$58 IAC control
06-12-2006, 08:40 PM
#1
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Grand Island, NY
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1990 Formula
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: WC T5
$58 IAC control
I am still trying to find out why my car wants to stall when the clutch is pressed in sometimes. It is hit and miss but mostly happens when the rpms are 2000 and up (above the closed throttle tables). The Rpms drop and then they drop too low. At about my iac idle setting the computer tries to compensate however, sometimes its too late and stalls.
Is there a way to slow down the rate that the idle drops back down. I have read up alot about the lack of a throttle follower in $58. Back when I was using $8d it ran sweet, never had a problem. I have the tune decient with $58 however, this issue is a pain in the a$$.
Any suggestions? ( I posted about this about a year ago, changed injectors because there was no way that I could get the 65 lbs to run properly, now have 32 and all is good except this issue)
Ps. I have not been able to find anyting in the hac/docs about iac control in $58
Is there a way to slow down the rate that the idle drops back down. I have read up alot about the lack of a throttle follower in $58. Back when I was using $8d it ran sweet, never had a problem. I have the tune decient with $58 however, this issue is a pain in the a$$.
Any suggestions? ( I posted about this about a year ago, changed injectors because there was no way that I could get the 65 lbs to run properly, now have 32 and all is good except this issue)
Ps. I have not been able to find anyting in the hac/docs about iac control in $58
06-12-2006, 11:12 PM
#2
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
The problem is most likely due to DFCO. It was designed for an automatic and thus the engine always has a load to keep it running when DFCO is enabled.
The ECM is expecting the engine to keep running due to the load by the rear wheels when you let off the throttle. When the clutch is pushed in, the load goes away, the RPMs drop and the stall saver doesn't have a chance to recover from an odd situation like that.
I would disable DFCO and get the 20KPA and 30KPA correct in terms of fueling. That will help a lot. Other than that you have to make some code changes. It isn't that bad with the $58 because there is a lot of room to put in new code. I was having a problem with a large current draw cooling fan wanting to almost kill the engine at idle. I wrote some code to kick the idle RPM up by 75 RPM before the fan came on. I also added some code to delay the coolant fan from coming on until 5 seconds after engine start-up. If you take it slow it isn't as bad as some people make it out to be.
BTW, I see 1.1ms +/- .1ms with a 216@ .050 cam V8, 730 ECM, $58 BBZB, 42#/hr saturated injectors. The BPW changed pretty much linearly when installing the 42#/hr after taking out the 24#/hr sat. injectors. So, I would have to guess that your low throttle cruise and idle BPWs were in the (42/65)*1.1ms range. Yeah, no way would they work if they were saturated injectors using double fire batch mode of the $58 code. P&H and so called quasi-fueling is another matter though.
The ECM is expecting the engine to keep running due to the load by the rear wheels when you let off the throttle. When the clutch is pushed in, the load goes away, the RPMs drop and the stall saver doesn't have a chance to recover from an odd situation like that.
I would disable DFCO and get the 20KPA and 30KPA correct in terms of fueling. That will help a lot. Other than that you have to make some code changes. It isn't that bad with the $58 because there is a lot of room to put in new code. I was having a problem with a large current draw cooling fan wanting to almost kill the engine at idle. I wrote some code to kick the idle RPM up by 75 RPM before the fan came on. I also added some code to delay the coolant fan from coming on until 5 seconds after engine start-up. If you take it slow it isn't as bad as some people make it out to be.
BTW, I see 1.1ms +/- .1ms with a 216@ .050 cam V8, 730 ECM, $58 BBZB, 42#/hr saturated injectors. The BPW changed pretty much linearly when installing the 42#/hr after taking out the 24#/hr sat. injectors. So, I would have to guess that your low throttle cruise and idle BPWs were in the (42/65)*1.1ms range. Yeah, no way would they work if they were saturated injectors using double fire batch mode of the $58 code. P&H and so called quasi-fueling is another matter though.
Last edited by junkcltr; 06-12-2006 at 11:20 PM.
06-13-2006, 06:37 AM
#3
Supreme Member
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 novass
Ps. I have not been able to find anyting in the hac/docs about iac control in $58
06-13-2006, 10:34 AM
#4
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over China, Iowa, and San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 1,692
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 92 Form, 91 Z28, 89 GTA, 86 Z28
Engine: 5.7 TPI, LG4
Transmission: 700R4, 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27, 2.73
You could crutch it a little with more minimum air (more open throttle setting / less IAC opening), and maybe raise the idle speed 50 to 100 rpm more - and since it's manual, it's not as bad as raising idle on an automatic.
06-13-2006, 11:10 AM
#5
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
Originally Posted by Grumpy
It seems that some of the IAC stuff is hard written in the code, but with no one wanting to work on it, it's a rather moot point at this stage.
Nah, I think plenty of people want to work on it, but they are afraid of one person hogging all the info and claiming credit for it in the end even though they had an endless list of help (but fail to acknowledge it).
Originally Posted by RednGold86Z
You could crutch it a little with more minimum air (more open throttle setting / less IAC opening), and maybe raise the idle speed 50 to 100 rpm more - and since it's manual, it's not as bad as raising idle on an automatic.
06-13-2006, 04:34 PM
#6
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Grand Island, NY
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1990 Formula
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: WC T5
I have 'crutched' it some. I have the 0 IAC counts at idle I idle at 750. I will have to try upping the idle by the throttle plate a bit and see what happens.
I wish I had the knowledge to get into the code and change it. I don't think I have the expertiece to get that far. I can handle tuner pro and I understand how it points to a hex address, but with out spacifics to follow I am lost.
I wish I had the knowledge to get into the code and change it. I don't think I have the expertiece to get that far. I can handle tuner pro and I understand how it points to a hex address, but with out spacifics to follow I am lost.
06-13-2006, 04:47 PM
#7
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
Does it stall with the idle raised and DFCO disabled? At 2000 RPMish things start to change with DFCO and it sounded like that is what was causing your problem.
I have talked to a few people that actually wanted DFCO for their stick cars for better MPG and braking. They were complaining about the car idling high between shifts and during braking. I told them what DFCO actual does and they changed their mind.
Another example of DFCO is engine braking in heavy equipment. The mechanics are different but the theory is the same. The system has a toggle switch on the dash to enable or disable it. If the engine brake is on the truck slows down quick, if the clutch is pressed down then the engine will just about stall on some designs if the throttle pedal switch is mis-adjusted.
Anyway, you can't do engine braking / DFCO without a load trying to keep the engine going. I don't think you really need to get into the code section to fix it. To me that seems over board for the problem you have. I try to fix things up by adjusting the CAL data before going into the code. Changing code should always be a last resort as far as I am concerned.
I have talked to a few people that actually wanted DFCO for their stick cars for better MPG and braking. They were complaining about the car idling high between shifts and during braking. I told them what DFCO actual does and they changed their mind.
