As I posted on the engine board, I am planning to install a stroker kit into my '87 L98 (350) TPI car. I have been burning my own "chips" this last summer and fall as time permitted for my 350. So I am a little experienced at this matter.

This stroker project brings up several points that I need to sort thru and I am thinking now that a 395 would be same cost to me as a 383, so why not go with a 395 stroker.

1) Will I have a constant problem with the 33 error code for a MAF stroker motor?

2) What fuel injector is sufficent for a 383, 395 and 406 variants?

3) Should I switch to speed density (SD)?

4) With the back ground that I am running with BLMs at 155 now with my 350, should I decrease my fuel injector constant in order to lower my BLMs? (Glenn, if you read this, I believe that you advised me to reduce the FI constant.) I stuck this question in here because I have increased the bottom part of the fuel map by about 25% slowly over several chips and this increase in FI pulse width seems to NOT to have reduced my BLM value. I do not understand this part.

5) Is it possible for those with the appropriate bins, to email me bins for a 383, 395 or 406?

I have been following the formula5 and the 406 posts.

 

I also await other responses...but here is my input.

1. I would say no, as you can raise the threshold constant a bit to compensate.

2. It depends on horsepower, but judging by your sig, I would say that a 30 lb/hr injector should be ok. I am buying the Accel injectors in the next few weeks as I heard that the SVO injectors switched away from the pintle design recently. With reasonable fuel pressure (around 45-47 psi) they should support over 500 hp no problem, as long as you plan to stay N/A.

3. I am wondering about that myself. I have my alum L98 heads at a shop here in MN that is run by the former chief head porter and engine assembler for Doug Rippie Motorsports. His experience over the last 11 years indicates that the MAF system can work fairly easily up to 450 hp...above that, it would be easier to go SD, but both need a lot of tuning. I think higher HP engines should go SD, and I will make the switch someday too.

4. I thought you should RAISE the fuel constant, unless your injectors are maxed out and that is part of the problem.

5. Email me privately...I have a custom 406 bin from Fastchips, but it is using the $32B mask (1988). You can use it as a comparison if nothing else.

 

If you want to go speed density with the 165 then you can convert to our aussie $5D code a very simple conversion and you can always alternate between the $6E and $5D with a couple of pin changes at the ecm connector.
Hell if you want to spend the money you can even buy a on the fly tuning setup (that we use down here) so that the eprom/eeprom burning route is bypassed.

 

The on-the-fly tuning setup you are talking about, is this just an eprom emulator?

Also, what is different with the $5D code down in australia?

Thanks!

 

There are two ways to attack it
1. buy the $5D tdf from tuner cat which has everything you need , I can change more things if required.

2. buy kalamker ( kalmaker.com.au ) which is a real time board fitting inside the 165 which allows you to change any variable while the car is running or download a completely differnt calibration (not recommended while driving but it has been done).
real good for doing the ve's and timing - as long as someone else is driving .
Still need to take things slowly and make minor changes documenting what you have done but if you document the change and save the file you can always come back to the previous calibration.

$5D is fairly simple speed density , you have a VE table and the desired A/F ratio table (goody no power enrichment mode )
Downside is 160 baud but not really a issue with winaldl or Kalmaker (8192 baud and based on later calibrations that have lean cruise , boost control , option of 2/3 bar maps , water injection etc)

Transient power enrichment is taken car of by transient factors both acceleration and deacceleration

To go from mass air to speed density there are only a couple of pins to swap over and add the map wiring (pinch some wires from the MAF and 5V supply from tps)

My car Holden 355 currently puts out 470 rwhp on what you guys would call a mustang dyno I think (dyno dynamics) . I used this after hours at work to map out my WOT A/F and timing curves and play with all the rest every day as I drive it.

 

Adam,

Thanks for the response.

concerning question #1: what is the treshold constant that you refer to? and what table is it in?

note: I use and modify an '87 bin. The '87 $32B stuff uses the pulse width method (checked in the switch table) and has a switch table, a constants table, and 23 other tables.

