, 50. This would allow someone to tailor the tables to sensitive areas a little easier. The major downside is the computational time to do this type of lookup. These processors might not have the speed to do that much math.....
11-13-2004, 02:33 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 91 Red Sled
Axle/Gears: 10bolt Richmond 3.73 Torsen
A patch for TBI computers that removes some timing based on vehicle speed. Or an "adder" based on the n/v gear ratio would work too.
Code that has the ability to self adjust the o2 PID tables would be an excellent patch. (would have to use the timers and x-counts with a bunch of the other inputs). This one would be tuff to do but oh how cool it would be. This is one of the reasons the newer computers are so adaptive. They've got the code that does this AND measures oxygen sensor reaction times to tell you when to replace it (sluggish responce).
Then again why bother... how about a high level compiler for source code that asks you what you want in your code
. Something that'll ask you if you the boundries you want for your main tables, what inputs are going to which pins (incase you're using extra inputs 
), high level compiler that'll do all of the low level stuff. That's what's REALLY needed to get source code to boom. As it is it's very hard to follow every little routine. I get confused all the time trying to follow the low level stuff 
.
Code that has the ability to self adjust the o2 PID tables would be an excellent patch. (would have to use the timers and x-counts with a bunch of the other inputs). This one would be tuff to do but oh how cool it would be. This is one of the reasons the newer computers are so adaptive. They've got the code that does this AND measures oxygen sensor reaction times to tell you when to replace it (sluggish responce).
Then again why bother... how about a high level compiler for source code that asks you what you want in your code
. Something that'll ask you if you the boundries you want for your main tables, what inputs are going to which pins (incase you're using extra inputs ), high level compiler that'll do all of the low level stuff. That's what's REALLY needed to get source code to boom. As it is it's very hard to follow every little routine. I get confused all the time trying to follow the low level stuff .
11-13-2004, 06:07 PM
#4
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 S10 Blazer
Engine: Built 4.3L V6 TBI
Transmission: Built 700R4
Axle/Gears: 7.65/Zexel/3.73
How about just doing away with the BLM cells altogether and set the BLMs to be 1:1 with the VE table.
Teeleton
Teeleton
11-13-2004, 06:55 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 91 Red Sled
Axle/Gears: 10bolt Richmond 3.73 Torsen
Originally posted by Teeleton
How about just doing away with the BLM cells altogether and set the BLMs to be 1:1 with the VE table.
Teeleton
How about just doing away with the BLM cells altogether and set the BLMs to be 1:1 with the VE table.
Teeleton
11-16-2004, 12:37 PM
#6
TGO Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Monument, Colorado
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 C2500
Engine: ZZ838, MPFI, Whipple, & 7749 ECU
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 4.10
Originally posted by Teeleton
How about just doing away with the BLM cells altogether and set the BLMs to be 1:1 with the VE table.
Teeleton
How about just doing away with the BLM cells altogether and set the BLMs to be 1:1 with the VE table.
Teeleton
11-16-2004, 03:34 PM
#7
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
IMO,
Just set the BL update to be alot faster, and drive on.....
When the VE table, is close the BLs aren't going to change much anyway.
Just set the BL update to be alot faster, and drive on.....
When the VE table, is close the BLs aren't going to change much anyway.
Trending Topics
11-17-2004, 11:43 AM
#8
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
I think the PE enable using TPS values vs. rpm or whatever the ecm in question has is better then using MAP. I thought of doing something like that but after thinking for a bit I thought of the following: Fluctuations in map might cause it to go in and out of PE. Also, the TPS shows teh drivers intent so the computer knows when PE is really needed.
I set my thresholds for PE to give a transistion when the MAP is around 75 kPa.
Heres one that I found useful. How about a 16 bit 2D lookup routine for those values taht are just too big to squeeze into a table without using stupid scalars and stuff. The routine isnt hard, but teh factory probably left it out because 16 bit tables take up too much memory.
One could do something like that. Although for a slow *** ecm doing it by hand is better, especially if your adding in stuff to whats already there. Time is very limited with some computers, you know, like the crappy ones we have, so streamlining it is a must.
I set my thresholds for PE to give a transistion when the MAP is around 75 kPa.
Heres one that I found useful. How about a 16 bit 2D lookup routine for those values taht are just too big to squeeze into a table without using stupid scalars and stuff. The routine isnt hard, but teh factory probably left it out because 16 bit tables take up too much memory.
Originally posted by JPrevost
Then again why bother... how about a high level compiler for source code that asks you what you want in your code . Something that'll ask you if you the boundries you want for your main tables, what inputs are going to which pins (incase you're using extra inputs ), high level compiler that'll do all of the low level stuff. That's what's REALLY needed to get source code to boom. As it is it's very hard to follow every little routine. I get confused all the time trying to follow the low level stuff .