Another example of DFCO is engine braking in heavy equipment. The mechanics are different but the theory is the same. The system has a toggle switch on the dash to enable or disable it. If the engine brake is on the truck slows down quick, if the clutch is pressed down then the engine will just about stall on some designs if the throttle pedal switch is mis-adjusted.
Anyway, you can't do engine braking / DFCO without a load trying to keep the engine going. I don't think you really need to get into the code section to fix it. To me that seems over board for the problem you have. I try to fix things up by adjusting the CAL data before going into the code. Changing code should always be a last resort as far as I am concerned.
Trending Topics
06-13-2006, 08:17 PM
#8
Supreme Member
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 junkcltr
If the IAC constants are hard written into the code it is just a matter of setting the Tuner file definitions to the proper addresses. It doesn't matter if it is a CAL address or CODE address. Unless there is a problem with the BIN editing tool.
BUt, like I've said, the 58 has other issues that need resolved.
06-13-2006, 08:50 PM
#9
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over China, Iowa, and San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 1,692
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 92 Form, 91 Z28, 89 GTA, 86 Z28
Engine: 5.7 TPI, LG4
Transmission: 700R4, 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.27, 2.73
What does your integrator do during this stall?
I can imagine it might be dropping quickly before the stall, but then just as it's about to stall it's climbing quickly.
This would indicate the VE table is too rich at the low load just above idle.
I can imagine it might be dropping quickly before the stall, but then just as it's about to stall it's climbing quickly.
This would indicate the VE table is too rich at the low load just above idle.
06-13-2006, 11:04 PM
#10
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
Originally Posted by Grumpy
Just as the inj constant was listed as a cal entry, when in fact it's just a space saver.
Originally Posted by Grumpy
BUt, like I've said, the 58 has other issues that need resolved.
Originally Posted by RednGold86Z
This would indicate the VE table is too rich at the low load just above idle.
With a stick, I would think to make it really right you would need a switch to signal the ECM before the clutch is pressed if DFCO is being used. Or a fair amount of coding. The best you can do without that is mess with the CAL DFCO values and the VE table at low MAP values.
Just like the problem of the $58 not having a big coolant fan I dealt with, you are having a problem because the $58 wasn't designed for manual trans.
I think you can work around it though with changing the CAL data.
06-14-2006, 08:14 AM
#11
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Grumpy
BUt, like I've said, the 58 has other issues that need resolved.
06-14-2006, 09:54 AM
#12
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
Originally Posted by ty1295
If anybody has issue with the $58 and code and actually wants to tell someone I am in a position to fix it. We have already added a lot of features, and are testing them now internally before releasing the new features to the masses. All our changes will be released once verified and made public.
Here is my opinion of what is wrong with the $58 when using as a replacement for the the mechanical system of an $8D bin. This is my opinion on what is wrong and opinions will vary. Remember, that something having problems is usually a matter of opinion.
1) Not enough BLM cells (I use open loop)
2) Single fire fuel mode (would be nice for large injectors, maybe)
3) Spark stabilizer at idle (not a big deal, would be nice)
4) 3D Boost VE multiplier table (kind of needed)
5) Coolant fan operation [CAC pump] (no IAC adjustment)
6) no MonteCarSlow NVSRAM support (still working on that)
7) idle spark only uses the 600 RPM spark cells (it needs to vary more)
06-14-2006, 03:45 PM
#13
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Grand Island, NY
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1990 Formula
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: WC T5
Ok here goes:
First of all I did disable DFCO by:
37b (Speed below which DFCO is disabled) raised to 120 mph
This alone should have done it if not getting error 33,34
However I also did:
370 Decel Fuel Cut-Off Upper limit to 6375
371 Decle Fuel Cut-Off Lower limit to 6300
Running Open loop using Wide band.
I still have blm tuning to do however, I get a very high afr (mine pegs at 17.9 actually is higher basically above the range of the WB)
It only occurs when I am comming down from a higher rpm rev down and then push in the clutch. If I start the rev down below 2000 rpms it does not happen.
Here is a snap shot of the aldl readings when this happens. It is slightly rich initally then when I let off the pedal it (have to work on decel enleinment) then after a bit the afrs peg at 17.9 leading to stall when the IAC cant recover when it drops below the set idle speed.
I sure wish $8d could handle boost!!
First of all I did disable DFCO by:
37b (Speed below which DFCO is disabled) raised to 120 mph
This alone should have done it if not getting error 33,34
However I also did:
370 Decel Fuel Cut-Off Upper limit to 6375
371 Decle Fuel Cut-Off Lower limit to 6300
Running Open loop using Wide band.
I still have blm tuning to do however, I get a very high afr (mine pegs at 17.9 actually is higher basically above the range of the WB)
It only occurs when I am comming down from a higher rpm rev down and then push in the clutch. If I start the rev down below 2000 rpms it does not happen.
Here is a snap shot of the aldl readings when this happens. It is slightly rich initally then when I let off the pedal it (have to work on decel enleinment) then after a bit the afrs peg at 17.9 leading to stall when the IAC cant recover when it drops below the set idle speed.