The '89 $6E definition file results in a switch table, a constants table, and 31 other tables.

These two eproms must work in a completely different way. As far as I can tell, the $32B uses the pulse width method to directly determine the applied pulse width to the fuel injectors. There is no air/fuel ratio in the constants table. The $6E eprom (it appears) uses a air/fuel ratio target method (there is a target air/fuel ratio value in the constant table).

 

Doc, I will respond later. Also, I talked to my buddy and told him that I would like to post the spark tables and he doesn't have any problems with that.

What I will do is do a "screen print" of the spark table, PE table, and KS table (as these are the primary tables that have changed). I will e-mail the "screen prints" to you and anyone else that wants them.

 

Bossute: It appears that the real-time device that Kalmaker uses is actually the Pocket Programmer Emulator that I am looking at. Unless marketing is different. It simply emulates an Eprom as long as it has power (basically a static RAM device). I will have to think about using that $5D code, although it would probably be easier for me simply to convert over to the '730 computer in the future.

Doc: As for the MAF threshold, here is a bit of text from another post, contributed by Drive It

"The maf code 33-GM's original setting is to set the code if it sees over 45gps airflow under 2000rpm and less than 1/4 throttle. If you're setting that code-first make sure you've changed the maf relays and you don't have any problems with your wiring.
It is common with the larger displacement engines to need to increase the limits to prevent the code-raise it some-but don't disable it; so you'll still get the code set if there is a real problem."

I also use the $32B code right now and it appears near the bottom of the constants section. I think I will work with this code for a little while and practice tuning, then convert over to the $6E code later. The reason is that I already have a "custom" chip for my combo in $32B code and I am still learning a lot.

Glenn: I would appreciate an email of those aforementioned screen shots, when they are available.

 

My factory '87 prom when read by tunercat's 32B definition file does not contain any MAF threshold value in the constants table.

Is it possible that the '88 proms do have a MAF value while the '87 proms do not?

Or is it possible that I need to get an updated definition file for the 32B from Tunercat? (Is that MAF value actual there in my '87 prom and Tunercat does not read it?)

I must be missing something here (maybe simple understanding problem).

I know how the 33 error code is set. When I use my stock eprom, the SLP eprom, or the Hypertech eprom, I get a 33 error code. It typically gets set while I am driving on the Xway and let the engine drop under 2000rpm.

I ordered a custom prom from Car-Pro several years ago, and when I placed the order I was very specific that I needed the 33 error code problem taken care of. The Car-Pro eprom never sets a 33 error code for me. I can not find anything in the various tables on that eprom where the 33 error code issue was taken care of. What is going on, I'm getting fustrated here, please help me out!!!

 

On my Bin, it is a check off option in the flags table. Either run the diagnostic or not...in my custom chip, the MAF 33 diagnostic is turned off...I can see why. I hate throwing codes, especially the non-serious ones.

If you can, email me a copy of your bin. I can pull it up in Tunercat using the $32B definition file and see how it compares to mine...

 

Adam,

You have email.

My switch table on ALL of my '87 bin files contains the following:

VATS Select
VATS Diagnostic (Err 46)
Knock Diagnostic (Err 43)
Vehicle Speed Diagnostic (Err 24)
EGR Diagnostic (Err 32)
BASE PW Calib method

On my '87 factory bin file, all of the switches are turned on with an "X" except for the top one "VATS Select". In the Car-Pro bin, the only one turned on is the "BASE PW Calib method.

So I guess that if I continue to modify the Car-Pro bin file, with my 395 stroker, I will never get the dreaded 33 error code. I have never gotten the 33 error code once I started running the original Car-pro chip or any of my custom chips based on the Car-pro chip.


Any question:

Do you think that I should changed to the '89 style chip with the air/fuel ratio method? This would be for my current engine setup and for the future 395 stroker.

 

Like I posted in the email, in the Car-Pro bin, the diagnostic is switched off and the threshold is raised from the original 45 gm/sec to 255 gm/sec or the max reading from the MAF...I should hope you never get a code

I wouldn't worry about this. After all, it is just a measure of total airflow and with a modfied engine, this is to be expected at lower RPM's.