Then again why bother... how about a high level compiler for source code that asks you what you want in your code
. Something that'll ask you if you the boundries you want for your main tables, what inputs are going to which pins (incase you're using extra inputs ), high level compiler that'll do all of the low level stuff. That's what's REALLY needed to get source code to boom. As it is it's very hard to follow every little routine. I get confused all the time trying to follow the low level stuff .
11-17-2004, 12:22 PM
#9
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Costal Alabama
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1989 Iroc-Z
Engine: 350, ZZ4 equivalent
Transmission: Pro-Built Road Race 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.23 Dana 44
Originally posted by Teeleton
How about just doing away with the BLM cells altogether and set the BLMs to be 1:1 with the VE table.
Teeleton
How about just doing away with the BLM cells altogether and set the BLMs to be 1:1 with the VE table.
Teeleton
11-17-2004, 02:09 PM
#10
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by dimented24x7
I think the PE enable using TPS values vs. rpm or whatever the ecm in question has is better then using MAP.
I think the PE enable using TPS values vs. rpm or whatever the ecm in question has is better then using MAP.
PE, is Power Enrichment. That would seem to indicate MAP being a better guage about when the engine would *like* the extra fuel/timing.
Using just TPS is, IMO, just for those that like the *feel* of the secondaries opening. Not to be confused with giving the engine what it likes.
11-17-2004, 03:11 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 91 Red Sled
Axle/Gears: 10bolt Richmond 3.73 Torsen
Originally posted by Grumpy
Really?, have you actually tried both?.
PE, is Power Enrichment. That would seem to indicate MAP being a better guage about when the engine would *like* the extra fuel/timing.
Using just TPS is, IMO, just for those that like the *feel* of the secondaries opening. Not to be confused with giving the engine what it likes.
Really?, have you actually tried both?.
PE, is Power Enrichment. That would seem to indicate MAP being a better guage about when the engine would *like* the extra fuel/timing.
Using just TPS is, IMO, just for those that like the *feel* of the secondaries opening. Not to be confused with giving the engine what it likes.
.I actually agree with the TPS being a better indicator although I haven't tried both.... yet. I think if you've got a car that is a cruiser with like 2.73's out back then the MAP might be a good indicator. I think with gears like 3.73's and higher TPS is better, just keeps you from wasting even more fuel than you already are
.Here's something that's always pissed me off; the different locations and scalors for the MAF tables in the $6E code. Who the hell thought of that and how is that better than just having one large 2d table without scalors? Is there code in there that looks at which "area" of the MAF you're in to do other things? If not, I'd think they were smoking something when the coded it. Also wasn't the 165 FIRST SD and THEN MAF? Might that explain some of the crazy stuff.
Anyways, back to patchs. I'd like to see a patch for the slow c3's that turbo charges the ALDL into the standard 8192 baud ALDL so that they could use the same scanning software. With the Speedreader on it's way there won't be a need for it but before I got lockers I was depressed and confused.
11-17-2004, 04:27 PM
#12
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TX
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 firebird
Engine: 350
Transmission: t-56
Kinda off subject But I don't have lockers and i'm scared confued and depressed about killing my new motor. Hopefuly the speed reader will bring in new life to the C3. Most info here slanted for TPI p4 and the c3 is like an ugly stepchild.
11-17-2004, 05:11 PM
#13
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
I like my C3. Its easy to work with and relatively simple. It does lack speed and the extra features of the later ecms, though.
As far as the whole PE thing, one problem that I see with my setup is that on tip in with the large tbi my map can really spike up and that might make AE harder to tune if the AFR is skipping around in the process.
One way id like to do it is to do away with PE altogether. Have closed loop but use a table of tps values to define where to exit closed loop. After that, just take the AFRs off of the open loop AFR table, tables, or whatever. That way instead of that stepwise AFR change, one can smoothly slope the AFRs out to the desired WOT AFR.
Or, alteratively, one could have a 3D table of PE afr values. Once the tps shows that the driver wishes to do more then just cruise around, then spool the AFRs off of that. This way one could also have a smooth AFR transition rather then immediatly go to 12.5:1 or whatever.
As far as the whole PE thing, one problem that I see with my setup is that on tip in with the large tbi my map can really spike up and that might make AE harder to tune if the AFR is skipping around in the process.
One way id like to do it is to do away with PE altogether. Have closed loop but use a table of tps values to define where to exit closed loop. After that, just take the AFRs off of the open loop AFR table, tables, or whatever. That way instead of that stepwise AFR change, one can smoothly slope the AFRs out to the desired WOT AFR.
