DIY PROM Do It Yourself PROM chip burning help. No PROM begging. No PROMs for sale. No commercial exchange. Not a referral service.

The "int" is crap

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 9, 2004 | 08:51 PM
  #1  
Low C1500's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: Red Deer, Canada
Car: 89 Shortbox
Engine: 350 Vortec
Transmission: 700r4
The "int" is crap

After making a few runs and having the odd stumble, I tried adding about 3x the integer delay at all air flows and rpms (747'). Well now the motor runs smoother than ever! No near stalls under hard decel, and no bogs. Idles down nicley. I'm still playing around alittle with AE though.

So with these new bigger delays, the int will still save me if I get some bad gas or something, but it is pretty much disabled. I don't recomend doing this unless your fuel tables are near perfect.

Just my thoughts after 5 test runs, anyone else had luck with getting rid of the int term???
Reply
Old May 9, 2004 | 08:55 PM
  #2  
jeepguy553's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: Rockport, TX
Car: 1980 Jeep CJ7
Engine: AMC 360 with GM TBI
Transmission: TF727 set for kill...let's get it on!!!
I have actually found something similar. I was using a mathematical equation to tune and discovered that it was a PITA to keep doing it that way. Eventually, the mathematical method will hit on the right ballpark VE number, but you have to actually fiddle around with the number by-hand until you get the AFRs right. I did it today and I understand exactly what you mean about the INT. I have been using it all day as a pointer to tell me which way to move the VE in my 8746 stuff. Worked like a dream! Mine idles pretty good too and I got rid of the off-idle and mid-range flat spots too. There is still a little exhaust pop (like a faint bass drum) that I can hear in the upper end stuff (3800rpm and up) but it isn't nearly as bad as it was before today. It used to have a rhythm to it, now it happens sporadically.
Reply
Old May 10, 2004 | 02:49 AM
  #3  
CanadianBeast's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
From: The Great White North
Hey Low,

The problem might be that your truck is really brown underneath all that silver paint.

Hey, I'm in Switzerland now, "working" whats your email??
Reply
Old May 10, 2004 | 06:23 AM
  #4  
Grumpy's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 1
From: In reality
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Re: The "int" is crap

Originally posted by Low C1500
After making a few runs and having the odd stumble, I tried adding about 3x the integer delay at all air flows and rpms (747').
Which exact locations are you talking about?.
Kewl, something new!.
Reply
Old May 10, 2004 | 06:47 AM
  #5  
RBob's Avatar
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,432
Likes: 233
From: Chasing Electrons
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
Have headers and moved the O2 sensor further downstream? Not unusual at all. I'd also reduce the proportional gains and see how it is.

Then once the tuning is close(r), reduce the INT delays until the response comes back without any of the problems.

Still need the INT to move for the BLMs to update.

RBob.
Reply
Old May 10, 2004 | 08:12 AM
  #6  
Low C1500's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: Red Deer, Canada
Car: 89 Shortbox
Engine: 350 Vortec
Transmission: 700r4
Yes, but as long as I still get x-counts I'm happy. And I don't really know why, but the IAC controls work really well now.


The table was "int delay vs airflow", It must be something with my high injector flow rate or something, but the int was really causing drivabilty problems.

And yes I have greatly reduced prop gains, about 80% less than stock, gives me a nice O2 swing.
Reply
Old May 10, 2004 | 08:12 AM
  #7  
Low C1500's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: Red Deer, Canada
Car: 89 Shortbox
Engine: 350 Vortec
Transmission: 700r4
Hey CanadianBreast, its the same as before ryanhart@shaw.ca
Reply
Old May 10, 2004 | 08:55 AM
  #8  
3.8TransAM's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,015
Likes: 2
From: Schererville , IN
Car: 91 GTA, 91 Formula, 89 TTA
Engine: all 225+ RWHP
Transmission: all OD
Axle/Gears: Always the good ones
Will be heading in a somewhat similiar way after a very long chat with rbob last week :-)

Unfortunately i got my exhaust fixed(all day 85+ deg sun) and getting it selaed properly did cause quite a change in my low end VE tables and especially the idle regions... Did make a lower end surge i have off idle and lite cruise range much more pronounced in the 12-1400 rpm area or so.

Once the Ve tables are back in line im cutting back the proportional gains to see if slowing them down causes my car to quit jumping rich/lean as quickly and hopefully isolating the surge(theoretically speaking at this point)

thanks for all the neat stuff getting thrown around here :-)
Jeremy
Reply
Old May 10, 2004 | 07:55 PM
  #9  
jeepguy553's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: Rockport, TX
Car: 1980 Jeep CJ7
Engine: AMC 360 with GM TBI
Transmission: TF727 set for kill...let's get it on!!!
Not to change the subject...but exactly how much of a difference did the exhaust sealing make in your low end stuff? I found a little pinhole leak around the O2 sensor bung that I welded in a few weeks ago. It isn't all that big, maybe 1/16", but it is big enough that I can hear it...that's what made me look for it.
I ask this because I just got my low and mid stuff tuned REALLY nicely and I'd really hate to have to go and start all over because of a little pinhole leak by my O2 sensor.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AmpleUnicorn88
Brakes
32
Nov 18, 2015 11:02 AM
SRKLEGIN
Interior Parts Wanted
5
Oct 12, 2015 07:28 AM
Jonas Earl
Engine Swap
8
Sep 27, 2015 07:39 AM
Racerx974
Tech / General Engine
7
Sep 19, 2015 10:16 AM
gta892000
Cooling
6
Sep 16, 2015 12:37 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:06 AM.