Howdy all. I've done some searching, but have not come up with anything point blank on this subject so far. My $32B ABTB car has no 9th inector anymore. I was comparing some of the starting fields to the $6E ARAP to see if I could pull some values over to help out with the cold start issue.

To start off there are 3 tables between the two programs.

ABTB: Crank Fuel Multiplier vs. Ref. Pulses, 0-128 in 17 steps.
ARAP: Crank Fuel PW Multiplier vs. Ref. Pulses (1-16), 16 steps
ARAP: Crank Fuel PW Multiplier vs. Ref. Pulses (>17), 8 steps

The values in these tables seem to mock each other to the point where I want to copy the ARAP values. In reading the $32B_HAC I have is it just that TunerCat is making the $6E values more "reader friendly"?

Opinions on these before I move on? Thanks!

 

Well, the car HATED that experiment. I mimicked most everything in $6E and it didn't even want to start. It took a LOT of cranking and a good amount of throttle. So, I went back and changed all the PW vs. reference pulse back to 1.00. I left the other tables I mimicked alone to see what would happen and it now fires up I would say within 2 cranks. The car seems a little lean (hesitation when giving it some gas) in open loop so I'm going to add a little more fuel and see how she likes it.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to simply use the ARAP-based binary and $6E mask to tune the ECM? Just change the switches and constants to your needs, tewak the tables if you like, and be done with it. My '86 likes the ARAP MAF and later 305 timing tables more than the original AUM code it was running.

 

I should have mentioned that this is an '87 Corvette with the 4+3 transmission, so I'm not all that eager to mess with the tranny functions.