TBI guys, its time to update!
12-04-2006, 11:54 PM
#301
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
If the accumulator rolls over then it should still be right. I just let the result overflow and I get the delta out. In theory it should, anyway. I hope, lol... It works on windows calculator, so if its not right, then Ill just blame it on my PC.
I havnt seen any evidence for it not working. It seemed fairly stable on the bench...
Edit: IIRC, this does work. I remember looking over the binary at the time to make sure it made sense. So long as the C bit is ignored, the series of carries yields the difference between the two.
I havnt seen any evidence for it not working. It seemed fairly stable on the bench...
Edit: IIRC, this does work. I remember looking over the binary at the time to make sure it made sense. So long as the C bit is ignored, the series of carries yields the difference between the two.
Last edited by dimented24x7; 12-05-2006 at 12:18 AM.
12-05-2006, 12:28 AM
#302
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,982
Received 385 Likes
on
329 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
I looked at pins E10 and E11 because they seem to have a higher priority right now. They are gated with the FailSafe chip and..........you guessed it.....the BRAKE signal on E13. It seems to fit that they did this in hardware instead of code. In terms of the TCC problems and you thinking the ECM was bad, I don't think this is the case. The BRAKE signal has a pullup to VCC. I am guessing at one point you had it tied to ground and the TCC worked. Not sure though.....the ECM looks to have BRAKE and A/C inputs pulled to a VCC. I need to power up the ECM to see what the VCC is. It looks to be +12V.
The schematic shows conflicting data with the Pinlist on diy-efi. Diy-efi pinout says Brake is 0V when the brake is applied, the schematic says Battery voltage. Since the ECM has the BRAKE pulled to voltage, I am betting that if you have E13 tied to ground then the TCC E10 or E11 will not operate. Anyway, it is the BRAKE signal that is causing the problem and changing the polarity of what you have now should make E10 and E11 work properly.
The schematic shows conflicting data with the Pinlist on diy-efi. Diy-efi pinout says Brake is 0V when the brake is applied, the schematic says Battery voltage. Since the ECM has the BRAKE pulled to voltage, I am betting that if you have E13 tied to ground then the TCC E10 or E11 will not operate. Anyway, it is the BRAKE signal that is causing the problem and changing the polarity of what you have now should make E10 and E11 work properly.
12-05-2006, 06:41 AM
#303
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
dimented24x7,
Yes, you are correct. Ignoring the carry bit will alias the neg. result to a pos. result due to using two's complement math. Ignoring the carry like you said will give the correct result. This method is commonly done for wrapping phase. Good job.
Fast355,
I do think the switches are the same. I am not sure about the wiring. The C1500 schematic posted in this thread shows the switch normally open (floating) and +12 when the brake is applied. The DIY-EFI pin list for the 427 says that E13 is 0V when the brake is applied in note 2 at the bottom of the sheet.
I don't know which is correct. I do know that the BRAKE signal on Pin E13 is pulled to a voltage (maybe a ground, maybe 12V) via a 3K resistor. It then feeds into the Parrallel Timer chip and also to a 14 pin custom IC via a 100K. The 14 pin custom IC ties to the E10 and E11 output driver control. I am not sure of the polarity of E13 but it looks to gate OFF/ON the E10 and E11 pins. Once I get to the point where I can apply power to the ECM then I will know how it works.
If anyone has a bench setup they could measure the E13 voltage. Then apply the opposite voltage and see if the E10 and E11 pins become active. I will get to this later on once I get the traces figured out. I have the bench setup wired for the 730 right now.
Yes, you are correct. Ignoring the carry bit will alias the neg. result to a pos. result due to using two's complement math. Ignoring the carry like you said will give the correct result. This method is commonly done for wrapping phase. Good job.
Fast355,
I do think the switches are the same. I am not sure about the wiring. The C1500 schematic posted in this thread shows the switch normally open (floating) and +12 when the brake is applied. The DIY-EFI pin list for the 427 says that E13 is 0V when the brake is applied in note 2 at the bottom of the sheet.
I don't know which is correct. I do know that the BRAKE signal on Pin E13 is pulled to a voltage (maybe a ground, maybe 12V) via a 3K resistor. It then feeds into the Parrallel Timer chip and also to a 14 pin custom IC via a 100K. The 14 pin custom IC ties to the E10 and E11 output driver control. I am not sure of the polarity of E13 but it looks to gate OFF/ON the E10 and E11 pins. Once I get to the point where I can apply power to the ECM then I will know how it works.
If anyone has a bench setup they could measure the E13 voltage. Then apply the opposite voltage and see if the E10 and E11 pins become active. I will get to this later on once I get the traces figured out. I have the bench setup wired for the 730 right now.
12-05-2006, 07:34 AM
#304
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
Thanks for the input on the TCC outputs. Im going to try messing with the brake switch tonight and see if I can get the outputs to work. Ill also measure it. Im guessing its tied to +12 volts with a resistor like you said.
12-05-2006, 10:38 PM
#305
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
As I was tracing the VSS and TOS inputs I was thinking about the E10 and E11 pins so more. The custom gate IC has 2 signals to the normal Parallel Timer chip, two signals to the "new" Parallel Timer chip (I was calling it Failsafe before), and two signals to the QUAD drivers.
I looked at the code and it looks like some stuff is in the 0x30XX address space ("new" Timer chip space) and some is in the 0x3FXX space. The brake signal is an input and must be a gate input. In terms of the timer chips, one could be reading and one driving, or one could be doing the PWM and the other can gate it off. So if the brake signal is correct then BOTH timer chips would need to be set properly to enable the PWM to the driver. Just some thoughts on E10 and E11.
I have a few more nights of tracing and should be able to apply power this weekend unless something comes up.
I looked at the code and it looks like some stuff is in the 0x30XX address space ("new" Timer chip space) and some is in the 0x3FXX space. The brake signal is an input and must be a gate input. In terms of the timer chips, one could be reading and one driving, or one could be doing the PWM and the other can gate it off. So if the brake signal is correct then BOTH timer chips would need to be set properly to enable the PWM to the driver. Just some thoughts on E10 and E11.
I have a few more nights of tracing and should be able to apply power this weekend unless something comes up.
12-07-2006, 06:31 PM
#306
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
You are the MAN! Sure enough, the brake signal disables the TCC outputs internally. +12 volts needs to be applied to the brake input to make the TCC outputs work. E10 is a simple on/off output (b7 of $3060) while E11 ($306A) is PWM'd.
12-07-2006, 08:36 PM
#307
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,982
Received 385 Likes
on
329 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
I mentioned that the Brake input was +12VDC (in the "run" position) eariler on, but it is always good to have a confirmation on it. I used an unused wire from the PCM conversion for power. It was one of the +12VDC power wires for the 7747 that was not used with the "427".