Or, alteratively, one could have a 3D table of PE afr values. Once the tps shows that the driver wishes to do more then just cruise around, then spool the AFRs off of that. This way one could also have a smooth AFR transition rather then immediatly go to 12.5:1 or whatever.
11-17-2004, 05:21 PM
#14
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
Originally posted by JPrevost
It's like VTec for a slow reving v8 .
I actually agree with the TPS being a better indicator although I haven't tried both.... yet. I think if you've got a car that is a cruiser with like 2.73's out back then the MAP might be a good indicator. I think with gears like 3.73's and higher TPS is better, just keeps you from wasting even more fuel than you already are .
Here's something that's always pissed me off; the different locations and scalors for the MAF tables in the $6E code. Who the hell thought of that and how is that better than just having one large 2d table without scalors? Is there code in there that looks at which "area" of the MAF you're in to do other things? If not, I'd think they were smoking something when the coded it. Also wasn't the 165 FIRST SD and THEN MAF? Might that explain some of the crazy stuff.
Anyways, back to patchs. I'd like to see a patch for the slow c3's that turbo charges the ALDL into the standard 8192 baud ALDL so that they could use the same scanning software. With the Speedreader on it's way there won't be a need for it but before I got lockers I was depressed and confused.
It's like VTec for a slow reving v8
.I actually agree with the TPS being a better indicator although I haven't tried both.... yet. I think if you've got a car that is a cruiser with like 2.73's out back then the MAP might be a good indicator. I think with gears like 3.73's and higher TPS is better, just keeps you from wasting even more fuel than you already are
.Here's something that's always pissed me off; the different locations and scalors for the MAF tables in the $6E code. Who the hell thought of that and how is that better than just having one large 2d table without scalors? Is there code in there that looks at which "area" of the MAF you're in to do other things? If not, I'd think they were smoking something when the coded it. Also wasn't the 165 FIRST SD and THEN MAF? Might that explain some of the crazy stuff.
Anyways, back to patchs. I'd like to see a patch for the slow c3's that turbo charges the ALDL into the standard 8192 baud ALDL so that they could use the same scanning software. With the Speedreader on it's way there won't be a need for it but before I got lockers I was depressed and confused.
As for the MAF, the scalar is needed because the tables are 8 bit. Lets say if you wanted to store 5.9 gms/sec with one large table, it would ahve to be just 0x05 since 255 is 255 gms/sec. The .9 is history, which results in an error of around 15%. Too big to allow a smooth idle. By having the scalar, one can use as much of the 8 bits as possible to store the small flowrates. Basically its a workaround for not having enough memory to store stuff and only having an 8 bit cpu, although the 16 bit lookup routine I made wasnt that hard to program and works just like the stock one. But, with 16 bits, data takes up 2x the space...
11-17-2004, 05:44 PM
#15
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by dimented24x7
As for the MAF, the scalar is needed because the tables are 8 bit. Lets say if you wanted to store 5.9 gms/sec with one large table, it would ahve to be just 0x05 since 255 is 255 gms/sec. The .9 is history, which results in an error of around 15%.
As for the MAF, the scalar is needed because the tables are 8 bit. Lets say if you wanted to store 5.9 gms/sec with one large table, it would ahve to be just 0x05 since 255 is 255 gms/sec. The .9 is history, which results in an error of around 15%.
And with the table version you'd have ~255 entry points for the data vs, what 66 in a MAF system?.
11-17-2004, 05:51 PM
#16
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by JPrevost
It's like VTec for a slow reving v8 .
I actually agree with the TPS being a better indicator although I haven't tried both....
It's like VTec for a slow reving v8
.I actually agree with the TPS being a better indicator although I haven't tried both....
I don't see any comparison from VTEC to MAF enable PE.
Oh well, maybe I just not post about actual results. Seems like they get countered with so many opinions.
If one were to think about PE, vs AE, tip-in preigntion, and when the engine needs addition in cylinder cooling, I can't see where TPS induced PE, is going to begin to match what MAP does.
If your really into MPG then you'd run the engine at Stoich all the time. But, be prepared to watch alot of tail lights disappearing.
11-17-2004, 06:00 PM
#17
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by 91RedFirebird
Most info here slanted for TPI p4 and the c3 is like an ugly stepchild.
Most info here slanted for TPI p4 and the c3 is like an ugly stepchild.
Are you into rewiring the guts of an ecm?. With the code hiden on the PCB, the C3 is way beyond the average guy being able to get to work at it's full potential.
IMO, it's amazing that only one guy's gone to the effort to even try to run a TBI on a P4 (other then what I did YEARS ago).
