for one, Joe you are very picky about things. You said it yourself.

I am not arguing to argue. Simply pointing out the gearhead garage guy hobbyist truth. The resolution is more than ample enough to get the job done for 90%+ applications on here.

Gm and oems do maf/map because i am sure they need both to handle the range of operation those vehicles are expected to perform under, from -50 deg to 125, from -1200 fr to 10000 ft da.
Maf has its perks and so does map. Combine them its a great system.

But also as with any multiple devices, more means more chance to fail. Map sensors are cheap in comparison. And depending on your charge pipe routing for boost, i'm not trying to fit a maf if i dont have to lol

Sure a ve table for each possible kpa value 1-300 would be great for fueling...but i dont wanna tune that nightmare lol take forever adjusting each cell and frankly from my experience, you dont need that fine detail. Oems dont even have that fine detail in map tables

Code $59 has ve spacing for every 10 kpa. I've seen big cam cars fluctuate that much at idle. Lol 16x32

8d has three tables, the lower having every 5 kpa to 60 then 10 from there for the low rpms. Mid and high rpm is every 10 kpa. Worked well from factory. My 305 still running great 20 yrs later


Ls1 3 bar goes from 15 kpa to 315 in every 5 kpa increment lol pretttty darn good imo

 

The problem with some of the members of this forum stems from still clinging onto the earliest stages of ECM hacking and ideas from the guys that brought the concept of boosting here in the first place, and they were V6 guys. Few have went w/MAF boost tuning taken from the GN/TTA, while the majority went w/SD boost tuning taken from the Typhoon/Syclone...

Those two engines needed the extra resolution because V6 engines need a lot more fuel consumption per cylinder to make the same power larger V8's can at a much less kpa range. As for GM utilizing MAF w/MAP, someone is giving GM way too much credit, I'm sure they did it to cut a few corners, or to save money, as opposed to writing a more complex algorithm based on the latter. Some members are stuck thinking they need more...

 

I give gm credit because they have a lot more parameters to design around regarding emissions and driveability in all sorts of conditions. Much more so than any of our builds.

Gm builds daily drivers. That meet standards in 50 states. I dont have to worry about all that lol

 

You are right, I'm picky about things. I like being able to have access to all the tools I need to make my experience fun. Plus I enjoy the science behind it.

Keep in mind, and I'm not saying you, but a number of people on this site seems to think a car that runs like a turd is "exotic" and "powerful". This has always driven me crazy. If GM can make a brand new corvette 500-600hp, and it idles and drives as smooth as a Prius that should be my goal too.

(which is also why I'm starting to dig into the LSx stuff).


-- Joe

 

You're a smart cookie.

The stuff I've had access to ('730/'749, Microsquirt, etc) reads the voltage in 'steps'. I'm not sure how the 411 PCM works, but I'm assuming it's similar. My experience with the OE stuff is a lot of the translations are hardware, where as the aftermarket reads the sensors directly.

In any event, the 'steps' I'm referring to is how these units are packaged. Having a larger VE table than the code/driver/whatever's ability to read and store the MAP value doesn't increase resolution.

I'm not sure if the direct voltage translation to KPA can be changed on the '730/'749, or '165 w/ebl code or if it's a hardware translation, that would be a question for Junk or RBob who works in that code regularly.

But beyond that, regardless of how large your translation table is (or if you simply read the voltage directly and calculate a MAP value based off that), you still have a resolution issue. (I'm not telling you because I realize you know what I'm talking about).

MAP is a huge problem with n/a cars too that have large cams and a very narrow operating range (in terms of MAP).


I don't give a hoot about emissions, but I'm not willing to make sacrifices in driveability

One of the things I noticed in the late 90's / early 2000s when I started repinning MAF cars to speed density was that not only was the throttle response not as 'quick', but they were a little more temperamental with changing environmental conditions. MAP tunes relied more heavily on AE to make things smooth. But at the time, it was necesary due to the limitations of the 8 bit MAF code. I remember guys like Jesse and Corey with their 10 second vettes were pegging their maf and using pe vs RPM to maintain enrichment.

I'm quite happy that I've got more tools and resources available now, that's all. I'm not trying to convert anyone.

Remember, you guys are big into drag racing and making the car go faster. I'm not in it for the ET, I'm in it for the science. I'm too old and too fat to race competitively now anyway lol..