12-07-2006, 09:39 PM
#308
Sorry dude, I should have caught on to this earlier and saved you the headache. I ran into this when I built my PCM bench. The brake switch on the truck is a normally closed switch that is tied to +12V on one side and to ground through the PCM when the brakes are applied and the switch is open. On my bench, I used a NC momentary switch tied to +12Vign. See attached pic. HTH
12-09-2006, 01:52 PM
#309
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
It is good to hear you have the TCC outputs working. I have just about finished the tracing. This thing has a bunch of ON/OFF inputs and only a few A/D inputs. There is a spot for another A/D MUX but it is not installed. Not as many A/D inputs as I wanted, but I can use some for engine debug/tune mode and then use them differently for normal run time.
I can use one of the ON/OFF inputs to switch the code (and sensor readings) for the two modes.
It is low on outputs also when using an E-trans. I can squeak by if I use the EGR and EVAP CAN for other things. Since the ON/OFF inputs mainly go to the MCU then I am going to start looking through the code and see if they have the normal I/O direction bits. If they do have an I/O direction reg. (highly likely) then I can set them to outputs and drive a small transistor that drives a relay. I have mapped out the I/O so that I don't have to add external ckts as it is right now. If I really need more outputs then I will use the transistor driving a relay.
Looking at the hardware for the PCS, TIS, TOS. The 730 ECM can't work with the E-trans without adding external ckts.
I can use one of the ON/OFF inputs to switch the code (and sensor readings) for the two modes.
It is low on outputs also when using an E-trans. I can squeak by if I use the EGR and EVAP CAN for other things. Since the ON/OFF inputs mainly go to the MCU then I am going to start looking through the code and see if they have the normal I/O direction bits. If they do have an I/O direction reg. (highly likely) then I can set them to outputs and drive a small transistor that drives a relay. I have mapped out the I/O so that I don't have to add external ckts as it is right now. If I really need more outputs then I will use the transistor driving a relay.
Looking at the hardware for the PCS, TIS, TOS. The 730 ECM can't work with the E-trans without adding external ckts.
Last edited by junkcltr; 12-10-2006 at 12:23 AM.
12-10-2006, 09:04 PM
#310
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Yukon, OK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 95 Silverado
Engine: TBI 350
Transmission: 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 3.73 Detroit Truetrac
I'm alive! Thanks to all for the prayers and well wishes in my surgery. All went well and I am on the road to recovery. I "broke out" on Fri. and spent the weekend resting and now that I am up and around, I need to keep the boredom to a minimum. This helps.
Yes, there is a lean cruise mode. Some calibrations use it, some don't but it is easily enabled. By enabling the "Open Loop AFR Enable" flag (L400D, bit 0) and ensuring that the min temp setting constant at L48C7 is reasonable, the PCM will use the "Open Loop AFR vs Coolant Temp vs Vacuum" table in closed loop. This table is always used in open loop but by enabling the above parameters, these AFR's will be targeted in closed loop. I have verified this by datalogging desired AFR in place of Batt Volts. BLM's will be affected in closed loop when the desired AFR is above or below stoich. When tuning fuel, this should be taken into consideration to ensure VE table accuracy. When I tune open loop fuel, I disable EGR (and block it off to prevent any valve leakage) as well as CCP and Cat converter overheat protection then bypass the Cat (I run with a gutted one). This cuts the fueling modifiers down to AE and PE. I then set the table values in the operating temp range to something like 13:1 across the board and datalog desired AFR vs WBO2 AFR and adjust the VE accordingly. This ensures that the VE tables represent actual VE and not some fudged value. When I move to closed loop, I disable lean cruise and tune the O2 thresholds for BLM's of 128 across the board knowing that my VE tables are accurate. This is especially helpful when the factory O2 sensor has moved from the factory location. Once thresholds are tuned, I move on to proportional gains to get the O2 voltage swings where they need to be. Once all this is set, I enable and tune lean cruise. Oh yeah, I forgot AE. I tune AE in open loop with the WBO2 as well as WOT AFR.
As for the Barometer, it is a calculated value that compensates for changes in altitude or quick drastic changes in weather. Say for example, you started up a mountain road at the base and continued up 10,000 feet to the top of the mountain without stopping. If there were no Baro compensation, by the time you got to the top of the mountain, you would be running considerably rich. HTH
O.K., I fell better already!
Yes, there is a lean cruise mode. Some calibrations use it, some don't but it is easily enabled. By enabling the "Open Loop AFR Enable" flag (L400D, bit 0) and ensuring that the min temp setting constant at L48C7 is reasonable, the PCM will use the "Open Loop AFR vs Coolant Temp vs Vacuum" table in closed loop. This table is always used in open loop but by enabling the above parameters, these AFR's will be targeted in closed loop. I have verified this by datalogging desired AFR in place of Batt Volts. BLM's will be affected in closed loop when the desired AFR is above or below stoich. When tuning fuel, this should be taken into consideration to ensure VE table accuracy. When I tune open loop fuel, I disable EGR (and block it off to prevent any valve leakage) as well as CCP and Cat converter overheat protection then bypass the Cat (I run with a gutted one). This cuts the fueling modifiers down to AE and PE. I then set the table values in the operating temp range to something like 13:1 across the board and datalog desired AFR vs WBO2 AFR and adjust the VE accordingly. This ensures that the VE tables represent actual VE and not some fudged value. When I move to closed loop, I disable lean cruise and tune the O2 thresholds for BLM's of 128 across the board knowing that my VE tables are accurate. This is especially helpful when the factory O2 sensor has moved from the factory location. Once thresholds are tuned, I move on to proportional gains to get the O2 voltage swings where they need to be. Once all this is set, I enable and tune lean cruise. Oh yeah, I forgot AE. I tune AE in open loop with the WBO2 as well as WOT AFR.
As for the Barometer, it is a calculated value that compensates for changes in altitude or quick drastic changes in weather. Say for example, you started up a mountain road at the base and continued up 10,000 feet to the top of the mountain without stopping. If there were no Baro compensation, by the time you got to the top of the mountain, you would be running considerably rich. HTH
O.K., I fell better already!
I hope you are recovering quickly. I have been looking in the $OD hack to see what byte to change in the ALDL datastream definition for the desired AFR. I found the scan tool data list of bytes that correlates to the data (i.e: byte 15 = coolant temp, 16 = batt volts etc.) but did not find any bytes that reference desired AFR. I think I may have it figured out though. I have found what I believe is the desired AFR as (L026D). So I change the (L00A1) at (L520C) to (L026D) and keep byte 16 in the ALDL datastream definition in Tunerpro. I see the original (00 A1) in the hex editor at this address. If I am correct this should display the Desired AFR in Datamaster too?If i am correct, I hope that I have not just spilled some voo doo magic secrets. I just want to show that I am learning. Gonna go try it right now!
Brian
Last edited by BHall71; 12-10-2006 at 09:17 PM.
12-10-2006, 09:54 PM
#311
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Yukon, OK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 95 Silverado
Engine: TBI 350
Transmission: 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 3.73 Detroit Truetrac
O YEA! thats how you do it! Now I see lots of good stuff. I see that I get a weird spike in the desired AFR in second gear @ WOT. It spikes from 12.6 to 14.7 then back to the 12.6. One time it logged a knock count there and the other time it did not. Is the knock causing the computer to pull fuel or is the spike in the AFR causing the knock?
