I have a question about what the "WOT %change to fuel/air ratio vs RPM" and the "WOT %change to fuel/air ratio vs coolant temp" tables are for???

Are they similar to the "PE %Change AF Ratio vs RPM" table in the $6E code?

I think this is funny because in the $32B mask, I can't find a referenced A/F ratio. In the $6E constants table, the A/F ratio is there. How does the $32B code know what the A/F ratio is initially?

TIA,

 

Yep, they are the same thing, although I feel that PE is a more correct term since you can be in PE w/out going WOT (ie: 100% throttle). The A/F ratio is there in the BUA hack:

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/S...re/bua_hac.pdf

on page 36 at line LC3CB. This is for the $32 mask, but it should be similar to the $32B, or at least give you an idea of where to look. I think it's just before the injector flow and open loop tables in most of the MAF masks.

 

Greg is correct.

I have worked with the "WOT %change to fuel/air ratio vs RPM" table. It does work as expected, note that is is fuel/air NOT air/fuel. Therefore, a larger % value adds more fuel.

BTW: Appearently, there is alot of stuff missing in the 32B definition file from TunerCat. The 32B definition file does not show all of the stuff in the constants table or the switch table, even some entire tables are missing. But at least we have the most important ones, so tuning with Tunercat is a good deal.

 

Thanks for the reply Greg...it helps.

Doc, the more I look at the $32B code, I think I may just copy over the relavent tables to the $6E code and rework it to sort of mirror the $32B setup that I have now.

Why go through all the effort of keeping this mask if I don't need to? At first, my thoughts were exactly the opposite, but if the MAF tables are better and the definition file is much more explored and better defined, why not?

I think that I will stick with the $32B code only for a few burns to change my injector constant and small things, then move to $6E code when I am ready to seriously tune.

Sigh....

 

I am thinking the very same thing. I wanted to see how much better I can make my $32B chips, and then switch to the $6E.

However, if I go forward with my 396 SBC, then I might be better off switching to the SD system (getting rid of the MAF).

 

Yeah, I will have to evaluate switching to SD coming up as well, but that probably wouldn't be a now issue. Also, before I do that, I will examine my existing system and if I max the Bosch MAF. Then I will buy a Wells MAF and see if I get the same readings along the board. The reasoning behind this is to see if the Wells MAF will truly be less of a restriction than the Bosch MAF and if it could help me.

Hypothetically, the Bosch and Wells MAFs should be the same, so the next step would be to either improve the MAF code at the higher end (compensate for the higher RPMS after the MAF quits registering) or switch to SD...Both options are on the table for me and will be for a while...probably summer.