-- Joe

 

Exactly, they have standards to meet, coupled with having the staff try to limit the expense as much as possible. Most if not all of what is out there sprung from GM code, people forget GM invested millions and millions of dollars back in the day. The problem here is everyone is arguing resolution the same way they would argue engine power, forgetting that GM purposely held the engine back and based both concepts on powering an engine that was never intended to make over 300 horsepower. People cry about OBD1 the same way someone would cry about installing an air filter on an LG4 and feeling no difference, it is what it is. The algorithm was based as such. Those who blame the code as being restrictive are the same as those who blame a peanut cammed L98 for being not as good as a stock LS1. That comparison was never ever meant to be, most GM staff would laugh at that comparison, yet everyone here finds the argument feasible...

If you ask me, it's like a bike build off w/too many ECM features being synonymous with a concoction from Paul Jr. Designs, all they're doing is decorating a cake. Not one member uses these features. All we ever see on the street is alky, two step, and wastegate control, what more is needed, really. I think a real street shootout is needed to put these arguments to bed, something similar to what Car Craft used to do but on this forum. Time for talk is over. Is everyone game...?

 

Give you a hint...its not the pcm that makes the difference there. Atleast not all the difference

 

Too funny. This just goes to show how tuners here relied mainly on whom I already pointed out, V6 code hackers that were desperately rewritten to accommodate larger engines. No wonder why people were having so much trouble. Who here started with, and did anything with the $F0 mask? Anyone? Has anyone even looked at or understood what they were looking at with the $F0 code? LT5's can easily make 500-600 horsepower and idle better than today's Corvette's with the stock twenty six year old code, so no, it's not the PCM...

 

I'm not disputing that. I think we're on the same page as far as that goes. I just prefer to have more tools in my toolbox.

-- Joe

 

Haha, he's avoiding me. I'll leave this argument with this;

There is a tremendous difference between a code writer and a tuner.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic...

 

'331 ECM is quite a bit more advanced than a '730 or '165, and an LT5 is an exotic engine.

I don't know what you are trying to say regarding the v6 code, etc. I don't know how that pertains to Project's MS build, Orr's 411 PCM, or the LSx stuff I was talking about.

Most of the go-fast guys and tuner's have left this site in the past decade, mainly because they don't own Thirdgen's anymore. Of the ones I still talk to on other forums, most are either using LSx GM stuff (like Orr), or fully aftermarket.

Again, I don't know why you are bringing up v6 stuff. Maybe I need more sleep at night..


-- Joe

 

Who is avoiding you?

I must be missing something.

But I agree with your above statement. There is a difference between code writer and tuner. I have the same issues at my job. We develop products, and then customers don't understand how to use them properly. That's just technology in a nutshell.


-- Joe

 

What is so hard to understand? We both know who hacked it, and who brought it over, and since then the code has been written in a number of different ways to accommodate different engines, with different members wanting the credit. $59 is a hacked V6 code. It works with V8's, but the loss of resolution is not the fault nor flaw of the code, it was written exclusively for a V6 making low horsepower to begin with, so no need for anyone to state it is a bad code for any other application. If people wanted a better code that was written for more horsepower from the getgo they should have started with a code that was already written for one. Lotus and Callaway never had a problem with GM code, and their engines idled like today's engines do thirty years ago. Again, saying GM code that was written for small throttle bodies and low horsepower is bad because it does not handle double the horsepower is absolutely ridiculous...

Start with an LT5 enhanced code, build your SBC to rev to the moon with high flowing heads, and keep camshaft overlap in check and you will have an engine of yesteryear to be compared with today's. What is so hard to understand? Put a 500-cfm carburetor on a 600 horsepower engine and where is your kpa hovering during idle? Swap to an 800-cfm carburetor and what hapopened to the kpa location? It isn't rocket science, asking a code written for a low output engine to handle a high horsepower engine requires a total revamp of the algorithm, and the math does not lie, so if someone is having trouble, it is either a bad tuner using good code, or a good tuner using bad code. That is what it comes down to.

 

$59 is actually pretty good. Just takes time to fully tweak the ve table

What helps is they have a closed throttle table for idle, which makes a world of difference with big cam and injectors

 

i have some vids but i didnt have the time to encode them last night ill prolly get to it today after i get back from the farm

i need to turn my camera down from 1080*60fps to 720*30fps sop the vids arent so huge

 

Why are we talking about $59 now? Project is running a Megasquirt. Orr is running a '411. I asked Project if he's just using MAP, or planning to run blended like the LSx stuff. I asked Orr if he is using MAF on his '411 (since it's native to that architecture). What the heck does $59 have to do with this?


With the exception of math required for ignition timing, and injector firing strategy, what the heck does that have to do with anything? The code doesn't have to be "more powerful" to run on a V8. The resolution I was talking about has nothing to do with the number of cylinders, or the displacement. It has to do with how it reads voltages and assigns a KPA value to them.


So what does "high horsepower" code look like ?