I personally like the '89 code for my purposes, but like I said in another post, anything over 450 HP becomes difficult to tune with a MAF. When I reach that point, then SD seems like a better option, even though it means relearning how the '730 code works.

 

Are we talking about the "switch table"?

As shown above I have no diagnostic for the 33 error code.

Adam, thanks for being patient with me.

Should I get an updated 32B definition file from TunerCat?

Doc

 

I sent an email to tc@tunercat and he has already sent back the updated versions of 32B and 6E definition files.

I tested them out and now for the first time I see the MAF diagnostic 33 error code in the switch table and also the MAF value in the constants table.

No wonder I was confused, I was flying blind all this time.

What was obvious to others, was not obvious to me because of my old definition files.

Adam, thanks for your help on this matter.

 

Good deal...I would like to keep the $32B code for the Spring and early summer anyway, so I am happy to work with it.

Is your combination now the same combo that the Bin was "designed" around?

You have a pretty free flowing combination, based on your sig, that should push the limits of the MAF system.

 

Adam,

The carpro12 bin file was designed for my current 350 as shown in my signature.

Doc

 

Why are you running such a high FP? Is it because of using smaller injectors?

I am going to buy 30 lb/hr injectors for my combo coming up and use 45 psi as a good compromise. I think that tuning would be easier.

 

I have been getting BLMs at 155. This means that I am running lean (I think). I have been doing two things to reduce the BLM down to 128, 1) increase the pulse width in the base pW table and 2) increase the fuel pressure.

Neither of these approches seems to be very effective.

Next try I am going to change my fuel injector constant to 22#/hr, reset the ECM, drive the car, and run some scans.

But I'm shut down now in Ohio due to two much salt on the roads. So I do not know when I'll be able to get out again. this might have to wait until early April, what a bummer!

 

I have the same problems here with Winter...Damn Salt

Have you given any thought to if your injectors are big enough. You are running a pretty healthy combination there. Also, can your fuel pump keep up with this combo. I have heard that the stock pump doesn't like to maintain anything over about 50 psi or so. As for the BLM's...155 is definitely lean, if fact what is your maximum BLM count set to in the constants area? Mine is set to 155 and the stock setting is 160.

Maybe a switch to 30 lb/hr injectors is the next step after working with the injector constant.

 

Glenn, could you drop me an email with those screenshots of the spark tables and such?

Thanks,
Brendan

 

I will send you a copy of the "print screens" Brendan. Actually, if you (or someone else) could post those as an image for posting, I would be happy to discuss them.

Doc, I think question 1 and 2 has been answered. As for question 3, I am currently helping a buddy with a fairly potent 383 that maxes the MAF at 5,000 rpm. To compensate for fuel, we've been using the "PE %Change to Air Flow Vs RPM" table qute successfully. It so far has been more than able to meet the fuel demands, though we do want to install a DIY WB O2 sensor to tune the fuel better. But we are fairly close right now.

The advantage of going SD is you can "fine tune" easier IMO. Adjusting the Volumetric Efficiency tables (for SD) is much easier than the MAF Scalar tables (for MAF). With SD, you make a specific change to fuel at a specific load/rpm value and it does it, only that value. It does not affect other load/rpm values.

What we have found with MAF, is that IF you are brave enough to start fiddling with the MAF scalar tables; you may correct the BLM/INT for one specific "flow" at a certain load/rpm, but at another load/rpm, you may have the same flow number but the BLM/INT is off. You end up having to "compromise" on the values used for specific "flows" so part of the time it's 128/128, other times less than 128 and other times greater than 128...all depends on the load/rpm that generates that flow.

And lastly, the MAF tables are like "steps" It is easier to "lean off" the lower boundary, but you can't generally "richen" the top of the "step". You end up having to trick the ECM with a lower injector value so you richen the mixture and then start leaning ALL 6 TABLES. And remember, the "top of the step" for MAF 1, is the bottom of the step for MAF 2, and so forth - make sure they are in "sync".