Code:
TPS % Coolant map AFR BPW Async IAC Spark % Deg. F MPH RPM kPa AFR mSec mSec Steps Degrees 11 188.15 54 2375 39.24 14.2 1.65 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 54 2375 38.46 14.2 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 54 2350 38.46 14.3 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 54 2325 38.46 14.2 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 54 2325 38.46 14.2 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 54 2375 38.46 14.2 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2400 38.46 14.4 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 54 2425 38.46 14.2 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2350 38.46 14.3 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2350 38.46 14.1 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2375 38.46 14.1 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2425 38.46 14.1 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2425 37.68 14.2 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2375 37.68 14.2 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2375 37.68 14.1 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2400 37.68 14 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2425 38.46 14.1 1.65 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 56 2425 37.68 14.1 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2400 37.68 14.1 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 56 2375 37.68 13.9 1.59 0 7 37.97 11 188.15 55 2400 36.9 13.9 1.56 0 7 37.97 10 188.15 56 2425 36.9 13.9 1.56 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 55 2425 32.99 13.5 1.37 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 56 2400 32.21 13 1.31 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 56 2400 31.43 13 1.28 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 56 2400 31.43 13.4 1.28 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 56 2450 31.43 13.5 1.28 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 56 2400 31.43 13.8 1.28 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 55 2400 31.43 13.7 1.28 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 56 2450 31.43 13.8 1.28 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 55 2450 31.43 13.8 1.28 0 7 37.97 8 188.15 56 2450 31.43 13.9 1.28 0 7 37.97 6 188.15 55 2400 29.09 13.8 1.01 0 7 37.97 2 188.15 55 2350 22.06 12.8 0.88 0 7 37.97 2 188.15 56 2400 21.28 13.7 0.82 0 7 37.62 2 188.15 55 2425 20.5 14.4 0.82 0 7 37.62 0 188.15 55 2375 18.15 17 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 55 2375 17.37 15.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 55 2375 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 55 2400 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 55 2400 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 54 2325 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 54 2300 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 54 2300 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 54 2300 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 53 2350 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 54 2350 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 53 2325 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 53 2325 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 53 2300 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 53 2250 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 53 2275 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 52 2250 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 52 2250 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 52 2250 17.37 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 52 2275 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 52 2275 18.15 17.9 0.67 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 52 2250 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 51 2250 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 51 2250 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 51 2225 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 51 2225 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 50 2200 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 50 2200 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 50 2175 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 50 2175 18.15 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 49 2175 18.93 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 49 2150 18.93 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 49 2150 18.93 17.9 0.7 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 49 2125 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 48 2100 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 48 2075 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 48 2050 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 47 2025 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 47 2025 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 47 2050 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 46 2025 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 46 2025 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 46 1975 18.93 17.9 0.73 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 46 1975 18.93 17.9 8.68 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 46 1950 19.72 17.9 0.79 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 45 1950 19.72 17.9 0.79 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 45 1925 19.72 17.9 0.79 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 44 1875 19.72 17.9 0.79 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 44 1875 19.72 17.9 0.82 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 43 1875 20.5 17.9 0.82 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 42 1825 20.5 17.9 0.82 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 42 1775 20.5 17.9 0.82 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 41 1800 21.28 17.9 0.82 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 41 1750 21.28 17.9 0.82 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 40 1750 21.28 17.9 0.82 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 40 1725 22.06 17.9 0.82 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 39 1675 22.06 17.9 0.88 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 39 1700 22.06 17.9 0.88 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 38 1650 22.06 17.9 0.88 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 38 1650 22.06 17.9 0.88 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 38 1575 22.84 17.9 0.88 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 37 1600 22.84 17.9 0.92 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 36 1575 22.84 17.9 0.92 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 36 1550 22.84 17.9 0.92 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 36 1550 22.84 17.9 27.59 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 35 1525 22.84 17.9 0.92 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 35 1525 22.84 17.9 0.92 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 35 1500 22.84 17.9 0.92 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 34 1475 22.84 17.9 0.92 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 34 1475 22.84 17.9 0.92 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 34 1425 23.62 17.9 0.92 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 33 1400 23.62 17.9 0.98 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 32 1425 23.62 17.9 0.98 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 32 1375 23.62 17.9 0.98 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 31 1325 24.4 17.9 0.98 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 31 1150 25.96 17.9 0.98 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 31 1000 28.31 17.9 1.01 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 30 800 31.43 17.9 1.07 0 7 24.96 0 188.15 30 650 35.34 17.9 1.28 0 12 24.96 0 188.15 30 425 40.8 17.9 1.46 0.61 22 24.96 0 188.15 29 325 47.83 17.9 1.8 0.31 28 24.96 0 188.15 29 225 53.3 14.6 2.04 0.85 29 24.61 0 188.15 28 75 68.92 14.7 2.84 0.56 29 20.04
I sure wish $8d could handle boost!!
Last edited by novass; 06-14-2006 at 03:50 PM.
06-14-2006, 04:09 PM
#14
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by junkcltr
I think he likes to post that just to mess with the $58 users. Notice it is just a general statement with no explanation each time and he has been posting that for quite some time now. I guess it is one way of "keeping an edge".
1) Not enough BLM cells (I use open loop)
2) Single fire fuel mode (would be nice for large injectors, maybe)
3) Spark stabilizer at idle (not a big deal, would be nice)
4) 3D Boost VE multiplier table (kind of needed)
5) Coolant fan operation [CAC pump] (no IAC adjustment)
6) no MonteCarSlow NVSRAM support (still working on that)
7) idle spark only uses the 600 RPM spark cells (it needs to vary more)
1) Not enough BLM cells (I use open loop)
2) Single fire fuel mode (would be nice for large injectors, maybe)
3) Spark stabilizer at idle (not a big deal, would be nice)
4) 3D Boost VE multiplier table (kind of needed)
5) Coolant fan operation [CAC pump] (no IAC adjustment)
6) no MonteCarSlow NVSRAM support (still working on that)
7) idle spark only uses the 600 RPM spark cells (it needs to vary more)
#4 has been fixed, we have a bin with the VE table which is now 512 data points and INCLUDES boost. Multiplier is still there, but once set shouldn't need much adjustment for most people.
#6 will be helpful for us to truly finish up #1
#7 explain more here, just to be sure and I will see if I can fix that also.
06-14-2006, 08:34 PM
#15
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sayre, PA
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by novass
Ok here goes:
Here is a snap shot of the aldl readings when this happens. It is slightly rich initally then when I let off the pedal it (have to work on decel enleinment) then after a bit the afrs peg at 17.9 leading to stall when the IAC cant recover when it drops below the set idle speed.
Here is a snap shot of the aldl readings when this happens. It is slightly rich initally then when I let off the pedal it (have to work on decel enleinment) then after a bit the afrs peg at 17.9 leading to stall when the IAC cant recover when it drops below the set idle speed.
Scot
06-15-2006, 02:15 AM
#17
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
3) Spark stabilizer at idle (not a big deal, would be nice)
06-15-2006, 06:22 AM
#18
Supreme Member
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
For openers you might look at the VE areas, here.
As the engine RPM drops the PW go so long, that they might be forcing the stall.
At 30 K/Pa @ 1,000 RPM you should have started to get back into an *idle* mode.
0 188.15 31 1000 28.31 17.9 1.01 0 7 24.96
0 188.15 30 800 31.43 17.9 1.07 0 7 24.96
0 188.15 30 650 35.34 17.9 1.28 0 12 24.96
0 188.15 30 425 40.8 17.9 1.46 0.61 22 24.96
0 188.15 29 325 47.83 17.9 1.8 0.31 28 24.96
0 188.15 29 225 53.3 14.6 2.04 0.85 29 24.61
0 188.15 28 75 68.92 14.7 2.84 0.56 29 20.04
Here's what some of my VE looks like.
I've yet to see any MAP readings under 35, but, the point is bringing the fuel back in early enough to that AFR at idle is right. Not to mention that while you might run fine with an AFR of 19:1 at idle, but that's not what makes the engine happy as it *overruns* down to a true idle speed.
(To get %VE, divide by 3)
;Map: 20 25 30 35 40 45 ; RPM:
0, 0, 50, 70, 96, 96 ; 400
0, 0, 50, 70, 95, 95 ; 600
0, 0, 50, 67, 86, 88 ; 800
0, 0, 50, 55, 88, 97 ; 1000
0, 0, 0, 85, 81, 89 ; 1200
As the engine RPM drops the PW go so long, that they might be forcing the stall.
At 30 K/Pa @ 1,000 RPM you should have started to get back into an *idle* mode.