All kinds of good stuff to work on now.
Thanks to all who helped!
Brian
All kinds of good stuff to work on now.
Thanks to all who helped!
Brian
12-10-2006, 10:06 PM
#312
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,982
Received 385 Likes
on
329 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
O YEA! thats how you do it! Now I see lots of good stuff. I see that I get a weird spike in the desired AFR in second gear @ WOT. It spikes from 12.6 to 14.7 then back to the 12.6. One time it logged a knock count there and the other time it did not. Is the knock causing the computer to pull fuel or is the spike in the AFR causing the knock?
All kinds of good stuff to work on now.
Thanks to all who helped!
Brian
All kinds of good stuff to work on now.
Thanks to all who helped!
Brian
I did it on mine a while back.
Going to 14.7:1 from 12.6:1 under heavy load, IS what is causing your knock and therefore the knock retard.
You might also be getting some timing retard due to the transmission abuse logic.
The Catalyst Overheat programming might be causing you some Air/Fuel ratio problems.
12-10-2006, 10:16 PM
#313
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
dimented24x7,
I started reading through code to get the feel for how things are done. Here is an interesting tidbit/bug in the GM code. Instead of reporting and error to the ALDL and flipping on the SES......it locks up instead and lets the COP timeout.
Now that I have most of the MCU pins traced I was thinking about your MAF using the TOS input. If VATS is removed (like in your MAF bin) then TIC_2 is available for use with ECM Pin B7. The min. period for the 3-12KHz MAF is 83usec. The timer runs at 7.63usec. You could change the code to read the TIC_2 reg often and do a pulse count in RAM. Yes, more work but it would be an alternative to the 4L80E guys wanting to use a MAF.
It appears that there are 3 unused A/D inputs. There is 4 A/D inputs if a 0 ohm jumper is removed, a 10K inline and xxxK installed to ground (all solder pads are there). Then one of the on/off inputs from the ECM connector (pin A13) to MCU could have the inline resistor removed and jumper wired to the A/D MUX pin. The pin A13 3K pull-up could be left on the input if the xxxK pull-down is not installed or both could be installed depending on the device being installed. Overall, the removed resistor could be re-used, a new pull-down, and one jumper wire to have 4 A/D inputs.
A note about using stuff that outputs a voltage (not resistive to ground like a MAT) is that there are no clamp diodes to +5V like the MAP and TPS have. That means you need to be careful that the new WBO2, MAP sensor, EGT, etc. does not output more than 5 volts or put a clamp diode on it.
Voodoo Magic???
I started reading through code to get the feel for how things are done. Here is an interesting tidbit/bug in the GM code. Instead of reporting and error to the ALDL and flipping on the SES......it locks up instead and lets the COP timeout.
Code:
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ;-Read in force motor current ;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ; SEI ;Disable interrupts LDAA #$07 ;0000 0111, 4 consec. reads of channel 7 STAA L3030 ;A/D control reg. (ADCTL) ; ; ; LDX #L3000 ;Base CPU reg. addr. L7A95 BRCLR $30,X,#$80,L7A95 ;ADCTL, bra if b7==0, A/D conversion not done yet
It appears that there are 3 unused A/D inputs. There is 4 A/D inputs if a 0 ohm jumper is removed, a 10K inline and xxxK installed to ground (all solder pads are there). Then one of the on/off inputs from the ECM connector (pin A13) to MCU could have the inline resistor removed and jumper wired to the A/D MUX pin. The pin A13 3K pull-up could be left on the input if the xxxK pull-down is not installed or both could be installed depending on the device being installed. Overall, the removed resistor could be re-used, a new pull-down, and one jumper wire to have 4 A/D inputs.
A note about using stuff that outputs a voltage (not resistive to ground like a MAT) is that there are no clamp diodes to +5V like the MAP and TPS have. That means you need to be careful that the new WBO2, MAP sensor, EGT, etc. does not output more than 5 volts or put a clamp diode on it.
Voodoo Magic???
12-10-2006, 10:49 PM
#314
Originally Posted by BHall71
O YEA! thats how you do it! Now I see lots of good stuff. I see that I get a weird spike in the desired AFR in second gear @ WOT. It spikes from 12.6 to 14.7 then back to the 12.6. One time it logged a knock count there and the other time it did not. Is the knock causing the computer to pull fuel or is the spike in the AFR causing the knock?
All kinds of good stuff to work on now.
Thanks to all who helped!
Brian
All kinds of good stuff to work on now.
Thanks to all who helped!
Brian
12-10-2006, 11:16 PM
#315
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Yukon, OK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 95 Silverado
Engine: TBI 350
Transmission: 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 3.73 Detroit Truetrac
Can't say thanks enough..
During the spikes:
First spike observed at 3775rpm
Second spike observed at 4750rpm
Not really much of a spike in the WBo2 reading but it does go up.
TPS % = consistant 99.6 all around
TPS Volts = 4.43 all around
PE Active flag = 1 all around
CLOOP flag = 1 all around
WOT AFR table is pretty smooth
Trans Abuse flag = 0 all around
Still alot to look through.
Brian
During the spikes:
First spike observed at 3775rpm
Second spike observed at 4750rpm
Not really much of a spike in the WBo2 reading but it does go up.
TPS % = consistant 99.6 all around
TPS Volts = 4.43 all around
PE Active flag = 1 all around
CLOOP flag = 1 all around
WOT AFR table is pretty smooth
Trans Abuse flag = 0 all around
Still alot to look through.
Brian
12-11-2006, 12:45 AM
#316
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
Junk,
Damn, good eye. Yeah, if the A/D never terminates, then it bombs out. Wonder if it ever happens?
Now that I have most of the MCU pins traced I was thinking about your MAF using the TOS input. If VATS is removed (like in your MAF bin) then TIC_2 is available for use with ECM Pin B7. The min. period for the 3-12KHz MAF is 83usec. The timer runs at 7.63usec. You could change the code to read the TIC_2 reg often and do a pulse count in RAM. Yes, more work but it would be an alternative to the 4L80E guys wanting to use a MAF. I thought of doing interrupts early on. But, from what I recall, even though doing the actual interrupt is pretty low instruction wise, it could potentially add a whopping 20% more overhead at high flow rates! Even though it wouldnt be as desireable, probably back calculating the TIS is easier then trying to find a new home for the MAF, unless similar unused hardware already exists that the MAF could tie into.
Damn, good eye. Yeah, if the A/D never terminates, then it bombs out. Wonder if it ever happens?
Now that I have most of the MCU pins traced I was thinking about your MAF using the TOS input. If VATS is removed (like in your MAF bin) then TIC_2 is available for use with ECM Pin B7. The min. period for the 3-12KHz MAF is 83usec. The timer runs at 7.63usec. You could change the code to read the TIC_2 reg often and do a pulse count in RAM. Yes, more work but it would be an alternative to the 4L80E guys wanting to use a MAF.
12-11-2006, 09:35 AM
#317
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,982
Received 385 Likes
on
329 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Can't say thanks enough..
During the spikes:
First spike observed at 3775rpm
Second spike observed at 4750rpm
Not really much of a spike in the WBo2 reading but it does go up.