As for question 4, YES, lowering the injector constant will cause the injector PW to increase (thus richening it). Make a 10% change (ie. change 24# down to 21#) and you SHOULD notice all of your BLMs drop. Do this while you are driving and make sure you are in closed loop/learn mode and vary the driving. Overall, you should see a drop in the BLMs if you changed the constant from 24# to 21#.

Now, it may be the 155s are showing up at a particular point (like idle). This may indicate that you need to look at your IAC. Is it maxed at either 160 or 0? When are you specifically getting BLMs of 155?

 

Glenn,

Thank you very much, as usual you post is very informative.

Adam,

I installed a new fuel pump last Summer, it is the fuel pump for a turbo TransAm. I should not have a fuel pump/pressure problem.
To check this, the next time that I go out, I tape the fuel pressure gauge to the wiper arm. It can be easily seen while I do some WOT runs and collect data via my scanner. With the stock fuel pump I was running out of fuel, at WOT the fuel pressure would drop.

Right now, the car runs real good at WOT, it is the cruisin aroung BLMs that are way off. Once a get a fix on the problem here, I will probably have to redo the various WOT tables.

And with the new updated definition file I got from TunerCat today, the $32B bins have 8 more tables than before and the $6E stuff has 11 more tables. Very surprising to me. I still have alot to learn here.

 

88TPI Bossute: It appears that the real-time device that Kalmaker uses is actually the Pocket Programmer Emulator that I am looking at. Unless marketing is different. It simply emulates an Eprom as long as it has power (basically a static RAM device). I will have to think about using that $5D code, although it would probably be easier for me simply to convert over to the '730 computer in the future.

No the guy who did it has worked out a way for the 68HC11 processor in the computer to do the writing of the SRAM that is used in place of the eprom in the memcal , these is a board that is used that apply's the 5v write line to the sram and some other pin assignment details but nothing much really.
I can email pics of it if you are interested.
Anyway he has rewrittten the code to be able to change the table values in the SRAM as the engine is running and there is a interface program that runs on your laptop that connects via the ADLD to enable you to change any value at whim while the engine is running . Or to load a complete new calibration and download it to the SRAM while the engine is running !!!

Neat system and I know he is working on doing it for the 165 and 730 - I hope to be able to get a chance to beta test it.

It also data logs and does compares between cals.


It makes tuning so much easier , say I have a idle issue I can quickly see if the engine wants more/less timing , fuel, IAC transient steps , fuel multipliers - I can try 30 -40 different thing real quickly to see what the engien wants before then trying to hone in on the problem , I can undo those changes just as
instantly

Changing to a $5D code in the 165 is such a breeze too , but I thought it was a major hassle changing to 730 and it costs
something ? and is hard to change back ?
You can plick back and forth between a $6E code and $5D code in about 10 5 mins if you desire

Anyway I was just trying to show that there was other options out there.

 

88TPI did you look at that site - pretty cool they way they have done it !

 

Glenn, thanks for the email.

Well, my 4 bolt L98 engine block came in today.

Now I need to decide on the crank/rod/pistons combination for my 395 cu in. project.

 

I did look at the site. I think the approach is a neat one. Cost for me is still an issue though. I will have to do more research and make a decision later this Spring. Since I still have snow and salt around, I unfortunately have time.

 

Remember the cost on the site is in AUST$ so about 1/2 in US$
Going on what I paid for the setup it should cost you about $500US

I started out by using the $5D code in my TPI and making changes with Tunercat and a scan tool - I got on top of the tune rather quickly I thought but once I took the plunge and spent the money to buy the Kalmaker stuff I realised I still had a long way to go to get the perfect tune . From memory I went from a 12.1et down to 11.3et in my car thanks to be able to use the work dyno after hours and being able to make changes while the car was running at fixed speeds and loads on the dyno.

 

What site has a "prom emulator"? This sounds neat,bloke.

 

http://www.kalmaker.com.au

 

NOT a prom emulator but a realtime programmable board into the computer.