0 188.15 31 1000 28.31 17.9 1.01 0 7 24.96
0 188.15 30 800 31.43 17.9 1.07 0 7 24.96
0 188.15 30 650 35.34 17.9 1.28 0 12 24.96
0 188.15 30 425 40.8 17.9 1.46 0.61 22 24.96
0 188.15 29 325 47.83 17.9 1.8 0.31 28 24.96
0 188.15 29 225 53.3 14.6 2.04 0.85 29 24.61
0 188.15 28 75 68.92 14.7 2.84 0.56 29 20.04
Here's what some of my VE looks like.
I've yet to see any MAP readings under 35, but, the point is bringing the fuel back in early enough to that AFR at idle is right. Not to mention that while you might run fine with an AFR of 19:1 at idle, but that's not what makes the engine happy as it *overruns* down to a true idle speed.
(To get %VE, divide by 3)
;Map: 20 25 30 35 40 45 ; RPM:
0, 0, 50, 70, 96, 96 ; 400
0, 0, 50, 70, 95, 95 ; 600
0, 0, 50, 67, 86, 88 ; 800
0, 0, 50, 55, 88, 97 ; 1000
0, 0, 0, 85, 81, 89 ; 1200
06-15-2006, 07:47 AM
#19
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 11,733
Likes: 0
Received 89 Likes
on
75 Posts
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette, '95 Bird
Engine: LC9, 355" LT1, LT1
Transmission: T5, Zf6, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 3.42, Dana44 3.45, 3.23
Originally Posted by novass
Ok here goes:
First of all I did disable DFCO by:
37b (Speed below which DFCO is disabled) raised to 120 mph
This alone should have done it if not getting error 33,34
However I also did:
370 Decel Fuel Cut-Off Upper limit to 6375
371 Decle Fuel Cut-Off Lower limit to 6300
Running Open loop using Wide band.
I still have blm tuning to do however, I get a very high afr (mine pegs at 17.9 actually is higher basically above the range of the WB)
It only occurs when I am comming down from a higher rpm rev down and then push in the clutch. If I start the rev down below 2000 rpms it does not happen.
Here is a snap shot of the aldl readings when this happens. It is slightly rich initally then when I let off the pedal it (have to work on decel enleinment) then after a bit the afrs peg at 17.9 leading to stall when the IAC cant recover when it drops below the set idle speed.
I sure wish $8d could handle boost!!
First of all I did disable DFCO by:
37b (Speed below which DFCO is disabled) raised to 120 mph
This alone should have done it if not getting error 33,34
However I also did:
370 Decel Fuel Cut-Off Upper limit to 6375
371 Decle Fuel Cut-Off Lower limit to 6300
Running Open loop using Wide band.
I still have blm tuning to do however, I get a very high afr (mine pegs at 17.9 actually is higher basically above the range of the WB)
It only occurs when I am comming down from a higher rpm rev down and then push in the clutch. If I start the rev down below 2000 rpms it does not happen.
Here is a snap shot of the aldl readings when this happens. It is slightly rich initally then when I let off the pedal it (have to work on decel enleinment) then after a bit the afrs peg at 17.9 leading to stall when the IAC cant recover when it drops below the set idle speed.
I sure wish $8d could handle boost!!
It took me forever to get the iac follower and all that to work on my 5spd fbody. I still have some bins if you want to import your timing and ve tables into them. I made lots and lots of changes. Eventually I got it to the point where it was reliable, but not as clean as $8d.
$58's benefit to boost is simply a larger spark advance table (to 190kpa). The fueling code for boost is no better than an adjustable FMU. Infact, I never even had to change the BPW multipyer for boost, always just changed PE, AE, and ve tables.
It would be nice if $8d could have a second MAP input for a BPW multiplyer, and some spark retard.
-- Joe
06-15-2006, 08:36 AM
#20
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree the 58 fueling is equal to a FMU. It is not. Granted it isn't the best either, but we will have that fixed very soon and released.
There is a few of us working, and so far have a VE table for the 58 that includes up to 300kpa and 6400 rpm. Basically eliminating need for several of the VE tables, adders, etc.
We are finishing up testing and working out some other bugs before releasing it.
Again if anybody has the ***** and knowledge to post any $58 code issues, bugs then we WILL get them fixed also. So far we have found several ourselves, and I am sure will find more.
There is a few of us working, and so far have a VE table for the 58 that includes up to 300kpa and 6400 rpm. Basically eliminating need for several of the VE tables, adders, etc.
We are finishing up testing and working out some other bugs before releasing it.
Again if anybody has the ***** and knowledge to post any $58 code issues, bugs then we WILL get them fixed also. So far we have found several ourselves, and I am sure will find more.
06-15-2006, 09:24 AM
#21
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 11,733
Likes: 0
Received 89 Likes
on
75 Posts
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette, '95 Bird
Engine: LC9, 355" LT1, LT1
Transmission: T5, Zf6, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 3.42, Dana44 3.45, 3.23
Originally Posted by ty1295
I disagree the 58 fueling is equal to a FMU. It is not. Granted it isn't the best either, but we will have that fixed very soon and released.
There is a few of us working, and so far have a VE table for the 58 that includes up to 300kpa and 6400 rpm. Basically eliminating need for several of the VE tables, adders, etc.
We are finishing up testing and working out some other bugs before releasing it.
Again if anybody has the ***** and knowledge to post any $58 code issues, bugs then we WILL get them fixed also. So far we have found several ourselves, and I am sure will find more.
There is a few of us working, and so far have a VE table for the 58 that includes up to 300kpa and 6400 rpm. Basically eliminating need for several of the VE tables, adders, etc.
We are finishing up testing and working out some other bugs before releasing it.
Again if anybody has the ***** and knowledge to post any $58 code issues, bugs then we WILL get them fixed also. So far we have found several ourselves, and I am sure will find more.
Who's "we" ?
I spent 2 years playing with $58, $60. When it comes to tuning fuel under boost, the BPW multiplier works just as good as a adjustable FMU, and just as good as a boost fueler. The spark advance to 190kpa is really the big benefit, But even then, I never detected a difference in power if I just locked it in after peak torque, or if I ramped it up, and then took it back out as boost increased. (actually, that later method lead to detonation sometimes).
-- Joe
06-15-2006, 10:02 AM
#22
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will leave it up to other guys if they want to say if they are involved or not.
I am a turbo guy, who runs up to 30psi boost, or ~300kpa. for me it is a big benefit. The multiplier works, and sometimes well. It sometimes can be hard to smooth out the AFR perfectly. This is PART of our goal.
I have been playing with $58 since 1998. So I have learned a couple things. Not an expert, but not novice either.
I am a turbo guy, who runs up to 30psi boost, or ~300kpa. for me it is a big benefit. The multiplier works, and sometimes well. It sometimes can be hard to smooth out the AFR perfectly. This is PART of our goal.
I have been playing with $58 since 1998. So I have learned a couple things. Not an expert, but not novice either.
06-15-2006, 03:20 PM
#23
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 93 GMC Typhoon
Engine: 4.3L V6 Turbo Charged
Transmission: 4L80e
I am just helping test it, but a ton a stuff is being added to the code and fixed as we find it. 58 isn't perfect but for boosted applications there isn't much else to choose from and it works.