TPS % = consistant 99.6 all around
TPS Volts = 4.43 all around
PE Active flag = 1 all around
CLOOP flag = 1 all around
WOT AFR table is pretty smooth
Trans Abuse flag = 0 all around
Still alot to look through.
Brian
During the spikes:
First spike observed at 3775rpm
Second spike observed at 4750rpm
Not really much of a spike in the WBo2 reading but it does go up.
TPS % = consistant 99.6 all around
TPS Volts = 4.43 all around
PE Active flag = 1 all around
CLOOP flag = 1 all around
WOT AFR table is pretty smooth
Trans Abuse flag = 0 all around
Still alot to look through.
Brian
;==============================================
; AFR PARAMS
; BDWM, L05, MD8, ($0D)
;==============================================
;
L48D9 FCB 173 ; 90c COOL, OPEN LP, RICH IDLE COOL THRESH
L48DA FCB 0 ;-40 deg C, lower cool temp for open loop AFR enrichment
L48DB FCB 254 ;151 dec C, upper cool temp for open loop AFR enrichment
;
L48DC FCB 200 ; 10 Sec's MAX TIME FOR RICH IDLE IF IN DRIVE
; sec * 20
;
L48DD FCB 147 ;14.7:1, stoich AFR
;
L48DE FCB 10 ;1.0:1 AFR bias for open loop idle
; Used prior to TPS action after start up
;
L48DF FCB 147 ;14.7:1 AFR, lower limit for quasi-closed loop
L48E0 FCB 10 ;1.0:1, onitiial AFR enrichemnt
L48E1 FCB 5 ;0.5:1, initial AFR enrichment if in park/neutral
L48E2 FCB 6 ;Filter coeff. for filtering AFR after transition from idle
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;-Power enrich params
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;
L490A FCB 250 ;3125 RPM, delta RPM value to bypass PE delay
;
L490B FCB 120 ;50 deg C, lower cool temp threshold to bypass PE delay/
;allow for AFR adjustments
L490C FCB 193 ;105 deg C, upper cool temp thresh to bypass PE delay
;
L490D FCB 13 ;5.1%, TPS hysteresis to remain in PE
L490E FCB 170 ;4259 RPM, upper RPM threshold for PE delay/AFR adj.
L490F FCB 15 ;15 sec, time delay to reset after in PE
;
L4910 FCB 3 ;150 msec, delay for PE to become active
L4911 FCB 150 ;58.5%/pass, PE ramping rate
L4912 FCB 153 ;74 deg C, cool temp thresh for cold PE
;;
L4913 FCB 50 ;50 secs, threshold for extended PE\
;
L4914 FCB 195 ;106c COOL, upper temp thresh to allow PE AFR adjustments
L4915 FCB 70 ;1750 RPM, lower RPM limit for colt PE AFR enrich
L4916 FCB 25 ;25 MPH, MPH limit for cold PE AFR enrichment
;
L4917 FCB 12 ;12 MPH min speed for delta MPH fast PE entry
L4918 FCB 255 ;99.6%, TPS threshold for delta MPH fast PE entry
L4919 FCB 0 ;Timer thresh to continue to bar fast delta MPH PE entry
;
L491A FCB 7 ;0.7 AFR, cold PE AFR enrichment
L491B FCB 15 ;1.5 AFR, base PE enleanment AFR
L491C FDB 0000 ;0 MPH, delta MPH threshold for PE
;
; AFR PARAMS
; BDWM, L05, MD8, ($0D)
;==============================================
;
L48D9 FCB 173 ; 90c COOL, OPEN LP, RICH IDLE COOL THRESH
L48DA FCB 0 ;-40 deg C, lower cool temp for open loop AFR enrichment
L48DB FCB 254 ;151 dec C, upper cool temp for open loop AFR enrichment
;
L48DC FCB 200 ; 10 Sec's MAX TIME FOR RICH IDLE IF IN DRIVE
; sec * 20
;
L48DD FCB 147 ;14.7:1, stoich AFR
;
L48DE FCB 10 ;1.0:1 AFR bias for open loop idle
; Used prior to TPS action after start up
;
L48DF FCB 147 ;14.7:1 AFR, lower limit for quasi-closed loop
L48E0 FCB 10 ;1.0:1, onitiial AFR enrichemnt
L48E1 FCB 5 ;0.5:1, initial AFR enrichment if in park/neutral
L48E2 FCB 6 ;Filter coeff. for filtering AFR after transition from idle
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;-Power enrich params
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;
L490A FCB 250 ;3125 RPM, delta RPM value to bypass PE delay
;
L490B FCB 120 ;50 deg C, lower cool temp threshold to bypass PE delay/
;allow for AFR adjustments
L490C FCB 193 ;105 deg C, upper cool temp thresh to bypass PE delay
;
L490D FCB 13 ;5.1%, TPS hysteresis to remain in PE
L490E FCB 170 ;4259 RPM, upper RPM threshold for PE delay/AFR adj.
L490F FCB 15 ;15 sec, time delay to reset after in PE
;
L4910 FCB 3 ;150 msec, delay for PE to become active
L4911 FCB 150 ;58.5%/pass, PE ramping rate
L4912 FCB 153 ;74 deg C, cool temp thresh for cold PE
;;
L4913 FCB 50 ;50 secs, threshold for extended PE\
;
L4914 FCB 195 ;106c COOL, upper temp thresh to allow PE AFR adjustments
L4915 FCB 70 ;1750 RPM, lower RPM limit for colt PE AFR enrich
L4916 FCB 25 ;25 MPH, MPH limit for cold PE AFR enrichment
;
L4917 FCB 12 ;12 MPH min speed for delta MPH fast PE entry
L4918 FCB 255 ;99.6%, TPS threshold for delta MPH fast PE entry
L4919 FCB 0 ;Timer thresh to continue to bar fast delta MPH PE entry
;
L491A FCB 7 ;0.7 AFR, cold PE AFR enrichment
L491B FCB 15 ;1.5 AFR, base PE enleanment AFR
L491C FDB 0000 ;0 MPH, delta MPH threshold for PE
;
12-11-2006, 09:50 AM
#318
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,982
Received 385 Likes
on
329 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
On a side note I am having a little unstable idle with my ZZ4 cam. After looking over everything on my scan tool, it seems that the proportional gain at idle is the problem. Now here is the question.
One of these has got to be unstable and the other stable. My best guess is that the proportional gains are going to tighten up to help stabilize the idle.
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;-O2 PID idle params
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;
;-Proportional gains if unstable idle present
;
L4945 FCB 4 ;0.016, proportional gain if rich
L4946 FCB 5 ;0.020, proportional gain if lean
;
;-Proportional gains if unstable idle present
;
L4947 FCB 16 ;0.063, proportional gain if rich
L4948 FCB 20 ;0.078, proportional gain if lean
;-O2 PID idle params
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;
;-Proportional gains if unstable idle present
;
L4945 FCB 4 ;0.016, proportional gain if rich
L4946 FCB 5 ;0.020, proportional gain if lean
;
;-Proportional gains if unstable idle present
;
L4947 FCB 16 ;0.063, proportional gain if rich
L4948 FCB 20 ;0.078, proportional gain if lean
12-11-2006, 10:26 AM
#319
On a side note I am having a little unstable idle with my ZZ4 cam. After looking over everything on my scan tool, it seems that the proportional gain at idle is the problem. Now here is the question.