A C3 with Lockers matches the best of any ecm, yet very few people were even interested in lockers.
Slanted?, ya, only by what the people here are willing to work for/at.
I've given away about a dozen copies of the 60 code, and you know what?, no one, zip, 0, none, have posted actually doing a thing with it.
So if you want to not be part of the *slanted*, then get busy actually changing things.
Oops, lost my footing and fell off my soap box......
11-17-2004, 06:10 PM
#18
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
Originally posted by Grumpy
Are you sure your not ignoring that in the *new* strategy it's a 3d table?. With that the ecm would be able to interpolate between entries. Aren't all the tables subject to rounding errors?.
And with the table version you'd have ~255 entry points for the data vs, what 66 in a MAF system?.
Are you sure your not ignoring that in the *new* strategy it's a 3d table?. With that the ecm would be able to interpolate between entries. Aren't all the tables subject to rounding errors?.
And with the table version you'd have ~255 entry points for the data vs, what 66 in a MAF system?.
My comment was in reference to JPs comment on why the need for a MAF scalar, which is due to only having the ability to store 8 bit entries.
11-17-2004, 06:16 PM
#19
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
Originally posted by Grumpy
And?.
Are you into rewiring the guts of an ecm?. With the code hiden on the PCB, the C3 is way beyond the average guy being able to get to work at it's full potential.
IMO, it's amazing that only one guy's gone to the effort to even try to run a TBI on a P4 (other then what I did YEARS ago).
A C3 with Lockers matches the best of any ecm, yet very few people were even interested in lockers.
Slanted?, ya, only by what the people here are willing to work for/at.
I've given away about a dozen copies of the 60 code, and you know what?, no one, zip, 0, none, have posted actually doing a thing with it.
So if you want to not be part of the *slanted*, then get busy actually changing things.
Oops, lost my footing and fell off my soap box......
And?.
Are you into rewiring the guts of an ecm?. With the code hiden on the PCB, the C3 is way beyond the average guy being able to get to work at it's full potential.
IMO, it's amazing that only one guy's gone to the effort to even try to run a TBI on a P4 (other then what I did YEARS ago).
A C3 with Lockers matches the best of any ecm, yet very few people were even interested in lockers.
Slanted?, ya, only by what the people here are willing to work for/at.
I've given away about a dozen copies of the 60 code, and you know what?, no one, zip, 0, none, have posted actually doing a thing with it.
So if you want to not be part of the *slanted*, then get busy actually changing things.
Oops, lost my footing and fell off my soap box......
11-17-2004, 06:29 PM
#20
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
Originally posted by Grumpy
??????
I don't see any comparison from VTEC to MAF enable PE.
Oh well, maybe I just not post about actual results. Seems like they get countered with so many opinions.
If one were to think about PE, vs AE, tip-in preigntion, and when the engine needs addition in cylinder cooling, I can't see where TPS induced PE, is going to begin to match what MAP does.
If your really into MPG then you'd run the engine at Stoich all the time. But, be prepared to watch alot of tail lights disappearing.
??????
I don't see any comparison from VTEC to MAF enable PE.
Oh well, maybe I just not post about actual results. Seems like they get countered with so many opinions.
If one were to think about PE, vs AE, tip-in preigntion, and when the engine needs addition in cylinder cooling, I can't see where TPS induced PE, is going to begin to match what MAP does.
If your really into MPG then you'd run the engine at Stoich all the time. But, be prepared to watch alot of tail lights disappearing.
The whole VTEC thing is how it feels when PE engages. I set mine to around 30% - 35% tps which seems to provide a much smoother transision.
Youd have to own or have driven a honda to apreciate his statment. I hate the way honduh handles their engines. They pull lots of spark on tip in to take any resemblence of throttle resonse out and the VTEC doesnt seem to come in when it should, giving that stepwise transistion from slow to 'fast'. I personally dont see why it has to be so complicated. Jsut turn it on where the torque curves of the two cam profiles cross. There, done... Now its just like one super cam. Must be so they can get that stupid SULEV crap...
Last edited by dimented24x7; 11-17-2004 at 06:35 PM.
11-17-2004, 06:48 PM
#21
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TX
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 firebird
Engine: 350
Transmission: t-56
ok you got me I want every one to do the hard work and give it to me free.
About the only things i have done to my C3 was install a moates adapter and create a ECU file with info provied by Jprevost. I just down loaded the patch demo, is there even space for other ideas to be added? I was looking hard at some info about a romless conversion buy writing my own code is over my head now, I have problems counting past 10 (thank g** for finger) put some letters in there and I'm done for. Are there any locker bords out there?Any one willing to help me time it?