We are still working out a few small issues we have but once the code is done, I think everyone that wants to run boost will be very happy with it.
Ty1295 already touched on the bigger fuel table....
Let me just hint at what else has been added...... It involves Closed Loop and a sensor....
I am sure we will make a post soon with all the details once the code is done. (I would say we are 90% there) There will also be an XDF and ADS file released for it also.
So if you know of any 58 issues you would like addressed or know of any 58 bugs, post them. It woud be nice to get them worked out of the new code.
We are still working out a few small issues we have but once the code is done, I think everyone that wants to run boost will be very happy with it.
Ty1295 already touched on the bigger fuel table....
Let me just hint at what else has been added...... It involves Closed Loop and a sensor....
I am sure we will make a post soon with all the details once the code is done. (I would say we are 90% there) There will also be an XDF and ADS file released for it also.
So if you know of any 58 issues you would like addressed or know of any 58 bugs, post them. It woud be nice to get them worked out of the new code.
06-15-2006, 09:30 PM
#24
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
Originally Posted by ty1295
#1 is being fixed, in in testing
#4 has been fixed, we have a bin with the VE table which is now 512 data points and INCLUDES boost. Multiplier is still there, but once set shouldn't need much adjustment for most people.
#6 will be helpful for us to truly finish up #1
#7 explain more here, just to be sure and I will see if I can fix that also.
#4 has been fixed, we have a bin with the VE table which is now 512 data points and INCLUDES boost. Multiplier is still there, but once set shouldn't need much adjustment for most people.
#6 will be helpful for us to truly finish up #1
#7 explain more here, just to be sure and I will see if I can fix that also.
I did a 3-bar routine a few weekends ago if you are interested in it. I think you guys are beyond that though with the expanded 3D VE table. I can send you the ASM file if you interested. It isn't fully commented yet, but the comments are descriptive...more than just "load accum_a", "compare reg_b". It might have some stuff commented that you guys can use. I have been playing with the parallel I/O device with the PWM regs lately to see what freq range they cover so there is some info in there about that. It is prelim. info though because I haven't actually measured the output freqs. I just made a new DIY WBO2 patch for it because I extended the bin to 32K bytes. I moved the CAL area to start at 0x8000, moved CODE area, orig. CTS table area, and orig. VECTOR area locations using an ".org" for each. I can then add code and new cal data without messing with "define bytes".
I then run a "assemble" script to run it through the assembly (custom compiled Alec Baldwin 68HC11), his linker, and then a gnu 68HC11 object-copy to turn the S19 into a bin. It works great. I use MSYS and Emacs on Windows as the platform.
I have a bench setup for the 730/749 and do all my testing on that and simulate some stuff using "wookie". It works good for the the algorithm stuff but you have to change the I/O stuff to real 68HC11 ports when simulating. I usually set them to memory space so I can change things while simulating so see how things respond. I can test stuff out on the bench if you guys need help in that area. The way I do the testing is to use a stock BBZB $58 code and calibration and record ALDL data. Then I use my modified compiled BBZB $58 and record ALDL and make sure it matches the original $58 data. Then I look at the new extended data on the ALDL (my debug tool) to see if the code is doing what I wanted it to.
As for the idle spark, from what I have found on the bench and car it seems like only the 600 RPM spark values are used for closed throttle.
As for the spark stabilizer, it never seemed to work since day one with the original $58 code. I wonder if I set the CAL data to something last Fall to disable the spark stabilizer? I will have to take a look, but I know my idle spark stabilizer does not wiggle the spark at closed throttle idle.
06-16-2006, 06:49 AM
#25
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like you are using many of the same tools we have been doing. (wookie, ecm test benches (2 of us have them now), Modified ALDL outputs, etc.)
We have kept this circle of developers small just to keep it concentrated. All 4 of us have seen a lot of times in a public forum, the focus gets blurred quickly and then nothing happens. Our current team has 4 guys each with slightly different roles so to speak. It is working nicely. Granted we wish things happened faster, but with the changes we are doing just isn't.
We have had 2 vehicles now running on the extended VE table. Bench confirms it works perfectlys, downfall is tuning is now much more involved. Autotune is being looked into via excel of some other ways. I think it will be key to make the larger VE manageable.
We have kept this circle of developers small just to keep it concentrated. All 4 of us have seen a lot of times in a public forum, the focus gets blurred quickly and then nothing happens. Our current team has 4 guys each with slightly different roles so to speak. It is working nicely. Granted we wish things happened faster, but with the changes we are doing just isn't.
We have had 2 vehicles now running on the extended VE table. Bench confirms it works perfectlys, downfall is tuning is now much more involved. Autotune is being looked into via excel of some other ways. I think it will be key to make the larger VE manageable.
06-16-2006, 07:00 AM
#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
As for the idle spark, from what I have found on the bench and car it seems like only the 600 RPM spark values are used for closed throttle.
As for the spark stabilizer, it never seemed to work since day one with the original $58 code. I wonder if I set the CAL data to something last Fall to disable the spark stabilizer? I will have to take a look, but I know my idle spark stabilizer does not wiggle the spark at closed throttle idle.
My "guess" is that the use of the 600 RPM main spark table column at idle was all that was really needed when ISS was calibrated correctly....?
Let me just hint at what else has been added...... It involves Closed Loop and a sensor....
Having good testers and feedback on this algorithm has made a tremendous improvement to the code!
06-19-2006, 01:39 PM
#27
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
I had the CTS enable temp. set high in the CAL so that ISS would be disabled. I tried it again this weekend, but went to back to what I had.
I also messed with the quasi-async fueling on the bench. It works nothing like I had thought. The code part is interesting though. It pretty much looks like a mess on the bench as the BPW change. I started eyeballing the $8D again. I really want to use single fire for low BPWs.
I also messed with the quasi-async fueling on the bench. It works nothing like I had thought. The code part is interesting though. It pretty much looks like a mess on the bench as the BPW change. I started eyeballing the $8D again. I really want to use single fire for low BPWs.
06-21-2006, 02:51 PM
#28
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Grand Island, NY
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1990 Formula
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: WC T5
Originally Posted by ScotSea
I think I see your problem. If you send me your bin, I will take a look at it.
Scot
Scot
It seems to have worked.
It no longer stalls.
Now on to accel and decel....
06-21-2006, 03:21 PM
#29
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
If the min. BPW hysteris and min. BPW CAL data areas are not small enough then it will hit the so called quasi fueling. When it fuels like that the BPWs go ape sh**. I played around with it quite a bit and it really sucks. The injector firing rate & BPW do some pretty strange things vs. BPW and RPM.
So yeah, always set it so it won't enter quasi-fueling. I thought that everyone generally fixed them up before running the $58 code. I guess not everyone does. That was good of him to look over the bin you are using.
EDIT: For anyone else running the $58 code, you can look at the QAPI (quasi-fuel) flag in the ALDL datastream. It is one of the last mode word and it reports correctly.