One of these has got to be unstable and the other stable. My best guess is that the proportional gains are going to tighten up to help stabilize the idle.
One of these has got to be unstable and the other stable. My best guess is that the proportional gains are going to tighten up to help stabilize the idle.
12-11-2006, 10:32 AM
#320
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 thought of doing interrupts early on. But, from what I recall, even though doing the actual interrupt is pretty low instruction wise, it could potentially add a whopping 20% more overhead at high flow rates! Even though it wouldnt be as desireable, probably back calculating the TIS is easier then trying to find a new home for the MAF, unless similar unused hardware already exists that the MAF could tie into.
12-11-2006, 11:19 AM
#321
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,982
Received 385 Likes
on
329 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Have you tried zeroing out the Idle Overspeed/Underspeed Spark tables starting at L44E6. This is the first thing I do when idle is unstable and it always tames it right down. The idle routines in the code are very good and usually supply a stable idle even on a decent size cam by just zeroing out the derivitive idle spark stuff as long as the idle VE table is good. HTH
I did L44E6 AND L44F8 both. Still running pretty unstable at times. It only does it when it runs in closed loop though. Open loop is fine. I can even see the integrator swinging back and forth at idle. As the integrator drifts the O2 voltage follows, that is followed by a sharp shudder from the engine and a surge open in the IAC. Like 4-5 additional counts, the engine idles back up, then slowly drifts back down and the process occurs again. I can tell you that it does activate the stall saver everytime it does this. Not a huge deal, but I want it to idle nearly dead smooth, like I know it can. My 305 with a bigger cam idled smoother than this is right now. ZZ4 cam in a 9.85:1 350.
It idles at about 5 IAC counts and 600 RPM. I changed up the IAC Count vs % Flow table (desensitized it) and it helped to a large extent, but it still shudders occasionally. It only does it out of gear right now. Before it was doing it in gear too. This problem is non-existant when the A/C loads the engine.
12-11-2006, 10:41 PM
#323
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
On a side note I am having a little unstable idle with my ZZ4 cam. After looking over everything on my scan tool, it seems that the proportional gain at idle is the problem. Now here is the question.
One of these has got to be unstable and the other stable. My best guess is that the proportional gains are going to tighten up to help stabilize the idle.
One of these has got to be unstable and the other stable. My best guess is that the proportional gains are going to tighten up to help stabilize the idle.
12-12-2006, 11:23 PM
#325
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 finally finished up the tracing and moved on to the code. I figured I need some source that I can assemble and change to test out the I/Os before I even power up the PCM.
I look the $0D_DIS.ZIP hac posted here and changed the FCB, Labels, etc so that it would assemble with the Baldwin assembler. Once it would assemble properly I noted the following problems in the posted hac.
I need to figure out how to get the assembler to not do direct addressing for the LC332 and other extended addressing. I think there is 4 to 6 occurrences of this. I put the LDAB L00XX as a comment and inserted 3 FCBs with the opcode, high_addr, low_addr. I removed the NOP line.
The other problem is that the assembler doesn't have a block constant define so that I can define 4K of 0xFF from 0x0000 to 0x4000 so that it matches the original BIN exactly. I can do a 4K reserved, but the value is 0x00. I guess I can do a cut and paste of 4K 0xFFs but that will make the asm file a lot bigger. I might mod the Baldwin assembler to do a block define with a constant value directive.
BTW, the MS-DOS fc /b command works well for file comparing. You can redirect the output to a file and read through it to see how the bins differ. The Baldwin assembler is MS-DOS based. I run a batch file (MSYS script) that runs the assembler, linker, a merge_bin CAL/CODE concatenator, and then MS-DOS fc to get out a bin and bin difference file.
I look the $0D_DIS.ZIP hac posted here and changed the FCB, Labels, etc so that it would assemble with the Baldwin assembler. Once it would assemble properly I noted the following problems in the posted hac.
Code:
CAL data word at 0x05D13 is byte swapped line after L9423 with BITA #$8, should be BITA *L0008 This will cause incorrect addressing and a code bug line LC332 instruction error (along with a few other extended addr. instructions) Replaced the LDAB L004C at LC332, etc. extended addressing with .byte words for the instruction line L7C7E should be L7C7F, table at 0xFF92 should be $7C7E This table is not an interrupt vector table (Vectors start at 0xFFC0) line LC300 should be LC301, table at 0xFF98 should be $C300 This table is not an interrupt vector table (Vectors start at 0xFFC0)
The other problem is that the assembler doesn't have a block constant define so that I can define 4K of 0xFF from 0x0000 to 0x4000 so that it matches the original BIN exactly. I can do a 4K reserved, but the value is 0x00. I guess I can do a cut and paste of 4K 0xFFs but that will make the asm file a lot bigger. I might mod the Baldwin assembler to do a block define with a constant value directive.
BTW, the MS-DOS fc /b command works well for file comparing. You can redirect the output to a file and read through it to see how the bins differ. The Baldwin assembler is MS-DOS based. I run a batch file (MSYS script) that runs the assembler, linker, a merge_bin CAL/CODE concatenator, and then MS-DOS fc to get out a bin and bin difference file.
12-13-2006, 12:13 AM
#326
I finally finished up the tracing and moved on to the code. I figured I need some source that I can assemble and change to test out the I/Os before I even power up the PCM.
I look the $0D_DIS.ZIP hac posted here and changed the FCB, Labels, etc so that it would assemble with the Baldwin assembler. Once it would assemble properly I noted the following problems in the posted hac.
I need to figure out how to get the assembler to not do direct addressing for the LC332 and other extended addressing. I think there is 4 to 6 occurrences of this. I put the LDAB L00XX as a comment and inserted 3 FCBs with the opcode, high_addr, low_addr. I removed the NOP line.
The other problem is that the assembler doesn't have a block constant define so that I can define 4K of 0xFF from 0x0000 to 0x4000 so that it matches the original BIN exactly. I can do a 4K reserved, but the value is 0x00. I guess I can do a cut and paste of 4K 0xFFs but that will make the asm file a lot bigger. I might mod the Baldwin assembler to do a block define with a constant value directive.
BTW, the MS-DOS fc /b command works well for file comparing. You can redirect the output to a file and read through it to see how the bins differ. The Baldwin assembler is MS-DOS based. I run a batch file (MSYS script) that runs the assembler, linker, a merge_bin CAL/CODE concatenator, and then MS-DOS fc to get out a bin and bin difference file.
I look the $0D_DIS.ZIP hac posted here and changed the FCB, Labels, etc so that it would assemble with the Baldwin assembler. Once it would assemble properly I noted the following problems in the posted hac.