About the only things i have done to my C3 was install a moates adapter and create a ECU file with info provied by Jprevost. I just down loaded the patch demo, is there even space for other ideas to be added? I was looking hard at some info about a romless conversion buy writing my own code is over my head now, I have problems counting past 10 (thank g** for finger) put some letters in there and I'm done for. Are there any locker bords out there?Any one willing to help me time it?
11-17-2004, 08:18 PM
#22
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
Originally posted by 91RedFirebird
ok you got me I want every one to do the hard work and give it to me free.
ok you got me I want every one to do the hard work and give it to me free.
I didnt mean for my remark to be derogitory. I was just saying that time constriants, programming experience, and other things weigh into what people can do. Its not that they may not want to do them, but they may not have the computer experience or what have you to really dig into it. I was at college and commuting so I had to time my long commutes to coincide with times of low traffic, otherwise it would take hours to get to south jersey in the afternoon. So, I had lots of time to kill between classes so thats where I worked source coding and all that other stuff. I dont know how Id fit that in now...
About the only things i have done to my C3 was install a moates adapter and create a ECU file with info provied by Jprevost. I just down loaded the patch demo, is there even space for other ideas to be added? I was looking hard at some info about a romless conversion buy writing my own code is over my head now, I have problems counting past 10 (thank g** for finger) put some letters in there and I'm done for. Are there any locker bords out there?Any one willing to help me time it?
11-17-2004, 10:12 PM
#23
Supreme Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Johnstown, Ohio
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 84 Z28
Engine: 355 (fastburn heads, LT4 HOT cam)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt, 3.27
Originally posted by dimented24x7
The whole VTEC thing is how it feels when PE engages.
The whole VTEC thing is how it feels when PE engages.
11-17-2004, 10:18 PM
#24
Supreme Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Johnstown, Ohio
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 84 Z28
Engine: 355 (fastburn heads, LT4 HOT cam)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt, 3.27
From some of the stuff I've been working on, I can see where some of the ideas we all have are being implemented in the later OBD2 GM computers. Along with the Honda crap I've been doing, I'm also getting into tuning a 2003 Grand Prix GTP L67 (3800 Supercharged) that I swapped into a 87 Lesabre T-type. Haven't done any actual tuning on it yet, but the tables they have in there are almost mind boggling! As I get going on it, I'll post some more if there's interest....
BTW....For editing, I'm using HPTuners. So far I like it, except that after the first flash I put into it VATS (Passlock 3) somehow became enabled..... I'm downloading an update to take care of this, and I hope it works out ok!
BTW....For editing, I'm using HPTuners. So far I like it, except that after the first flash I put into it VATS (Passlock 3) somehow became enabled..... I'm downloading an update to take care of this, and I hope it works out ok!
11-17-2004, 10:23 PM
#25
Supreme Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Johnstown, Ohio
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 84 Z28
Engine: 355 (fastburn heads, LT4 HOT cam)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt, 3.27
OK, one more thing.....A question.... How big of a bin can we run in these ECM's? I know some use 16K, but will work burned as a 32k. Can we use the additional 16k for storage or code?
11-17-2004, 10:31 PM
#26
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 81 Turbo Trans Am
Engine: 301 T
Transmission: 200-4R
The $58 software can be made to run in a 32K chip. (I believe Grumpy has done this with the $60 code.) Since this is ROM, it can only be used for code/calibrations.
There is currently 512 bytes of RAM in the 7749. The stock software stops addressing around 400 bytes. But, we have to leave some room for the stack in there somewhere, too. Seems like I'd heard about the possibility of increasing the amount of on-board RAM by soldering a chip into an existing "slot" in the board. But, I don't know if anyone has tried this.....
There is currently 512 bytes of RAM in the 7749. The stock software stops addressing around 400 bytes. But, we have to leave some room for the stack in there somewhere, too. Seems like I'd heard about the possibility of increasing the amount of on-board RAM by soldering a chip into an existing "slot" in the board. But, I don't know if anyone has tried this.....
11-17-2004, 10:38 PM
#27
Supreme Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Johnstown, Ohio
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 84 Z28
Engine: 355 (fastburn heads, LT4 HOT cam)
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt, 3.27
Ah, yeah, it's coming back to me now, I shoulda hit 
I remember there being some questions about adding ram either here or on Diy-EFI.....
Now I'm beginnig to understand some of our boudaries...... I'm trying to get a grasp of all this low level stuff!
I've been hinting at this for a while now, and was wondering if it would even be possible! Now I'm beginning to see where hand coding woule be more efficient, as I learn about these boundaries.....