So yeah, always set it so it won't enter quasi-fueling. I thought that everyone generally fixed them up before running the $58 code. I guess not everyone does. That was good of him to look over the bin you are using.
EDIT: For anyone else running the $58 code, you can look at the QAPI (quasi-fuel) flag in the ALDL datastream. It is one of the last mode word and it reports correctly.
Last edited by junkcltr; 06-21-2006 at 03:24 PM.
06-21-2006, 08:22 PM
#30
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Grand Island, NY
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1990 Formula
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: WC T5
Originally Posted by ty1295
#1 is being fixed, in in testing
#4 has been fixed, we have a bin with the VE table which is now 512 data points and INCLUDES boost. Multiplier is still there, but once set shouldn't need much adjustment for most people.
#6 will be helpful for us to truly finish up #1
#7 explain more here, just to be sure and I will see if I can fix that also.
#4 has been fixed, we have a bin with the VE table which is now 512 data points and INCLUDES boost. Multiplier is still there, but once set shouldn't need much adjustment for most people.
#6 will be helpful for us to truly finish up #1
#7 explain more here, just to be sure and I will see if I can fix that also.
Also, as stated with #7 when you go into closed throttle it uses the 600 rpm cells for spark. It would be nice that it has more resolution so instead of say going from 40 deg in the open throttle to bam 24 degrees when the throttle shuts.
06-21-2006, 10:47 PM
#31
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1991 Z28
Engine: 305 TPI under 14 psi
Transmission: aftermarket T56
Axle/Gears: Moser 12 bolt 3.08 gears
As stated above the quasi fueling doesn't work. I think it would be great to see that part of the code fixed, if it can be done. That would benefit anyone wanting to run large injectors with this code. I had to convert to P&H injectors to get my 45lb/hr injectors to work on a stock LB9 at idle.
06-22-2006, 06:34 AM
#32
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: CT
Posts: 1,992
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
9 Posts
Car: 1986 Camaro SC
Engine: 305 TPI Procharged D1SC
Transmission: Tremec TKO-600
Axle/Gears: Moser 12 Bolt 3.73 posi
i was playing around with the $58 on my supercharged 305 but it was always rich or too lean no matter what, i think it has to do with all the ve tables and adder table, i'd love to run $58 instead of $8d with an fmu, but $8D works with just a little VE tuning, do you guys have any idea when the code will be released? i have vacation coming up next friday and would like to play around with $58 again seeing as i'll have time.
06-22-2006, 08:26 AM
#33
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by novass
A suggestion that I have is to increase the range of the closed throttle ve table so it can more accurately be tuned. 1600 is just not quite high enough.
Also, as stated with #7 when you go into closed throttle it uses the 600 rpm cells for spark. It would be nice that it has more resolution so instead of say going from 40 deg in the open throttle to bam 24 degrees when the throttle shuts.
Also, as stated with #7 when you go into closed throttle it uses the 600 rpm cells for spark. It would be nice that it has more resolution so instead of say going from 40 deg in the open throttle to bam 24 degrees when the throttle shuts.
The spark thing we will look into.
Here are a few more snap shots of what is coming.
Closed Loop Wideband.
Here is the list of sensors that will be selectable on the fly to use. These are all based of Digs patches.
DIY / TechEdge v1.0 Sensor (Nonlinear Output)
FJO (Nonlinear Output)
AEM Nonlinear Output
TechEdge v2.0 (Linear Output) [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 9]
PLX Linear Output [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 10]
Innovate Linear Output (1V - 2V) [AFR = Volts * 10]
AEM Linear Output [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 10]
Zeitronix (Nonlinear Output)
And then a RAW output for unknown sensors but that is only for ALDL output. You can't use any of the WBo2 fueling with the Raw sensor setting.
06-22-2006, 09:48 AM
#34
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: CT
Posts: 1,992
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
9 Posts
Car: 1986 Camaro SC
Engine: 305 TPI Procharged D1SC
Transmission: Tremec TKO-600
Axle/Gears: Moser 12 Bolt 3.73 posi
woah! ty.... explain the use of that wb afr table? is that afr table what the ecm wants? will it look at the wideband o2 and if it's not getting that....make it that?....that would be too easy huh?
06-22-2006, 10:37 AM
#35
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The logic for that table is in early stages. But basically you are correct. It goes to VE table, figure out BPW, then watches your WB o2 and compares to desired. Makes adjustments if needed.
Again logic is early stages but working fine for NON PE, AE modes at this time.
Again logic is early stages but working fine for NON PE, AE modes at this time.
06-22-2006, 11:31 AM
#36
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 93 GMC Typhoon
Engine: 4.3L V6 Turbo Charged
Transmission: 4L80e
Originally Posted by ty1295
What we have done is allowed you to actually turn OFF the closed throttle table and just use the new larger F29x table.
The spark thing we will look into.
Here are a few more snap shots of what is coming.
Closed Loop Wideband.
Here is the list of sensors that will be selectable on the fly to use. These are all based of Digs patches.
DIY / TechEdge v1.0 Sensor (Nonlinear Output)
FJO (Nonlinear Output)
AEM Nonlinear Output
TechEdge v2.0 (Linear Output) [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 9]
PLX Linear Output [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 10]
Innovate Linear Output (1V - 2V) [AFR = Volts * 10]
AEM Linear Output [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 10]
Zeitronix (Nonlinear Output)
And then a RAW output for unknown sensors but that is only for ALDL output. You can't use any of the WBo2 fueling with the Raw sensor setting.
The spark thing we will look into.
Here are a few more snap shots of what is coming.
Closed Loop Wideband.
Here is the list of sensors that will be selectable on the fly to use. These are all based of Digs patches.
DIY / TechEdge v1.0 Sensor (Nonlinear Output)
FJO (Nonlinear Output)
AEM Nonlinear Output
TechEdge v2.0 (Linear Output) [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 9]
PLX Linear Output [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 10]
Innovate Linear Output (1V - 2V) [AFR = Volts * 10]
AEM Linear Output [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 10]
Zeitronix (Nonlinear Output)
And then a RAW output for unknown sensors but that is only for ALDL output. You can't use any of the WBo2 fueling with the Raw sensor setting.
The F29_AFR table is not a cure all. You still need to get your VE's close. Since this is currenlty only USED when in closed loop and when PE (which is anything in Boost) is not active. We are still hammering out the algorithm for the Wbo2 Code and when it should be active. So right now this table works when crusing/Idle. During testing, I dropped all the 14.7 AFRs in the table to 15.2 and then 16.0 to see how well it worked. The code is very fast to make the corrections when you make a change to the table and it is spot on. It will still fluctuates +/- .2 AFR like it normally would on NBo2 but it keeps you around the AFR you want.