Code:
CAL data word at 0x05D13 is byte swapped line after L9423 with BITA #$8, should be BITA *L0008 This will cause incorrect addressing and a code bug line LC332 instruction error (along with a few other extended addr. instructions) Replaced the LDAB L004C at LC332, etc. extended addressing with .byte words for the instruction line L7C7E should be L7C7F, table at 0xFF92 should be $7C7E This table is not an interrupt vector table (Vectors start at 0xFFC0) line LC300 should be LC301, table at 0xFF98 should be $C300 This table is not an interrupt vector table (Vectors start at 0xFFC0)
The other problem is that the assembler doesn't have a block constant define so that I can define 4K of 0xFF from 0x0000 to 0x4000 so that it matches the original BIN exactly. I can do a 4K reserved, but the value is 0x00. I guess I can do a cut and paste of 4K 0xFFs but that will make the asm file a lot bigger. I might mod the Baldwin assembler to do a block define with a constant value directive.
BTW, the MS-DOS fc /b command works well for file comparing. You can redirect the output to a file and read through it to see how the bins differ. The Baldwin assembler is MS-DOS based. I run a batch file (MSYS script) that runs the assembler, linker, a merge_bin CAL/CODE concatenator, and then MS-DOS fc to get out a bin and bin difference file.
12-13-2006, 08:34 AM
#327
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
If you want to save some headaches, use the dos based assembler with miniIDE. Its the ASM11.EXE file in miniIDEs root directory. Its set up to assemble with the formatting there. It works with zero errors. The formatting isnt really unique to me. I followed something similar to what RBob had originally done in the 8746 hack, with some personal touches added to distinguish my work as my own. All you need to do to get the code to offset when its converted to S19 is add a constant byte at $0000. This will cause the binary to compile correctly and not with an offset. I also checked the binary against the source binary and the hack produces teh same output, less a few addressing errors that where originally present. There may be even more goobers in the stock code that went unoticed.
Last edited by dimented24x7; 12-13-2006 at 08:51 AM.
12-13-2006, 08:43 AM
#328
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
As far as the blank space, I personally wouldnt get real hung up on it IMO. The computer cant get to it, anyway since the addresses are reserved, so its essentially dead space no matter what is there. GM even put some comments and formatting tables in some of the dead space, so no matter what, the final bin may not be a perfect match to its source. My main concern has always been to reproduce the code and tables without error. If it was an uncommented dis. and there was no knowledge of the PCMs operation, then it would definatly be a different matter.
Last edited by dimented24x7; 12-13-2006 at 08:47 AM.
12-13-2006, 09:11 AM
#329
Hey, it works, right? That is the goal, isn't it? I was just playing around with different stuff to see what happens. The original $0D hack was done with the TunerCat disassembler or one very similar so I want to get that to work so we can all be on the same page. With everyone doing it a different way it is hard to maintain any kind of order. For example, I am runnning two different $0D vehicles. One is a '94 and one is a '95. I don't want to use the BDWM.bin in both since the TCC in the '94 is not PWM so I need to be able to disassemble a .bin, modify it, reassemble it then burn it. I can't do that as easily if I am only using the hack. Personally, I would like to see us all doing it the same way but maybe that is not realistic. JMHO
12-13-2006, 09:26 AM
#330
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
Yes. As far as I know, anyway... I wasnt getting offended or anything, just making a statement. I went with the formatting used by RBob as its similar to alot of the other hacks, less the 3D tables. This is just me, but I think that the miniIDE should be the standard for the hacks as it seems to handle them with relative ease and with the least ammount of effort. It even compiles the original code in the $0D. I just added the tabbing to make it more eye friendly and added labels so the code could be moved without causing errors.
Junk, be careful with correcting the apparent 'errors'. L9423 is actually a fix that I put in the code. Isntead of checking the bit in the option word, they do a bit test using another status word from the RAM, which is an obvious mistake. Just to make sure its something that I did in error, look at the surrounding code to make sure they really are mistakes. I remember fixing several major boogers.
Junk, be careful with correcting the apparent 'errors'. L9423 is actually a fix that I put in the code. Isntead of checking the bit in the option word, they do a bit test using another status word from the RAM, which is an obvious mistake. Just to make sure its something that I did in error, look at the surrounding code to make sure they really are mistakes. I remember fixing several major boogers.
Last edited by dimented24x7; 12-13-2006 at 09:30 AM.
12-13-2006, 05:44 PM
#331
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
You are right about the BITA #0x08 thing. I think it is a bug too. For my code that I am changing I will make that fix. Thanks for catching that one. The 0x00 vs 0xFF isn't a big deal because now that it assembles and compares to the original I will start modifying it and it will never compare properly again.
I am going to start playing with the inputs to verify that my tracing is correct. I need to really test out A/D MUX channels 0x05 and 0x06 and see which channel/pin is which is the code. I am about 90% sure I have them figured out properly. Only testing with code can give 100%. It is the channel that is used in the code with a "???" header and the other channel is stored at L0192 which is called BARO in the code. The stock code disables the instructions via a CAL variable.
I am going to start playing with the inputs to verify that my tracing is correct. I need to really test out A/D MUX channels 0x05 and 0x06 and see which channel/pin is which is the code. I am about 90% sure I have them figured out properly. Only testing with code can give 100%. It is the channel that is used in the code with a "???" header and the other channel is stored at L0192 which is called BARO in the code. The stock code disables the instructions via a CAL variable.
12-13-2006, 05:54 PM
#332
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
Thats one thing that I hate when modding it is that its real easy to make a small mistake and never know about it. Most of my time making changes is spent actually verifying that the code works properly. The computer in the car has the potential to crash in a real literal sort of way.
12-13-2006, 08:39 PM
#333
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
It is so easy to make a mistake when playing with the code. I played with the 730 ECM AUJP $8D code this Summer making changes. I spent months coding at night for the stuff I wanted to add. I would figure out the equations and then write the function and test on the bench. It is nice since you can ramp up MAP, RPM, TPS, etc and watch the function input and output using the ALDL.
I am going to wire the 427 connector to the bench and try it out. I will call a function that reads all the A/D inputs and reports them to the ALDL so that I can verify the inputs are correct as I have them mapped out. Then I will move on to the single bit inputs and eventually the outputs. I might re-wire the 4th unused A/D channel for a second MAP sensor. Finally, add in some WBO2, water inj., and 2Bar code. The nice part is that the SD equation is just like the AUJP SD eqn.......SD is SD. I already have the water pump and nozzle spray data from testing with the AUJP so that shouldn't take long. I can see it taking all Winter into Spring to understand how the engine PID and trans. control works. Good project. Somewhere along the way I need to fab stuff for the new intercooler.
Thanks for putting the $0D hac out there. I am going to take my BNKM bin and dissassemble later on and compare it to the BDWM in terms of code differences. Is the BDWM the latest code for the 427 ECM like the AUJP is the latest for the 730 ECM, auto trans, 5.7liter? The edelbrock site has the BNKM listed as the bin to use for their EFI kit with the 4L80E trans. I like to get my hands on a 2WD 4L80E eventually.