I remember there being some questions about adding ram either here or on Diy-EFI.....Now I'm beginnig to understand some of our boudaries...... I'm trying to get a grasp of all this low level stuff!
how about a high level compiler for source code that asks you what you want in your code
11-17-2004, 11:16 PM
#28
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 81 Turbo Trans Am
Engine: 301 T
Transmission: 200-4R
Originally posted by Grumpy
A C3 with Lockers matches the best of any ecm, yet very few people were even interested in lockers.
I've given away about a dozen copies of the 60 code, and you know what?, no one, zip, 0, none, have posted actually doing a thing with it.
So if you want to not be part of the *slanted*, then get busy actually changing things.
Oops, lost my footing and fell off my soap box......
A C3 with Lockers matches the best of any ecm, yet very few people were even interested in lockers.
I've given away about a dozen copies of the 60 code, and you know what?, no one, zip, 0, none, have posted actually doing a thing with it.
So if you want to not be part of the *slanted*, then get busy actually changing things.
Oops, lost my footing and fell off my soap box......
The other side of the story (and maybe why the $60 code doesn't appear to be "anonymously" downloadable??) is the very real possibility that someone's "patch" is going to be propagated without credit or mention going to the author? As a few people have pointed out, it takes a lot of time/patience/effort to get even simple changes made to the code. I know this is a poor excuse. And, I'd agree with anyone who points out "where would we be now" if the first people to hac an ECM never shared their work..... But, there's still that feeling of being taken advantage of that's hard to overcome in these cases.....
To that end, I'd hoped that we could come up with some relatively "simple" changes we could start making to the $58/$60 software that could benefit a larger number of people. The current software patches that read the WBO2 sensor and put it in the ALDL come immediately to mind. From your very first post in this thread, it sounds like you have either modified software already or have encountered this functionality in a vehicle? Maybe we need to find a way to have people vote on the most desired software modification to get things rolling? No sense making software changes nobody is going to use......
11-17-2004, 11:20 PM
#29
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Browns Town
Posts: 3,178
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 86 Monte SS (730,$8D,G3,AP,4K,S_V4)
Engine: 406 Hyd Roller 236/242
Transmission: 700R4 HomeBrew, 2.4K stall
Axle/Gears: 3:73 Posi, 7.5 Soon to break
Originally posted by Grumpy
I've given away about a dozen copies of the 60 code, and you know what?, no one, zip, 0, none, have posted actually doing a thing with it.
So if you want to not be part of the *slanted*, then get busy actually changing things.
Oops, lost my footing and fell off my soap box......
I've given away about a dozen copies of the 60 code, and you know what?, no one, zip, 0, none, have posted actually doing a thing with it.
So if you want to not be part of the *slanted*, then get busy actually changing things.
Oops, lost my footing and fell off my soap box......
I can appreciate the comment because I know what kind of work it took to get there and to be able to GIVE it freely.
It's obvious there are thousands of people willing and able to make variable changes with a supplied ecu file and a burner setup for them. There are far, far fewer that are willing to devote the time needed to really understand the aspects of what and why the changes are being made and go for the 98% tune and still try for better. There are even fewer who are willing to sacrifice the time it takes to really learn the routines within the software setups in assembly language (oh boy!) to really take advantage of the stuff in front of them. I'm sure this is nothing new, you've seen this for years.
I admit I haven't done anything with the code because I haven't tried running it yet. Time will tell.
My biggest problem is that I've studied $8D for over a year, $58/60 is kind of a left turn for me (at the moment).
I need to understand the $8D better to allow better understanding of the 58/60. Not being familiar enough with boosted and the DIS applications is not making life easier either.
I'm running N/A now and probably will through next summer. So I have gone back to commenting my disassembled AUJP fully so "I" know as much about that code as I can.
So far this week alone I have over 30 hours of sifting and documenting. Meanwhile reffering the 58/60 along the way to see how things are similar/different. You can tell by the posts who is working working on code and who is changing variables.
I feel I've gotta get to the bottom of why we cant use the software to configure the I/O and get rid of repinning. May not be possible, don't know yet, but mind you that I will find out WHY.
And when I do, you'll all know.
Before I go deeper into the code I want to know how all of the I/O is used, connected, filter, addressed and such. Then check the routines where each is used. SPI stuff, maybe later (that's a whole nother subject)
Then ALL the tools are in my hands with the knowledge of what can, should, wants and needs to be done.
Then the plan "Should" come together if the masks can be swapped out on the fly.
I'm not out to build the ultimate motor, just make it run my way and have made a very fun hobby out of it. It's the best toy I have!
I don't plan on giving up for a loooooong time.
Resistance is Futile !!!!
