Oh, so basically you patched everything from the beginning to the end of the bin using the patch utility?

Also found out something interesting today. I actually hit a MAF frequency of slightly over 10,200, which is about 261 GMS/SEC on my 85mm MAF. Kinda hard to believe that it pulls that much air at 5,000 rpm with the stock long block, but it does. Its actually confirmed my observation all along, 18 PSI with 61 lbs/hr injectors is marginal to inadequate on a Bolt-On Stock Longblock 350 TBI. Once I cross 4,500 RPM I need more like 25 PSI to keep from going static.

Yes it basically patches the whole .BIN. I know that it worked though, because all of the settings that I was using before on the .BIN changed to what was in the source code. It then changed the TCC settings to the ones you had and allows B2 to be the output for the TCC.

FWIW, this is the command line that I use on my computer to patch the file.

C:\S19_PAT $OD_MAF.s19 0x0000 11-11-06.bin

ONE other thing that I found working with this Patch Utility, everything must be on the C drive at the first level.

For example you can't have it like this
C:\Programs File\Tuning\S19_PAT $OD_MAF.s19 0x0000 11-11-06.bin

If you know of a faster better way to turn a .S19 into a .BIN let me know. I have used this method forever and it always seems to work unless I make a stupid mistake in the command line or something.

Thats around 600 CFM or so of nominal flow. I assume this has the 2" TBI? What kind of MAP are you getting there? Im curious to see what kind of pressure drop the larger TBIs have at those CFMs.
----------
I wish there was. Tunercats lets you browse for the bin and S19, but I have to reinstall it every 30 days if I want to use it, as the eval. license runs out. I may just buy the damn thing and be done with it.

Actually it is a front pull Small Block TBI that I had Tom Bishop at Extremefi bore to 46mm for me. He advertises it as 590 CFM @ 1.5 in/hg. I am seeing MAPs of about 94-95 KPA on a 99-100 KPA Baro reading. The Cadillac TBI bonnet and the cone style filter seem like they would flow pretty well. It is also in the 40s-50s here with not much humidity right now, that really helps air density.

http://stores.ebay.com/Xtremefi

TurboCity offers a very similar unit that cost alot more and flows right about the same CFM.

Thats around 1.6-1.8 inHg of pressure drop. Seems to agree with the grams per second reading.

That settles it, tommorow the regulator is going back to 25PSI. Well if that seems right, no wonder it seems like I could never get enough fuel above about 4,000 rpm. At 18 lbs/hr 61# injectors are just short of 75 lbs/hr. 600 CFM + 150 lbs/hr of fuel is just not enough.

Are you sure? My recollection is more like 460 cfm (220 g/sec is 388 cfm on my old LT1 9C1 datalog). Let me check the math:

MAF = 261 g/sec (aside: that's about 313 fwhp if the air:fuel is ok)

air is approx 1.2 kg/(m^3) at STP

(0.261 kg/sec)/(1.2 kg/m^3) = 0.2175 cubic_meters / sec

(0.2175 cu_meters/sec)*(60 sec/min) = 13.05 cu_meters/min

(13.05 cu_meters/min)*(3.2808 foot/meter)^3 = 460.86 cfm

I would have thought a bored sbc TBI would be able to flow that well. IIRC 1 atm (atmosphere) is approx 101 kPa or apporox 29 inHg. So measuring 5 kPa across the throttle at WOT is approx 1.45 inHg.... which means the advertised flow of 590 cfm at 1.5 inHg doesn't agree with the measurement. I know that reconciling measurements can be tedious but I would have expected better agreement.

The flow is probably a little more then 460 CFM. Keep in mind that the IAT is probably around 120 degrees or so (cone air flilter inside the engine compartment), so the airflow will be more for the given gms/sec reading. The only way to know for sure would be to take teh MAF/WB O2/IAT readings and use those to calculate the CFMs.

Actually the IATs are HIGHER than that. It has been 60-70* here for the most part and the cone style filter is even with the radiator, tucked under the hood of the van. I am still running the A/C as well. At the MAF sensor where the IAT is also located I have seen IAT readings of 140*+!