I am going to wire the 427 connector to the bench and try it out. I will call a function that reads all the A/D inputs and reports them to the ALDL so that I can verify the inputs are correct as I have them mapped out. Then I will move on to the single bit inputs and eventually the outputs. I might re-wire the 4th unused A/D channel for a second MAP sensor. Finally, add in some WBO2, water inj., and 2Bar code. The nice part is that the SD equation is just like the AUJP SD eqn.......SD is SD. I already have the water pump and nozzle spray data from testing with the AUJP so that shouldn't take long. I can see it taking all Winter into Spring to understand how the engine PID and trans. control works. Good project. Somewhere along the way I need to fab stuff for the new intercooler.
Thanks for putting the $0D hac out there. I am going to take my BNKM bin and dissassemble later on and compare it to the BDWM in terms of code differences. Is the BDWM the latest code for the 427 ECM like the AUJP is the latest for the 730 ECM, auto trans, 5.7liter? The edelbrock site has the BNKM listed as the bin to use for their EFI kit with the 4L80E trans. I like to get my hands on a 2WD 4L80E eventually.
12-13-2006, 09:15 PM
#334
.....Thanks for putting the $0D hac out there. I am going to take my BNKM bin and dissassemble later on and compare it to the BDWM in terms of code differences. Is the BDWM the latest code for the 427 ECM like the AUJP is the latest for the 730 ECM, auto trans, 5.7liter? The edelbrock site has the BNKM listed as the bin to use for their EFI kit with the 4L80E trans. I like to get my hands on a 2WD 4L80E eventually.
12-13-2006, 09:27 PM
#335
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,982
Received 385 Likes
on
329 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
BNKM is $31 mask. That is '95 4L80E code. $0E is '94 4L80E code. BJYM is the latest $0D TBI code that I have for a '95 and and BPLH is the latest $0D CPI code I have although for '95 there is probably later versions out there. The '94's had different BCC's as the calibrations were different in the tranny code. Like I mentioned earlier, the '94 4L60E trucks do not have a TCC PWM solenoid and the '95's do. HTH
12-17-2006, 10:52 PM
#336
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 read early on that some people are emulating with the $0D, $0E, etc code. I had to change the code to ignore the checksum for bench testing. Using TP to disable the checksum by writing 0xAA doesn't work because the checksum is at 0x4006 and TP only allows a max. of 256 offset from the start of the bin. Maybe he updated this in later versions of TP.
12-17-2006, 10:56 PM
#337
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 just added it as a constant in the constants/scalars section.
Edit: Are you having trouble disabling the checksum with AA? Or writing the checksum? Haulin posted the correct values to use below. Ive also had no issues with TP writing the correct checksums, so long as its configured properly.
Edit: Are you having trouble disabling the checksum with AA? Or writing the checksum? Haulin posted the correct values to use below. Ive also had no issues with TP writing the correct checksums, so long as its configured properly.
Last edited by dimented24x7; 12-18-2006 at 12:17 AM.
12-18-2006, 12:11 AM
#338
I read early on that some people are emulating with the $0D, $0E, etc code. I had to change the code to ignore the checksum for bench testing. Using TP to disable the checksum by writing 0xAA doesn't work because the checksum is at 0x4006 and TP only allows a max. of 256 offset from the start of the bin. Maybe he updated this in later versions of TP.
Seems what I have been posting lately is falling on deaf ears but I'll try again. TunerPro RT emulation works great if configured properly. You need to write oxAA at L4008 not L08 as is the default in TunerPro RT. Also, you need to set up the .XDF header info. Set as follows:Checksum Tab
Data Start - 4008
Data End - FFFF
Store Address - 4006
Store Size - 16 Bit
Data Size - 8 Bit
Calculation - Sum (no carry)
This should allow emulation to function as normal. HTH
12-18-2006, 09:57 PM
#339
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 checksum address entered wrong. I entered 0x4005 instead of 0x4006 by accident. It now looks the same as what you posted.
Almost done with the I/O stuff. I just have the 1-2 and 2-3 Trans. solenoid PWM regs to figure out. It looks like they are at 0x3FCC and 0x3FEA. I should be able to test them tomorrow night.
Almost done with the I/O stuff. I just have the 1-2 and 2-3 Trans. solenoid PWM regs to figure out. It looks like they are at 0x3FCC and 0x3FEA. I should be able to test them tomorrow night.
12-18-2006, 11:26 PM
#340
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
Junk, what pins are those on? IIRC, the 1-2, and 2-3 sols. appear as on/off outputs from the code side. Theyre controlled by the I/O $004C. Those addresses do appear, though, so now Im curious if $004C just enables them and the DC is set elsewhere. They do turn on and off on the bench, but I havnt tried those addresses yet.
When your done tracing, can you post your findings? This is definatly good stuff...
When your done tracing, can you post your findings? This is definatly good stuff...
04-18-2007, 12:39 AM
#341
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
Re: TBI guys, its time to update!
It's been a while. I still haven't finished the tracing. I took a break from it. I did come across an E-trans that I might try. The problem is that I have an opti-vss and don't want to use the magnetic VSS for the trans. because I am removing the extension housing.
I have been looking at the magnetic vss input in the code. This probably applies to the MAF conversion code you have with TOS removed. It seems location L5D13 is the key to changing the trans. code for a different VSS. In my case with the opti-vss I need to change value from 43691 to 2184 (note, the comment in the code for L5D13 is incorrect). The input port also needs to be changed from the TOS magnetic vss pulse accumulator & timer to the engine code VSS (opti-vss in my case). It seems like making those two changes will allow the trans code to use the same VSS as the engine code. Frees up the TOS input for other stuff. I have more code to look at, but so far that seems like all it would take to run a single vss.
I have been looking at the magnetic vss input in the code. This probably applies to the MAF conversion code you have with TOS removed. It seems location L5D13 is the key to changing the trans. code for a different VSS. In my case with the opti-vss I need to change value from 43691 to 2184 (note, the comment in the code for L5D13 is incorrect). The input port also needs to be changed from the TOS magnetic vss pulse accumulator & timer to the engine code VSS (opti-vss in my case). It seems like making those two changes will allow the trans code to use the same VSS as the engine code. Frees up the TOS input for other stuff. I have more code to look at, but so far that seems like all it would take to run a single vss.
04-18-2007, 07:13 AM
#342
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 9,982
Received 385 Likes
on
329 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
Re: TBI guys, its time to update!
It's been a while. I still haven't finished the tracing. I took a break from it. I did come across an E-trans that I might try. The problem is that I have an opti-vss and don't want to use the magnetic VSS for the trans. because I am removing the extension housing.
I have been looking at the magnetic vss input in the code. This probably applies to the MAF conversion code you have with TOS removed. It seems location L5D13 is the key to changing the trans. code for a different VSS. In my case with the opti-vss I need to change value from 43691 to 2184 (note, the comment in the code for L5D13 is incorrect). The input port also needs to be changed from the TOS magnetic vss pulse accumulator & timer to the engine code VSS (opti-vss in my case). It seems like making those two changes will allow the trans code to use the same VSS as the engine code. Frees up the TOS input for other stuff. I have more code to look at, but so far that seems like all it would take to run a single vss.