Anyway IMHO, I agree with using the MAP to get rid of the tip in preignition at higher loads and low speeds (especially in OD with crappy gas). My TPI doesn't have too much problem but at times it does seem like that would help the occasional problem without removing spark.
They are all just ideas and until tried and results compared, ya just don't know.
11-18-2004, 08:52 AM
#30
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
Originally posted by JP84Z430HP
Sorry, but as you state in your post to this thread, proper VTec engagement should not be felt. I have experienced it firsthand. I'm currently getting into tuning with Honda's (they have a long way to go in the editor area..... and their computers are primitive from what I can tell, I wish they had what we have, I could do a lot more with them!) We have a H-22 (Prelude, "Big Block" of the Honda's) in a Civic, running on the stock Civic ECU, with a bin based on such a hybrid... The VTec can't be felt, but you can surely hear it in the exhaust.... I guess this goes back to why the aftermarket chips have always been so popular, they "Feel" faster....
Sorry, but as you state in your post to this thread, proper VTec engagement should not be felt. I have experienced it firsthand. I'm currently getting into tuning with Honda's (they have a long way to go in the editor area..... and their computers are primitive from what I can tell, I wish they had what we have, I could do a lot more with them!) We have a H-22 (Prelude, "Big Block" of the Honda's) in a Civic, running on the stock Civic ECU, with a bin based on such a hybrid... The VTec can't be felt, but you can surely hear it in the exhaust.... I guess this goes back to why the aftermarket chips have always been so popular, they "Feel" faster....
11-18-2004, 02:20 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 91 Red Sled
Axle/Gears: 10bolt Richmond 3.73 Torsen
Code:
;*==============================================
;*
;* Do Power Enrichment Quals
;*
;*==============================================
;
; get baro adj tps% val
;
LDA25: CE D3 AE LDX #$D3AE ; Tps Mult vs. Baro
LDA28: BD FB 67 JSR LFB67 ; get a baro adjusted tps% value
LDA2B: 36 PSHA ; save baro adj tps%
;
; get tps% required for PE from tbl vs. rpm
;
LDA2C: CE D3 C5 LDX #$D3C5 ; tps% for pe tbl
;
LDA2F: D6 21 LDAB L0021 ; coolant, defaulted, 1k pu, inverse, adc cnts
LDA31: F1 D2 57 CMPB LD257 ; 23, coolant threshold, 120c
LDA34: 23 03 BLS LDA39 ; bra if coolant > 120c
;
LDA36: CE D3 B2 LDX #$D3B2 ; tps% for pe tbl
;
;
; Do Lookup for tps% required
;
LDA39: 8D 16 BSR LDA51 ; do 2d lkup w/scaled rpm
;
; if in PE now, sub out tps% hyst
;
LDA3B: 96 0D LDAA L000D ; status word
LDA3D: 2A 06 BPL LDA45 ; bra if not in PE already
;
LDA3F: F0 D2 58 SUBB LD258 ; result of lookup - 8
LDA42: 24 01 BCC LDA45 ; bra if no undrflw
LDA44: 5F CLRB ;
;
;
; now test for enough tps% for PE
;
LDA45: 32 PULA ; baro adj tps%
LDA46: 10 SBA ;
LDA47: 24 13 BCC LDA5C ;
;
;
; bra here for no PE
;
LDA49: 96 0D LDAA L000D ; status word
LDA4B: 84 7F ANDA #$7F ; clr b7, 0111 1111, PE mode bit
LDA4D: 97 0D STAA L000D ; status word
LDA4F: 20 29 BRA LDA7A ;
;
;-----------------------------------------------
;
; SubRoutine for 2d lookup w/scaled rpm val
;
;-----------------------------------------------
LDA51: 96 1A LDAA L001A ; rpm scaled
LDA53: 44 LSRA ; rpm /= 2
LDA54: 44 LSRA ; rpm /= 2
LDA55: 89 00 ADCA #0 ; rnd up A
LDA57: BD FB 95 JSR LFB95 ; 2d lkup
LDA5A: 16 TAB ; return w/val in both A & B
LDA5B: 39 RTS ; and done >>>> Change L001A to L0025 and then label your tps% vs rpm table for PE to map% vs rpm table. That should be all that's required code wise. As is the tables will NEED adjusting or you'll be in PE mode at idle
. Move the values up and you should be good. Anybody see a flaw in my patch? I'd test it on my bench if I could get an RPM signal RAM locations for the $61
L001A EQU $1A ; rpm scaled, 400 to 2400 by 200's, 2400 to 4800 by 400's
and
L0025 EQU $25 ; s/d map, KPa = (N * 0.3125) + 20
Last edited by JPrevost; 11-18-2004 at 02:33 PM.