Hopefully we can get a highway mode added for Better fuel economy. If we don't get a highway mode added, you could still use this table to make it work like it. Get your VEs correct, then dial in the AFR table to a lean AFR for better fuel economy. Then the minute you get on the gas AE/PE kick in and over rides the table and then VE table comes back into play. So it is a step. I was getting around 18-20 MPG just playing with it on the 15.2 AFR. (This is with doing serveral boost runs and launches) I am sure there is more you can get out of it. This could all change if we change how the Wbo2 fueling algorithm works.
06-22-2006, 12:13 PM
#37
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: CT
Posts: 1,992
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
9 Posts
Car: 1986 Camaro SC
Engine: 305 TPI Procharged D1SC
Transmission: Tremec TKO-600
Axle/Gears: Moser 12 Bolt 3.73 posi
wow, good job guys, keep up the good work, this is definately making me want to try $58 again. keep us posted.
06-23-2006, 12:29 AM
#38
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
Lookin' good. I am curious why you went with one large table instead of breaking it up into two smaller tables.
Tunerpro doesn't allow the table to float so the RPM values will be hidden when editing the higher KPA areas.
Not knocking it, just curious.
Did you translate the WBO2 signal into a NBO2 signal and use the stock type BLM and INT updates? Or did you
re-write the correction algorythm?
I have been thinking of trying a simple WBO2 --> NBO2 signal mapping function for the $8D to see how it works.
Tunerpro doesn't allow the table to float so the RPM values will be hidden when editing the higher KPA areas.
Not knocking it, just curious.
Did you translate the WBO2 signal into a NBO2 signal and use the stock type BLM and INT updates? Or did you
re-write the correction algorythm?
I have been thinking of trying a simple WBO2 --> NBO2 signal mapping function for the $8D to see how it works.
06-23-2006, 01:24 AM
#39
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 93 GMC Typhoon
Engine: 4.3L V6 Turbo Charged
Transmission: 4L80e
Originally Posted by junkcltr
Lookin' good. I am curious why you went with one large table instead of breaking it up into two smaller tables.
Tunerpro doesn't allow the table to float so the RPM values will be hidden when editing the higher KPA areas.
Not knocking it, just curious.
Did you translate the WBO2 signal into a NBO2 signal and use the stock type BLM and INT updates? Or did you
re-write the correction algorythm?
I have been thinking of trying a simple WBO2 --> NBO2 signal mapping function for the $8D to see how it works.
Tunerpro doesn't allow the table to float so the RPM values will be hidden when editing the higher KPA areas.
Not knocking it, just curious.
Did you translate the WBO2 signal into a NBO2 signal and use the stock type BLM and INT updates? Or did you
re-write the correction algorythm?
I have been thinking of trying a simple WBO2 --> NBO2 signal mapping function for the $8D to see how it works.
Even though we did all the code for a 3 bar setup... you could still run the code on low boost applications. You would just need to install a 3 bar map sensor.
I'll let 1981TTA answer the WBo2 Fueling since he wrote it. I know he said it uses the normal BLM routines for the correction. When I look at the asm I can see where he jumps in but I don't know all the ins and outs of the code. He would be your best bet to explain it. Also we are still working on when to use the Wb02 for fueling. Right now we don't use it when in PE. This could change.
Last edited by skwayb; 06-23-2006 at 01:27 AM.
06-23-2006, 02:30 AM
#40
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
Did you translate the WBO2 signal into a NBO2 signal and use the stock type BLM and INT updates? Or did you
re-write the correction algorythm?
I have been thinking of trying a simple WBO2 --> NBO2 signal mapping function for the $8D to see how it works.
re-write the correction algorythm?
I have been thinking of trying a simple WBO2 --> NBO2 signal mapping function for the $8D to see how it works.
Implementing something like this in $8D (or any other mask) should be just about as straightforward. Find the area where the rich/lean crosscount is determined and add the Desired AFR - Measured AFR math. I made things more complicated by adding WBCL while leaving the existing NBCL algorithms so the user can choose between them. Lots of jumping around......
I think there's a lot more room for improvement. After this logic is tested a little more completely, I think we'll modify how the INT/BLM operates so we can still use it as a correction while allowing fast enough movement to cover (potentially) larger swings.
06-26-2006, 06:29 PM
#42
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
Originally Posted by 1981TTA
Essentially, that's exactly what happens. I compare the WB sensor to the Desired AFR. From there, the rich/lean bit is set accordingly. My intention was to keep the INT/BLM behavior the same on the WB as it is on the NB so that existing VE correction spreadsheets/applications would still work. (As skwayb mentions above, you still need reasonable VE tables with this system.) The "tricks" are determining what to turn off vs. what to leave running in the NB closed loop logic. Things like NBO2 voltage thresholds no longer hold meaning in the WB world the way I did this.
I am not sure how well it will work out. I like to try and use most of the stock logic and just get more accurate on the timing & fuel.
What are you using for a LAG filter coefficient for the WBO2 variable?
06-27-2006, 12:10 AM
#43
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 junkcltr
Why not take in the WBO2 signal and map it to a NBO2 looking signal with one variable. That variable is used for most of the code. Then have a more accurated variable that is used for the actual fuel equation. That is what I am planning on doing.
I am not sure how well it will work out. I like to try and use most of the stock logic and just get more accurate on the timing & fuel.
What are you using for a LAG filter coefficient for the WBO2 variable?
I am not sure how well it will work out. I like to try and use most of the stock logic and just get more accurate on the timing & fuel.
What are you using for a LAG filter coefficient for the WBO2 variable?
I don't have any filter implemented on the WBO2 signal. I expect this may change as different sensors are tested against the algorithm. My Zeitronix sensor behavior was "clean" enough to use "raw". (Actually, I should also check the schematic to see the characteristics of the MAP2 input filtering on the ECM. It might be that the signal is "clean" in the code because the hardware filtering made it that way!) Nothing like the statistically significant sample of "1" to make a knowledgeable decision!
Hopefully, with more people testing with a diverse array of sensors and engines, things like filtering requirements and "sensor ready" algorithms can be made more generic.
06-27-2006, 06:59 AM
#44
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chasing Electrons
Posts: 18,406
Likes: 0
Received 217 Likes
on
203 Posts
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
MAP input: yes, the MAP inputs are filtered more so then other inputs (such as the TPS). Can't recall off the top of my head with the 3 db frequency is.
Another idea that will make a difference in driveability is to use a 1-bar MAP sensor on the MAP2 input. Use the desired 2 or 3 bar sensor on the MAP1 input. Then whenever not in boost use the 1-bar sensor, switching to the 2/3 bar once in boost.
The better resolution of the 1-bar makes the engine run smoother and more responsive. Which helps in around-town driving.
RBob.
Another idea that will make a difference in driveability is to use a 1-bar MAP sensor on the MAP2 input. Use the desired 2 or 3 bar sensor on the MAP1 input. Then whenever not in boost use the 1-bar sensor, switching to the 2/3 bar once in boost.
The better resolution of the 1-bar makes the engine run smoother and more responsive. Which helps in around-town driving.
RBob.
