Integrator and Block Learn differences
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 358
Likes: 1
From: Southern Indiana
Car: 87 IROC-Z
Engine: 383 HSR $8D
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Integrator and Block Learn differences
I have come across a question in my tuning...block learns are currently pretty solid throughout the rpm range in the 120s somewhere...but the integrator...it goes all over!!! From 110 or a little less to 150...is this normal? I think it is...it's swingin with the 02...
Reason I'm asking is I've heard 'get your blm at 128 or so constant and your int shouldn't move that much'...I don't think that's right and I think my integrators fine...but just wanted to throw it out there for review.
------------------
GregF
87 IROC
Reason I'm asking is I've heard 'get your blm at 128 or so constant and your int shouldn't move that much'...I don't think that's right and I think my integrators fine...but just wanted to throw it out there for review.
------------------
GregF
87 IROC
Supreme Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 1
From: In reality
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gsf-87IROC:
I have come across a question in my tuning...block learns are currently pretty solid throughout the rpm range in the 120s somewhere...but the integrator...it goes all over!!! From 110 or a little less to 150...is this normal? I think it is...it's swingin with the 02...
Reason I'm asking is I've heard 'get your blm at 128 or so constant and your int shouldn't move that much'...I don't think that's right and I think my integrators fine...but just wanted to throw it out there for review.
</font>
I have come across a question in my tuning...block learns are currently pretty solid throughout the rpm range in the 120s somewhere...but the integrator...it goes all over!!! From 110 or a little less to 150...is this normal? I think it is...it's swingin with the 02...
Reason I'm asking is I've heard 'get your blm at 128 or so constant and your int shouldn't move that much'...I don't think that's right and I think my integrators fine...but just wanted to throw it out there for review.
</font>
Some have sleepy Int and others swinging. Might look at the VE tables and compare them to where these swings are. Then compare them to stock. Some folks tend to try and make them look pretty rather then what the engine wants
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 358
Likes: 1
From: Southern Indiana
Car: 87 IROC-Z
Engine: 383 HSR $8D
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Thanks for the info...I don't have VE tables on my 165 ecm I don't think...are there other tables to look at? I can look at the MAF tables and determine what's happening...maybe large jumps in the MAF values on the table from where I jumped from cutting 5% fuel to 2% could cause the computer to do some serious deriving to figure out what kind of fuel it needs to add?
Thanks,
GregF
87 IROC
Thanks,
GregF
87 IROC
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena, MD
Car: '87 Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: 385 HSR
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.42 posi
Hmmmm, now that I've thought about it again and had just gone over my MAF tables today, I think you're onto something Greg.
Run through your MAF tables to make sure that the last value from one table is the same or just slightly less than the first value (grams/second) from the next table. Basically, GM took one big MAF table and split it into 6 tables, I'm guessing for code reasons and also better resolution in the lower areas. To calculate the grams/second, take the number from the table corresponding to the voltage the MAF sensor is giving, divide it by 256, then multiply by the table scalar.
I noticed in my tables that I copied from the '89 305/M5 code that the last value from the first table was a little higher than the first value from the second table. I never noticed anything out of the ordinary, but all of the other last/first pairs were the same number or at least in the right order, so I changed the number by one and I'll burn another chip tomorrow night since I have a few other changes to make to my PE tables too.
------------------
Greg Westphal
'87 IROC 305TPI/A4
Run through your MAF tables to make sure that the last value from one table is the same or just slightly less than the first value (grams/second) from the next table. Basically, GM took one big MAF table and split it into 6 tables, I'm guessing for code reasons and also better resolution in the lower areas. To calculate the grams/second, take the number from the table corresponding to the voltage the MAF sensor is giving, divide it by 256, then multiply by the table scalar.I noticed in my tables that I copied from the '89 305/M5 code that the last value from the first table was a little higher than the first value from the second table. I never noticed anything out of the ordinary, but all of the other last/first pairs were the same number or at least in the right order, so I changed the number by one and I'll burn another chip tomorrow night since I have a few other changes to make to my PE tables too.
------------------
Greg Westphal
'87 IROC 305TPI/A4
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
9192camaro
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
16
Feb 3, 2019 12:21 AM
BlackphantomZ28
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
0
Aug 22, 2015 01:00 PM
Linson
Auto Detailing and Appearance
40
Aug 21, 2015 02:12 PM
126, 150, 90, block, bolck, idle, info, integrator, intergrator, learn, learnintergrator, normal, reading, thirdgen, values





