i was told that BAWX was the most recent for the 90-92

 

Check the MAP value at RPM, that will tell you the level of restriction prior to the plenum. Need to compare it to the barometric MAP reading to get the true drop.

RBob.

 

That is true for a stick shift, while AZTY is for the automatic equipped cars. I should have specified that.

RBob.

 

ok so watch what it does in live data then? If so i can do that easy.

 

Yes mine is manual trans.

 

also is there an updated XDF file possibly? Im currently using one that says $88-1227727-V3.xdf.. I see on tunerpro they have one that says $88 which is mine.

 

Keep your Idle Timing in the bin close to 24*, that is where you are in your SA Main Table. Don't worry about your Initial Timing, just as long as it matches what you set by hand (14*) and that your engine fires right up and doesn't kick back or have any hard starting issues, your fine with those two areas (Initial/Base). But yes, the Idle Timing keep close to 24*. Total timing in your tune comes in just after 2000-RPM from what I can see in the graph, she must pull very nice from a roll hovering at around 2300-RPM then stabbing it...

 

to be a v6 she snatches your neck pretty good, i cant complain at all.

 

here is a spread sheet of my timing, file is for excel 97-2003.

 

Looks good...

 

Is this yours?

 

That's yours, I placed it into .jpg format...

 

lol i just noticed that 2 or 3 kpa rows where cut off thats what through me for a loop :P

 

No i do also have another tune that i started on but never finished thats more close to the original in the crusing kpa ranges, but with a-lot less timing top-end but 80-100 in the 4000+ range are more in-touch with each other ill post an image.

 

I just noticed that, cropped it too much. I fixed the attachment, so now it shows all of the cells now. Sorry about that guys...

 

haha, its ok i should have cropped it that way to begin with lol

 

If all you are revving to is 6000 RPM, why have fuel cut so much higher? It's generally best to set it within a few hundred RPM of the max you will ever want to rev to. Also You might find that you are actually faster if you shift lower than 6000 RPM with an iron headed 3.1, again because they can't breath above about 5000 RPM with the iron heads, especially stock port (and cam). If you really find that you make power to 6000 RPM, which is highly unlikely, then set the limiter to about 6200. The reason for this is, if you miss a shift, the revs will not try to go out of control and keep the revs in an areas where you might save the engine. I think you'll find that the valves will float before you get to or much above 6000 RPM, hell I'd be surprised if they weren't floating at about 5000 to 5200, knowing what GM put in the 660 for valve train. The valve springs are always the first thing I upgrade on a 660, since they are very weak from GM. I know quite a few people who claimed that they were making power up to 6000 RPM with an iron head 660 actually went quicker when they shifted lower, somewhere around 5000 to 5200, because the power band does not extend that high, especially with a stock cam.

When you make claims that you are making X amount of power are bold claims especially since you haven't mentioned changing anything that would allow for such power to be made from an iron head 3.1, you should expect someone to call you out on it.

Considering that 17.47 E.T. in a 3300lbs car, which is right around where your car should weigh, with an average sized driver and the couple of small changes you've made says that you are at about 122 HP at the wheels. In a stick car, the drivetrain usually considered to be between 10 and 15%, so at 15%, that's 140.3 HP, which is exactly what I would have expected out of a high milage iron head 3.1 with a few small modifications.

Going off MPH, I come up with about 110 WHP, which sounded a bit low on the MPH side, because I'm pretty sure I was high 70's or low 80's when I was in the mid 17 second area with a few of my cars. The ailing fuel pump and clogged cat probably cost you some MPH there.

I'm saying this so that you understand that making bold claims requires bold facts. There are other people that wouldn't be so nice and just start ripping on you without trying to inform you of where you went wrong.

200 crank HP, would put you at approximately 170 WHP, and would get an ET in the high 15s, 15.65 according to at least one online calculator, and although my Moroso Slide rule doesn't go that low for HP, some extrapolating suggests that it agrees with the online calculator, and I've known my slide rule to be a reasonable indication of what is to be expected or the type of power a vehicle is making.