Its not surprising considering alot of the air is coming right off the radiator and headers. It probably is around 550-600 CFM. Id like to see what mine actually flows once I get my DS issues solved.

I still find it suprising that it needs more than about 450 CFM, with the cleaned up swirl ports and peanut cam (w/1.6:1 full roller rockers) anyway. I guess it does pull pretty good all the way to 5,000+ RPM, so maybe not.

Then again here is what DD2000 claims for my current engine. In past builds I have found it to be accurate within about 3-5% either way. On a 300 hp engine that could be as low as 285HP or as high as 315 HP.

If you accept the MAF data as good, then my estimate will be off by no more than 10% due to the elevated temp under the hood (warmer air is less dense when hotter, assuming constant pressure). I could calculate it more specifically (using an ideal gas law, and converting temp into degress Kelvin) but IMO the numbers are close enough for what you're doing. It's more likely to be 440 to 460 cfm (air density is less than 1.2 kg/(m^3) in warm air) rather than 550 to 600 cfm.

You should also be able to estimate a VE by knowing the rpm when your peak MAF data occured, and calculating the theoretical value. I know the cam overlap affects VE but at WOT it will be a small error. And the 460 cfm equates to over 310 fwhp. My old near-stock LT1 (260 fwhp factory rating) would pull 220 g/sec when data logging near 5000 rpm, and you're observing some 20% higher. I also know that the LT1 throttle body (48mm bores) could feed an LT1 to over 400 fwhp, so your 46mm unit seems appropriately sized.

I use s2bin.exe. It works great with the large files and is free. Get it here as some of the other versions don't work. About half way down the page. http://www.ezl.com/~rsch/S_Records/ . Enjoy!

I remembered this post when I was looking at some of the code for the E-trans. Range 3 (E5) is the correct input to use for the P/N flag. In the non-cc code, range 3 functions as the old P/N input. The P/N flag is fairly important for the idle routine as it has seperate idle integral cells, PID gains, and other stuff for park/neutral. As for the input itself, open ckt.=drive, closed ckt.=P/N. You shouldnt need anything else. Just plug the P/N signal wire into pin E5 and you should be covered.

I found that out as well through experimentation and a scan tool.

New update is coming. Variable injector constant was added for VAFPRs, some more useless junk was removed, and the TCC will be moving back to pin E11 for non-CC trans setups. Im going to test it this weekend in the car to try and catch anything that may have slipped by the bench tests.

Still in the works. I have to make a few more patches to the remaining stock code. I have to add an additional layer of timing control for startup. The engine wants 18 degrees down low while the starter can only handle 14 before its ejected off the block from from the kickback. Currently the PCM cranks off the main timing table. Gonna make a special table just for startup. Im probably also going to scrap the soft SA rev limiter. Way over budget timewise already.

Heres the latest... The standard 700-R4 TCC output has moved BACK to pin E11 (PWM TCC output). You must also have your brake switch wired up to the PCM, or the TCC output will not work. The brake switch switches the TCC outputs internally in the hardware.

Ive been contemplating the use of two PCM's, one for the trans and one for the engine. Initially I was opposed to using dual PCMs due to the fact that there are two computers instead of one, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. The PCMs are already heavily loaded and loops frequently get cut off or dont run at all in the stock code when there are a lot of interrupts. Dedicating one to the transmission and one to the engine willl open up alot of extra I/Os, 2x available processng power, etc. which opens the door for even more mods.

One of the first things Id like to do is move the MAF frequency readin out of the spark loop and into the main vector handler to minimize the transient response. Not only is there some delay built into how the MAF is read in, but there is additional 6-8 msecs or so due to the fact that the MAF freq. is calculated before the fuel loop runs. Moving it into the main vector handler, or using an interrupt to read it even faster (200Hz+), will really improve its response. Should only bring the error up to about 1% or so at 160Hz.

After that Im going to jettison all the transmission code once Im done commenting it. Maybe even farther down the road we can develop a dedicated transmission controller.