06-27-2006, 09:39 AM
#45
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
Originally Posted by RBob
Then whenever not in boost use the 1-bar sensor, switching to the 2/3 bar once in boost.
The better resolution of the 1-bar makes the engine run smoother and more responsive. Which helps in around-town driving.
RBob.
The better resolution of the 1-bar makes the engine run smoother and more responsive. Which helps in around-town driving.
RBob.
I can understand what you are saying about the better running engine by using two sensors. With the $8D I am trying a different approach. I use the 2-bar signal and convert it from a range of 0x00 to 0x127 to a new range of 0x00 to 0x255 (interpolate it) under N/A conditions. I then let the $8D do the "Normalize" to this value. Since the 1-bar is roughly .4 KPA/BIT and the 2-bar is .8 KPA/BIT then the resolution seems usable. I don't see the 3-bar as being all that usable in this style configuration. I think the CAL tables resolution has a lot to do with how it runs also. All the MAP resolution is useless without the CAL table taking advantage of it.
On the bench it works out great. The complete bin still isn't ready for the car yet. Who knows I could end up changing it all together once I see what it is like in the car.
If it doesn't work as well as the $58 1-bar and 3-bar, then I will convert the $8D and try it with that. All of the Error detect/reporting for the 3-bar has not been implemented yet.....
06-28-2006, 09:28 AM
#46
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RBob
MAP input: yes, the MAP inputs are filtered more so then other inputs (such as the TPS). Can't recall off the top of my head with the 3 db frequency is.
Another idea that will make a difference in driveability is to use a 1-bar MAP sensor on the MAP2 input. Use the desired 2 or 3 bar sensor on the MAP1 input. Then whenever not in boost use the 1-bar sensor, switching to the 2/3 bar once in boost.
The better resolution of the 1-bar makes the engine run smoother and more responsive. Which helps in around-town driving.
RBob.
Another idea that will make a difference in driveability is to use a 1-bar MAP sensor on the MAP2 input. Use the desired 2 or 3 bar sensor on the MAP1 input. Then whenever not in boost use the 1-bar sensor, switching to the 2/3 bar once in boost.
The better resolution of the 1-bar makes the engine run smoother and more responsive. Which helps in around-town driving.
RBob.
though, since we've got some future projects that will need all the inputs/outputs we can get.
I guess it could be a selectable thing.
The guys testing have noticed that driveability got considerably better with
using the single table; presumably because it eliminates the possibility of broad
tuning gaps when switching between the closed throttle and open throttle tables.
The code didn't really "fix" anything per se, it just made the tuner
more aware of adjacent cells.
One thing we also did, for better or worse, was to *not* use the normalized map
variable for table lookups, and just used the filtered var instead. This
simplifies things greatly for tunerpro, in terms of making the "bubble" behave
properly.
Later,
Dig
06-28-2006, 09:40 AM
#47
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by junkcltr
Lookin' good. I am curious why you went with one large table instead of breaking it up into two smaller tables.
Tunerpro doesn't allow the table to float so the RPM values will be hidden when editing the higher KPA areas.
Not knocking it, just curious.
Tunerpro doesn't allow the table to float so the RPM values will be hidden when editing the higher KPA areas.
Not knocking it, just curious.
new code down to one big fuel table, one big timing table, and boost control.
(If you need that) This reduces the complexity for the average guy trying
to get things running decent.
The sizes themselves (16x32) are a function of what the table routines will
handle. I had to hack the existing routines such that they would allow a
table bigger than 256 without wigging out.
I actually wrote a whole new 3d routine, before I realized that my routine was
functionally the same as the GM-designed ones, only fatter. It was a good
exercise, though, it made me realize what the GM routines were actually
doing, and what some of the system limitations are.
It does end up taking longer to dial the big table in, but the other guys got
a project cookin' to reduce a lot of the manual labor.
Later,
Dig
06-28-2006, 09:55 AM
#48
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by anesthes
Why do you need VE up to 300kpa? Maybe for a turbo car that boosts at various RPM's and throttle positions, but for WOT boosting on a supercharged car you don't need anything NEAR that granular. Infact, you can just tune with PE and use the BPW multiplier to compensate for manifold pressure increase vs atmosphere.
Who's "we" ?
I spent 2 years playing with $58, $60. When it comes to tuning fuel under boost, the BPW multiplier works just as good as a adjustable FMU, and just as good as a boost fueler. The spark advance to 190kpa is really the big benefit, But even then, I never detected a difference in power if I just locked it in after peak torque, or if I ramped it up, and then took it back out as boost increased. (actually, that later method lead to detonation sometimes).
-- Joe
Who's "we" ?
I spent 2 years playing with $58, $60. When it comes to tuning fuel under boost, the BPW multiplier works just as good as a adjustable FMU, and just as good as a boost fueler. The spark advance to 190kpa is really the big benefit, But even then, I never detected a difference in power if I just locked it in after peak torque, or if I ramped it up, and then took it back out as boost increased. (actually, that later method lead to detonation sometimes).
-- Joe
actually extended the low end so that in a 3 Bar environment, the table
starts at ~80kpa, so you can start scaling from there up. It's kinda
redundant with the big VE table, but some guys prefer to use the multiplier
vs. VE numbers.
As to why the big range, we've got guys in the SyTy world that will routinely
exceed the 300 KPA mark, as will some adapting one to a GN. One of
our underlying goals is to make the code useable across all vehicle platforms,
vs. adding features that would only apply to some. I've love to see this
used on as many odd-ball platforms as possible.
And the best part.... It'll be Free!
Later,
Dig
06-29-2006, 11:24 AM
#49
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: garage
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Engine: 3xx ci tubo
Transmission: 4L60E & 4L80E
Originally Posted by turbodig
The single table was for simplicity's sake, for the most part. You can boil the
new code down to one big fuel table, one big timing table, and boost control.
(If you need that) This reduces the complexity for the average guy trying
to get things running decent.
new code down to one big fuel table, one big timing table, and boost control.
(If you need that) This reduces the complexity for the average guy trying
to get things running decent.
Originally Posted by turbodig
I actually wrote a whole new 3d routine, before I realized that my routine was
functionally the same as the GM-designed ones, only fatter. It was a good
exercise, though, it made me realize what the GM routines were actually
doing, and what some of the system limitations are.
functionally the same as the GM-designed ones, only fatter. It was a good
exercise, though, it made me realize what the GM routines were actually
doing, and what some of the system limitations are.
07-12-2006, 08:47 AM
#50
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Grand Island, NY
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1990 Formula
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: WC T5
Originally Posted by ty1295
What we have done is allowed you to actually turn OFF the closed throttle table and just use the new larger F29x table.
Well I have the car running well with out boost, (this was my inital goal before putting on the belt). The only issue is when I am 0% throttle area and higher rpm's the afr goes wayyy lean just like in my earlier post.(Rember I have a stick)I get a gurgling noise out the exhaust.
Other than this one issue things are going well. I can't wait till the new code is released so I can give it a try and see if it takes care of my closed throttle issue.