-- Joe

 

thanks so doubling my table size may actually help my cruising tune , kinda hard to dial in tuning when u only have 4-6 inches of vacum to play with

gota rember im at a high altitude so basically my na tunning window is 65-88 kpa , 88 kpa is atmospheric presure at my altitude

im back off to work ill catch up on tis thread when i get home

 

hey rob do the fuel math on what i posted back on the last page i want to see if the numbers i came up with are right

 

I gotta grab some lunch, when I get back I'll look at the source to see how it reads the ADC and interprets the value. I'm pretty sure if I recall it uses a fixed array just like the older GM stuff, but I could be wrong.

-- Joe

 

* 352 Naturally Aspirated = 366 Horsepower

* 352 w/85-lbs injectors @ 52% DC w/5.5psi of boost & .60 BSFC = 590 Horsepower

* 5.5-psi of boost added 224 Horsepower over NA (assuming all fuel was used)...

 

thanks close enough to what i came up with, was stil a lil lean ( .5 afr or so from were i want it ) based on the datalogs as well well see what i come up with tonight as im taking it out for some more fun/tunning

i might bump it to 12 psi tonight and put some race fuel in it


edit

ok now i need to put the laptop down and get back to working on **** in the shop bbl

 

That will make it just under 700 horsepower, around 675. You better get that on video!!!!

 

Ok you are right. Expanding the table (or using dual tables) will help, assuming you are running ms2extra. (MS1 is a hard array).

The ms2extra code reads on the 8 bit ADC directly (256 data points), and converts the voltage to a corresponding float. You input the target range of the sensor (i.e, 9.3-260 for a MS2 onboard) from 0-5 volts, and it directly converts to the actual KPA (from an array of 256), So the resolution is:

1-Bar .39 KPA per step
2-bar .78 KPA per step
3-bar 1.17 KPA per step

But regardless of that, you could in theory have support a 256 row VE table before hardware becomes a limitation.

Using a dual table would work well. Since you can adjust the values for your rows rather than using a fixed value, I would probably try to obtain as much resolution as possible between 40-80kpa.

Here is the spec sheet on the on-board MS2 map sensor:

http://www.nxp.com/files/sensors/doc...et/MPX4250.pdf

The only real problem I have with it is the response time is 1.0 msec.

Does anyone have a spec sheet on a GM sensor? (That is what I'm using).


-- Joe

 

should be pretty easy for me i really only need 55-86 kpa for cruising , anything below 55 kpa and i would just turn on overun fuel cut only point i would see that would be at highway speed with foot off the throttle , and even then im not sure i would as im not sure if i have engine braking in high gear , i know 1st and 2nd do not have engine braking for sure

 

go pro is sitting on the charger just need to find my suction cup mount so i dont have to hold it in my hand like last night

 

Depends on your valvbody/brake but usually high gear will have engine braking. 1-2 do not

 

yeah thats what i was thinking i never really paid attention to it so far when i was able to put the car in high gear , and in town here i never get the car out of 2nd.

im going to try to head somewere tonight were i can do some high gear pulls 1st and 2nd are useless even at low boost

 

So, I updated one of my ECU's and built this config. I don't know if this is better than a secondary fuel load or not. I'll have to discuss that with Matt, but anyway this is "table switching" with a 100kpa trigger.

My assumption is in ve1 if you are in the 100kpa row you are "100%" ve. Then ve table3 is your boost table.

I think maybe secondary fuel load might be a better solution. That's how I have the MAF/MAP switching setup.

My ignition table is a single 20-190kpa table.

-- Joe

 

sorry guys it was a long hot day , didnt even touch the car after i got home today , ill play with it tommorow when i get home

 

just wanted to say that many engineers have problems keeping on track with the things that actually matter. do you actually need an indicator light to tell you that your shoes are one your feet? no.... just look down.
i have seen this plenty over the years, even the car i own now was built by an engineer guy and i have a huge binder full of thinkings and notes, many of which wouldnt really have added any benefit. he had a chart for actual measured torque using torque limiting extension bars for his lug nuts. the car had an indicator light for absolutely everything- one light to tell you it was armed, and one light to tell you when it was actually performing its duty. lol.

 

That can be debated til the end of time.

Do you need internet on your phone? Email?

No.. Does it make life more easier? Of course.

-- Joe

 

Not really. Its pretty well known engineers can overly complicate things.

 

i think you missed all of my points....
the items you brought up are very useful and help us everyday. the items i listed are not very useful and would not help us much at all. i dont need an automated phone call each day to let me know when i get to work. but some people (engineers?) might see that as a useful thing?

i was trying to say that engineers lose track of the road they are going down sometimes chasing after trivial things which dont really add to the original idea. or, they might not see the obvious because they are concentrating on the finer details. one instance of this would be oddly enough, an engineer friend of mine.... calls me up one day and says his corvette started up and shut off. would not start up again.
i said, does it have gas in it?
"yea, it says i can go another 10 miles".
are you parked on a hill?
"yea"
you are out of gas.
-and he was out of gas. WAAAAYYY smarter guy than me. straight A student and is now an engineer.