As mentioned the extra base timing will only effect starting. Since the bin matches you'll be back to the same timing as if it were at 10*, and the bin set to match. The base timing, or initial timing as it is called in many bins is subtracted from total timing. If you want more top end timing add it in the SA table. More crank timing might be ok for a very cold engine, but might cause problems for a hot restart. The other thing this changes, is injector timing relative to cylinder events. This may or may not improve anything or may or may not cause problems, and is something you will likely never notice on a batch fire engine, but it's worth noting that changing the base timing at the dizzy can effect fuel injection event timings as well. This is because the ECM uses the DRP to decided when to inject fuel. If the DRP happens sooner in the cylinder stroke, then fuel will be injected sooner, which may or may not be beneficial, especially on the cylinders that are still closed when the injection event happens. This gets into some real deep theory about vaporization, intake runner velocity and acceleration, etc., but thought I'd mention that this effects more than just ignition timing, but like I said you'll likely not notice a difference here.

What it says in code is fine, but I'm talking about what I've seen at the balancer with a timing light... Though I haven't tested an iron head 3.1 for this specifically, I have tried this on a couple vehicles that are similar (V8, with large and small cap), and DIS 660. The lowest I recall ever seeing was base timing.

 

Aight well i started with a new from scratch tune and enabled the knock sensor, so far no knock at light,part or full throttle positions even at 6000....i have attached some pictures of my FWD 56mm throttle body, with custom spacer i made to make it work, along with the 1/4" of aluminum spacers i made for between the middle and upper intakes with two 1/8" pieces of aluminum on each side. Along with some pictures of my custom made ram air boxes. My throttle body spacer may not be perfect but atleast i dont have the small 52mm anymore and it also added some plenum volume which from what i read can help the v6 but also can hurt higher RPM.

For Six_Shooter, thank you for your input all is welcome as i take everything into consideration from everyone, i am by far nowhere near pro status on anything. I did the ET hp calc and came up with 110 as well and i said to myself maybe yes considering it was a shitty tune and the pump was on its way out, and the cat has since been removed since installed a new fuel pump a few weeks back.

 

> What it says in code is fine

So true, there may be something else going on that I haven't seen.

RBob.

 

The car is still running good without any spark knocks..

 

Today i decided to bring out the ol' ALDL cable and see what was up, i used tuner-pro to monitor what was going on. It always wanted to idle at 100 and below BLM so i kept taking away VE main and VE idle table, its still a little rich at idle but not as bad, i didn't data-log on the last burn yet but i will in the morning. I also ended up 0.00 out the VE adder table completely and behold came about power i thought was not possible.

After a good 20min idle 5min in open 15min in closed "car was already warmed up" i decided to take it for a spin for the first time around the block and this is where the power came about that i was refering to, i pulled out onto the street, rolled upto about 1800rpm and laid into it in a matter of probably 2-3sec at most, it hit 6500 rpm before i had the chance to shift into 2nd, threw her in 2nd expecting just a chirp boy was i wrong it was a full on break loose for about 3sec tached out 6k shifted into 3rd small chirp tached out at 6k and backed off. I was thrilled that just a little data-logging could bring about so much potential, cant believe i was stupid enough to tune without data-logging for the past 2 months "face slap".

Needless to say my suspicions where correct about being rich at top end instead of lean. Also how is it possible for it rev out to 6k if the VE adder table is set to 0.00% across the board, how does it know what the fuel should be past 4000rpm does it just go off of the AE Async Pulse Multiplier Vs. Baro and AE Async Pulse Multiplier Vs Delta TPS?

Also if i just change the Main VE table at the idle KPA/RPM range does it have a huge effect on the higher up kpa ranges or am i over thinking this?