11-18-2004, 04:06 PM
#32
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
A quick look at it and id say change:
To:
and make any changes so that it takes up the same ammount of space in the prom. That should then do the lookup with map instead of teh baro corrected tps.
Code:
LDA28: BD FB 67 JSR LFB67 ; get a baro adjusted tps% value LDA2B: 36 PSHA ; save baro adj tps%
Code:
LDAA L0025 ;Load MAP PSHA ;push map to stack for load up
11-18-2004, 04:09 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 91 Red Sled
Axle/Gears: 10bolt Richmond 3.73 Torsen
Dim, that's not the same thing. The Baro lookup adjusts the PE/bpw and the table lookup is only 4 cells small. 75,85,95,105kpa. What I suggested is the actual lookup of the tps for WHEN to enter PE mode, you're suggestion is for how much to adjust PE based on baro.
11-18-2004, 05:02 PM
#34
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
Heres the code from mine. Im **** so teh comments are a bit more thorough.
Discussion in next post...
Code:
;
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;Do some PE quals.
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;
;-Do baro correction of TPS
;
LDAA2 LDX #LD37D ;tps mult. vs baro table
JSR LFBC7 ;Go do lookup
PSHA ;adjusted %tps ----> stack
;
LDX #LD381 ;%TPS for PE vs RPM table
BSR LDAC4 ;scaled RPM lookup routine
;
LDAA L000D ;Status word
BPL LDAB8 ;Bra if not in PE
;
SUBB LD218 ; - 8, tps hyst.
BCC LDAB8 ;Bra if no underflow
;
CLRB ;Clr overflow
;
LDAB8 PULA ;Adj. %tps
SBA ; - %TPS for PE
BCC LDACF ;Bra if %TPS is greater
;
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~
; No PE here
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;
LDABC LDAA L000D ;Load status word
ANDA #$007F ;Clr b7, no PE
STAA L000D ;Save it
BRA LDB06 ;Bra
;
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;>
;>Subroutine to do lookup using scaled RPM
;>
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;
LDAC4 LDAA L001A ;Load in scaled RPM
LSRA ;/2
LSRA ;/2
ADCA #$0000 ;Round if needed
JSR LFB7B ;Go do lookup
TAB ;Transfer looked up val to B
RTS ;Return
;
;~~~~~~~~~~~
;In PE here
;~~~~~~~~~~~
;
LDACF LDAA L000D ;Status word
ORAA #$0080 ;set b7, PE in effect
STAA L000D ;Save it
;
LDX #LD38B ;Corr. factor vs %TPS table
LDAA L0043 ;%TPS
;
;-Scale %TPS for lookup
;
LDAB #$00A0 ;160
MUL ;(%TPS x 160)/256
ADCA #$0000 ;round if needed
LDAB #$0060 ;96
JSR LFB77 ;2D lookup with SBA
PSHA ;corr. factor ----> stack
;
;Look up PE AFR
;
LDX #LD386 ;PE AFR vs RPMs
BSR LDAC4 ;Lookup using scaled rpms Last edited by dimented24x7; 11-18-2004 at 05:15 PM.
11-18-2004, 05:08 PM
#35
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moorestown, NJ
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
Little different then what the 8746 has but its close enough.
Look at LDAB8. There, the corrected %TPS is loaded and the %TPS threshold for PE needed is subtracted out. If the result is >=0, the ecm jumps to enter PE and load up the PE afr and such. If not, the ecm continues, clears the PE enabled bit, and jumps past the PE stuff... The scaled rpms are just used for table lookups. Dont change that since youll have a %tps vs MAP instead of %tps vs rpm. You want MAP vs rpm. The stack push is where you want to change the %tps to MAP. Thats whats used for determining the entrance to PE.
edit: Mistyping and spelling errors... Ill have to slap my secretary.
Look at LDAB8. There, the corrected %TPS is loaded and the %TPS threshold for PE needed is subtracted out. If the result is >=0, the ecm jumps to enter PE and load up the PE afr and such. If not, the ecm continues, clears the PE enabled bit, and jumps past the PE stuff... The scaled rpms are just used for table lookups. Dont change that since youll have a %tps vs MAP instead of %tps vs rpm. You want MAP vs rpm
. The stack push is where you want to change the %tps to MAP. Thats whats used for determining the entrance to PE.edit: Mistyping and spelling errors... Ill have to slap my secretary.
Last edited by dimented24x7; 11-18-2004 at 05:11 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Xenodrgn
Tech / General Engine
1
04-25-2001 09:36 PM
crazeinc
Suspension and Chassis
3
02-14-2001 09:03 AM