I have been looking at the magnetic vss input in the code. This probably applies to the MAF conversion code you have with TOS removed. It seems location L5D13 is the key to changing the trans. code for a different VSS. In my case with the opti-vss I need to change value from 43691 to 2184 (note, the comment in the code for L5D13 is incorrect). The input port also needs to be changed from the TOS magnetic vss pulse accumulator & timer to the engine code VSS (opti-vss in my case). It seems like making those two changes will allow the trans code to use the same VSS as the engine code. Frees up the TOS input for other stuff. I have more code to look at, but so far that seems like all it would take to run a single vss.
There is also a switch at 5D02.
04-18-2007, 07:50 AM
#343
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
Re: TBI guys, its time to update!
Junk, did you ever discover what the alternate input was for the opt. VSS? Also, L5D13 is the key to changing the VSS type. I dont recall exactly what it is but IIRC, its the ratio of MPH x 2 to the input frequency. In the latest hack, all the VSS code is commented, and as correct as I can get it.
Ive also plowed through alot of the trans code. Most of the standard/PWM TCC code, shift algorithm + 3-2 sol. code, and line pressure algo. have been commented. Hopefully soon, youll have something to use on those test benches!
Ive also plowed through alot of the trans code. Most of the standard/PWM TCC code, shift algorithm + 3-2 sol. code, and line pressure algo. have been commented. Hopefully soon, youll have something to use on those test benches!
04-19-2007, 01:23 AM
#344
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
Re: TBI guys, its time to update!
I haven't looked to see where the alternate VSS register inputs come from. It will take some time to do that because I don't know the pins associated with the reg set. I would need to apply inputs at the pins and other unused traces to see what is connected to the register input. I don't really see what ECM connector pins could be connected to them. I looked at all the unused ECM connector pins (I think).
I ran the calcs for using the opti-vss in a spreadsheet to see where the 2 PPR resolution falls apart. It will fall apart with the stock code because the time between pulses will be long and L5D12 will time out and cause a "signal lost". Using about 3 reads per second (333msec per vss read) gives the min. allowable MPH as 5 MPH. The resolution between MPH isn't bad when using a a 3HZ rate. I wouldn't go any higher. The stock code will allow for no VSS updates as long as the timeout from L5D12 doesn't occur. So it will auto-adjusted for the slow changing VSS if L5D12 is increased by a large amount.
As for resolution, the MPH is off by 1 MPH at 100 MPH vehicle speed using a 3Hz update rate. That is a 51 foot travel distance between updates. Fine for trans. code, but not good for ABS. Low speed resolution is fine but the min. registered MPH is high at 5 MPH. A slower update rate of 1HZ will get it down to 2 MPH. I don't see that it is worth it, but it is just a matter of changing L5D12 and allowing the auto-adjust to do its thing. Overall, the opti-VSS doesn't seem bad.
Also, the ALDL reported data comment at L306C should read N_MPH/8 for the TOS output speed in the ALDL datastream.
A bit at L5D02 could be added to use the opti-vss registers as an input along with a code mod.
I ran the calcs for using the opti-vss in a spreadsheet to see where the 2 PPR resolution falls apart. It will fall apart with the stock code because the time between pulses will be long and L5D12 will time out and cause a "signal lost". Using about 3 reads per second (333msec per vss read) gives the min. allowable MPH as 5 MPH. The resolution between MPH isn't bad when using a a 3HZ rate. I wouldn't go any higher. The stock code will allow for no VSS updates as long as the timeout from L5D12 doesn't occur. So it will auto-adjusted for the slow changing VSS if L5D12 is increased by a large amount.
As for resolution, the MPH is off by 1 MPH at 100 MPH vehicle speed using a 3Hz update rate. That is a 51 foot travel distance between updates. Fine for trans. code, but not good for ABS. Low speed resolution is fine but the min. registered MPH is high at 5 MPH. A slower update rate of 1HZ will get it down to 2 MPH. I don't see that it is worth it, but it is just a matter of changing L5D12 and allowing the auto-adjust to do its thing. Overall, the opti-VSS doesn't seem bad.
Also, the ALDL reported data comment at L306C should read N_MPH/8 for the TOS output speed in the ALDL datastream.
A bit at L5D02 could be added to use the opti-vss registers as an input along with a code mod.
04-19-2007, 08:06 AM
#345
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
Re: TBI guys, its time to update!
The opti-VSS would definatly be a good mod for those using the 700-R4s and sticks. I would really like to have one rather then the crappy, bouncy stock cable driven speedo + VSS.
Also, what comment are you referring to? L306C is the PWM output for the 3->2 solenoid.
Also, what comment are you referring to? L306C is the PWM output for the 3->2 solenoid.
Last edited by dimented24x7; 04-19-2007 at 08:10 AM.
04-19-2007, 08:22 AM
#346
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
Re: TBI guys, its time to update!
Yes, the opti-vss would be good for the 700R4 & sticks. It also works good for old transfer cases with mechanical cables. As for the bouncing speedo I am guessing that you are referring to cable drive. The 2PPR (2000 PPM) opti-vss is mounted on the back of the cable drive speedo so I think you would want to go the other way and use the TOS input for engine & trans and use the normal VSS as a MAF input. Not sure, I am confused by what you were saying. In my case, I am keeping the cable driven speedo with opti-vss and changing the code to use this VSS as the trans. code VSS signal. The other option is to change to a newer transfer case in my "thirdgen" with 40 PPR mag. output.......but this t-case has held up for over 300K miles and I want to see how many more I can get out of it. If the opti-vss thing doesn't work then I will swap the t-case.
I made a transpose error. The address should have been L30C6 and not L306C. That is the ALDL reported TOS speed.
I made a transpose error. The address should have been L30C6 and not L306C. That is the ALDL reported TOS speed.
04-19-2007, 12:36 PM
#347
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
Re: TBI guys, its time to update!
If your using an e-trans, then you may need to use the 40 PPR magnetic pickup and buffer box. The trans code uses the high res RPM signal for the TOS to calculate slip ratios, shift times, and such. You can always try it, though. Worse comes to worse, it shifts funny or throws a code.
L30C6... I see. I think that may be TOS RPMs x 8, but never got around to checking it.
L30C6... I see. I think that may be TOS RPMs x 8, but never got around to checking it.
04-20-2007, 06:56 PM
#348
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
Re: TBI guys, its time to update!
You guys wouldn't happen to know what a BHDC and BJLH prom belongs to?
I think the BHDC is a 1994 454ci bin ($0E) and the BJLH is a 1994 350ci bin ($0D). I am having a tough time finding out what the BHDC really is from?
I think the BHDC is a 1994 454ci bin ($0E) and the BJLH is a 1994 350ci bin ($0D). I am having a tough time finding out what the BHDC really is from?
04-20-2007, 11:01 PM
#350
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
Re: TBI guys, its time to update!
Thank you. I will have to look into it more. The BHDC was sold to me as a 1994 Chevy 3500 HD ECM. It should have been a 350ci or 454ci unit as far as the 3500 series goes. Maybe it wasn't a 3500 unit.