Thank you for everyones help, all is appreciated 100%

 

The VE adder table only multiplies what is in the main table at those same loads. The ECM just uses the last/highest value for anything above that RPM.

 

Ok so it does the same for fuel as it does for ignition timing past 4800..hmm very smart for its time period.

 

What is the proper formula for correcting the BLM, iv just been doing a 0.99 multiply its getting where is needs to be but very slow.

 

If your BLM is say....111 on average for a cell (RPM vs MAP VE table). You take 111/128 and then you get .867

You multiply that .867 to the previous value in your VE table cell that you were seeing the 111 ave BLM.

Then you have corrected your number.

That's the way I have always done it. But that being said. I have not tuned using BLM or INT numbers in 4 years.... I use AFR as its so much faster and easier.


Same when your using AFR. If you run 12.0 afr and want 11.5 afr. You would take 12.0/11.5 and get 1.043

Multiply that 1.043 to the corresponding VE table cell that you wanted to change (rpm vs MAP cell) And you get your corrected value.

 

The time has come, the tuning process is complete, so far 300miles no issues. Lots of HP/TQ difference no-more rich or extremely lean areas except where needed.

I have uploaded the .bin file and the XDF..The XDF is uploaded as a .zip file.

 

ok so obviously i have been running around for a couple weeks now on a very solid tune..I did go back and do some more smoothing in the SA table, Idle VE table.

Before where i was having all of the face-plant issues around 4800rpm was because i was around 88-95% IDC or 11-13ms IPW.

If yall remember i took away the VE adder table by putting 0.00 in all locations and fixed all my issues or so i thought. While looking at my Main VE my 20-100kpa is at 26%-61.72%% VE which seems very low, Im wandering if i lower my BPC vs EGR % from 182 to something lower to match my larger Injectors if that would bring my VE table back up to realistic %s after adding to the VE table and more data-logging of course.. I just need to figure the BPC calculation in order to get the actual BPC..My IDLE VE is as low as 5.08% in my idle kpa ranges and as high as 12.89% at 100kpa at 1600rpm.

With all of that being said i have figured out what my IPW should be by RPM, MPFI IDC% = 2 * IPW (ms) * RPM / 1200, which i then created a excel spread sheet using all of the information i have found and calculated. As of now im running at 6.5ms of IPW from 3000-RPM to 6375 which puts me in a range of 30%-69% IDC in those RPM ranges.

If i was to go and say add small amounts of % back to the Main VE and VE ADDER Table between those RPMs would that increase me IPW from 6.5ms?

 

As i said 2 months ago, i was going to subtract from the BPC vs EGR% from 182 to something smaller, as of now im running and BPC vs EGR% of 132. Also i noted that for some reason my car has never used the IDLE VE table, its using the MAIN VE table for idle. With all of the rain we have been having data logging was pointless as it either gave richer or leaner numbers than in dry same temp conditions.

I was waundering if i was to disable PE mode until about 90% or high TPS% for a more acurate BLM reading at higher kpa, or am i over thinking?

So far the car runs awsome, but im having trouble tuning the high kpa areas without going into PE mode...

 

Overthinking. Just average them out based on how they are scaling collectively.

 

Awsome thank you for the advise.

 

Can someone help me find DEFCO, decel fuel cutoff in the $88 code mask.

 

Been having issues posting the entire piece, see the attached text file.

RBob.

 

Im starting on my Spring/Summer Tune, i got the winter tune down to near perfect.
Can some one please explain a couple of these to me: I am a BAWX.bin user.
1.) Coolant Compensation Spark Advance Bias: I found on of Rbobs old post on it but can't find the CTS table in $88 unless it is the Base Cool Advance Correction Table.
2.) Initial Timeout Spark Bias: Cannot find any information as to what this is.
3.) DFCO: Still not able to find it in the $88 code mask. If i can get exact locations taht would be awesome, Rbob the AZTY_DFCO.txt file didn't help at all as it doesn't give me locations that relate to Tunerpro "HEX", and nothing is labeled the same in.
4.) IAT tables which are either not labeled in the .XDF file "YET" or are just not there.
5.) I have used the Difference tool between the BAWX.bin and the AZTY.bin, which shows atleast 100+ Item Not Defined places. How do i go about finding what these are and naming them in the .XDF file?