 

Sounds more like intellectualism vs common sense...

 

Trust me as an engineer, i see those ppl everyday. Call it what you will, but its quite common to overthink, over analyze, and get off track. Try simplifying something to get a yes or no answer, and you'll never get it. Theres always an explaination that doesnt help answer the question lol

 

... if the Gowdy vs Lynch debate doesn't embellish THAT very point, then nothing will lol.

 

I know what your point was, I just didn't feel like any of the functionality I was talking about was overboard or out of touch. I too sometimes look at something and think, gee how did the engineers run off with this crazy idea.

But it's not like I'm asking for the moon. It's not 1995 anymore, and tuners have got used to having certain things available to them. Sure you can get by without them, but why?

I got a little annoyed when I mention something, like wideband AFR reporting in the log and the answer is "You don't need that". I mean sure, I don't need a log at all, I can tune by reading spark plugs.. But it would be absolutely retarded to do so.

-- Joe

 

100 degrees over here, don't even want to look at the car, let alone work on it. 3800 that I had sitting in the garage is gone Dave, I traded it for another GM six cylinder about an hour ago. Almost ready to pull the 305 this weekend, but I really want to forge this new V6 first. Just wait til you see which one I went with lol. Anyways, hope you had some time to work on the car after work today bro, I'd be content with just a burnout video...

 

I finally installed A/C in my shop. It's nice to not freeze in the winter, or cook in the summer.

-- Joe

 

Joe let me know if you need a shop light, two actually, I just pulled it from the in home garage because I am converting it to another room. It's an older one, but works good. I have no use for it anymore...

 

10 psi on 114 vp race fuel = useless on the street , lil clips comming soon mostly burnouts and stupid ****

 

theese vids arent that good cause i had my buddy in the car who has helped me with it but has never ridden in it so just took him out for a quick loop , just a couple burnouts in the next 2-3 videos , and later tonight when it cools down some im going to head out for some more tunning on my own and ill get some actual speed runs

#1

other vids are still uploading

 

#2

 

Visibility isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be with that hood now that I have a visual from a seated perspective. It sounds like you limited RPM on the lower side though, cutting out early. Sounds good though. Still can't get over that area, it's so empty.

 

lol

yeah i have the rev limiter set at 5,000 right now since im starting to tune on race fuel the higher i rev it the more power it makes so i figure ill get it tuned to 5k decent , and then start raising it 500 rpms as i tune those cells

im going to limit the motor to 6,800 in the end

the hoods not bad at all my buddy is a bit shorter then me and he was holding the camera at about face level for him , me being like 6,2 i have no problems seeing over it

 

im going to head back out in about 45 mins and do some real tuning its finally starting to cool off here , got some quick data from the ride out with my buddy seems the race fuel made me go a lil lean in a few spots or it could just be im finally getting into the turbos efficiancy zone witht he boost turned up a lil bit


i fixed the few lean spots in the tune and im going to add some timing into it and see what she does

 

I gave up on reading the debate, but I noticed resolution was an argument.

If you want more resolution then do what I have been doing for years. Read the 1bar in one 0 to 5v a2d input, and another diesel MAP in another 0 to 5v input. It gives 0 to 10v volt range. The diesel sensor reads 80 kpa to 3 bar. Problem solved.
Find a better diesel sensor than I have and get better resolution.
Yeah, a lot of the coders around here are old school trying to jam 3 bar into 5 volts.

The V6 vs V8 argument on resolution is null.

 

... and that would be talking out of your rear. By the way, what have you've been driving for all those alleged years anyway. Don't wanna share because of "picture copyright", or was that just an excuse? $12P lol? Please, nothing more than a Callaway hack, one that RBob perfected in Flash form. What have you done for all those years, besides giving Joe a code that didn't work? Oh wait lemme guess, you didn't give him the real one lol.

 

looks like 66-68%% dc at 10 psi at 5,500 rpms , hard to get a good read on it at this point as im not fully loading the engine just blows the tires away at will

i forgot how good race gas smells lol

its late an i need to be on farm early so ill post up datalogs n stuff tommorow

 

The reason he won't share his work with the forum is a bit more complicated then that, but I assure you it's not from a lack of understanding.

What I don't understand is why he's still using this stuff since he doesn't have a financial motivation to continue with it.

Please don't start a personal fight. Debate the tech, but don't get personal.

-- Joe