 

I'll address #3 first as it will also pertain to the rest of my post. The DFCO parameters text file I posted above has the locations within it. Take these two entries:

The L8BAB and L8BAC are the locations in hex. Drop the L8 from the front and the physical PROM/BIN locations are $BAB and $BAC. You can use the hex editor to get the actual parameter values and/or edit them. Can also use the location to create an XDF entry with the proper conversion.

#1:

#2: Possibly this parameter:

It is used as a bias for this table:

#4: Not sure which IAT table(s) you are looking for.

#5: Need to go through the hac. Then any parameters that you want to edit you need to add to the XDF file.

RBob.

 

Ok so far DFCO is not listed in my XDF file so i will need to create them, Should i create them as Scalars/Tables or Flags? The hex example L8BAB -> $BAB -> 0xBAB, problem found haha. Also what are you refering to when you say "HAC", cause in my head im thinking "HACK".

 

This is my Base Cool table i was referring to, now i noticed you have $238 as a table for something of similar size, just wanting to make sure you didn't mean $23B.

 

Alright, got the Compensation table setup "$238", how does it look.

 

$238 is where the table header starts, you need to use $23B for the start of the table. Look at the screen you posted, see any anomalies in it? That hints to something being wrong.

RBob.

 

What would be wrong? I'm using the same .xdf file that everyone is using for the $88, it's the same regardless if you get it from moates or tunerpro and has been untouched except from where I have added comments to let me know what each option does and or is affected by. $238 was setup by whom ever created the .xdf file. Also I created most of all the scalars that you posted for the DFCO. The bawx and the .bin you copied from have different input values for most of them, others are the same. I'm assuming that those values would have to be because of bawx being a manual transmission file.

 

Two things, the header is being used as data, and there is no conversion of the BIN value to a value in degrees of spark timing. See attached image where it is circled in red.

RBob.

 

Aight, now I'm lost, you said the table should start at $23B but there is already a table there which is the original .xdf table that I have not touched, but the post you made with text says $238, which when I created a table there it shows the table you posted with a red circle. Also should I add ( X * .352 ) in the global equation?

 

Does this make more sense:

The reason this section of code didn't originally have the label at L823B is that it didn't need it. The source assembles into a binary, with the code requiring the table header in order to work correctly.

TunerPro doesn't use the header, only the table data.

RBob.

 

Makes more sense now yes, thank you. Aight so the $23B table that already exists is correct, the $238 table that I created I need to do away with? Sorry if I'm a bother, I'm just trying to make sure I get as much info as possible, in small increments of course.

 

Yes, delete the entry you were creating and just use the one that was already there.

RBob.

 

Man your awesome. With that being said, is there anything that can be created with the $238 at all?

 

No, because the last thing you want to do is to edit the header data. Edit that data and the ECM won't use the table data properly. It will pick data points that don't match up with the engine temperature and vacuum.

Recall that the ECM firmware requires the header data in order to properly index into the table.

RBob.

 

Awesome, thank you. You have been very informative.

 

Alright, i have made the con-arson scalars ($3E7 and $3E9), and you are saying to MAX these out at 255? What exactly will this do? Also i think i might be ready to do the hex editing part for the throttle tip-in you mentioned a few months back Rbob.

 

Alright, one question that puzzles me is how does the ecm know how many Grams/sec or CFM is entering through the throttle body? Is there a way to tell it how many Grams or CFM is flowing? Only asking as it would make since to change this as my throttle body is larger than stock.

 

It uses this equation in the calculation:

; L0186 = (PW * 26,160) * (CylMsk * 200) * (rpm * AFR)

RBob.