PDA

View Full Version : Turbonator LM codebase



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

ShelGame
02-21-2008, 10:30 AM
Here is my 'Turbonator LM' codebase and assembled cals. This was originally based on and used the same naming conventions as Geoff's BB60. But, it is now a completely separate codebase with naming conventions that match T-SMEC and T-SBEC, plus this has a bunch of new features.

Here's a list of the new features:


1) Replaced TRANSM with CONFIG - a full cal option flag constant similar to the CONFIG constant + OPTION flags used on the '89 T1. Changed all of the auto trans checks to look for the 'new' auto config flag. All of the new and previous cal options are configurable by config flags. This allows features to be added to the cal without the need to re-assemble the code (or re-tune the cal to your setup!). The option flags are currently only supported in CHeM1 and D-Cal. CHeM2 has not added these types back in yet.

2) Added switchable boost. Similar in operation to my '89 T1 code, but the low setting is set by a single constant rather than a boost x rpm table (similar to the S60 implementation). Due to the way that boost is calculated, the extra table in the later code is really not needed.

3) Added alky injection control routine (basically designed by Brian Bucar, I just wrote the code based on how he wanted the system to work...). The alky injection can control the pump and up to 2 separate alky injectors, triggered by MAP constants. This uses the Cruise, and EGR/Purge solenoids. So, cannot be used with those at the same time. Also cannot be used with the Speed Sensitive Aero option at at the same time. The code checks if both options are enabled, if they are, then neither will run.

4) Added Anti-lag Retard routine. This routine looks at the delta to boost goal and pulls up to 16 deg based on this delta (could be configured for 32 degrees as well). It will only pull timing at WOT (and so should not affect emmisions or driveability) except when the staging limiter is active to help spoolup off the line for manual cars. There were some necessary changes to the staging limiter code to support this function. But, the functionality of the staging limiter is the same as previous.

5) Staging Limiter Changes. Added the option to enable the staging limiter by switch. Default is setup for the brake switch (useful for ATX cars). Other changes to support the Anti-Lag retard routine.

7) Added code to re-scale the Vol Eff table to 50-150% to allow for induction systems capable of over 100% Vol Eff. This is removed at this time - not working.

I also have a 'Turbonator SMEC' and 'Turbonator SBEC' built, and they are now posted in this section as well.


6/8/11 - V13 Now posted.
- Updated for MP Tuner 2 compatibility.
- Added Selective Bank Enrichment.

11/2/11 - Update now posted:
For use only with MP Tuner 2

- Added the calculated tables to the templates to show the total timing in 3D
- Added the PumpShot subgroup to transient fuel and moved the relevant tables over
- Updated the 2.5 Templates with corrected cold load cal data (for rich idle issue)

July 2017 - Update now posted:
Fixed the AIS Stepper pattern in some templates.



-----------------------------------------
61204
-----------------------------------------

Clay
02-21-2008, 12:36 PM
So can this cal be adjusted using ChEM?

ShelGame
02-21-2008, 12:47 PM
Of course - it comes with the .calx file. But, CHeM2 doesn't support the bit flag constant type that CHeM1 and D-Cal support. So, you won't be able to set the option flags with CHeM2.

Clay
02-21-2008, 12:50 PM
hehe, more stuff I dont understand. ;) Ill get there someday, hopefully!

Thanks again Rob! Lots of good stuff being put out there for us to play with, and for free. That right there says and does alot to advance this hobby of ours!

cordes
02-21-2008, 06:01 PM
Thanks for posting this up over here Rob. I will be replacing the wheel bearings in my omni this upcoming week, so I will have the car out on the road once again. I will try to make sure that everything is running well, and give your cal a go again.

Clay
02-21-2008, 06:31 PM
so how do you set this switchable boost? with a switch to ground?

Clay
02-21-2008, 06:36 PM
Nevermind.... I think I got it! ;)

cordes
02-21-2008, 06:39 PM
and another question (get used to this! ;) )

how do I know which version of ChEM I have? I think I have ChEM 2, but Im not sure.

thanks,
clay

If you have the one that looks pretty much like D-cal, that is chem1. If you have the one with the larger display, and the fueling guidelines that is chem2.

Clay
02-21-2008, 06:57 PM
and this is where I have no clue. I can find the "switchableboostlowsetpoint", but how do you do anything with it?

Cal Programming 101!!!!!!!! ;)

cordes
02-21-2008, 07:04 PM
and this is where I have no clue. I can find the "switchableboostlowsetpoint", but how do you do anything with it?

Cal Programming 101!!!!!!!! ;)


Are you using Chem1? I find it much harder to edit this cal with it, as chem2 doesn't have all of the features needed to adjust everything. I am at school, otherwise I would be all over this.

Clay
02-21-2008, 07:29 PM
yup, Im looking at it in Chem1 because Rob said the switchable boost wont work in Chem2.

Also, with this no lag feature, will you build lots of boost at the line? A local DSM guy has some kind of no lab "thingy" on his car which lets him leave at 25+ psi!!!!!! Thing launches like a freight train!

cordes
02-21-2008, 07:31 PM
yup, Im looking at it in Chem1 because Rob said the switchable boost wont work in Chem2.

Also, with this no lag feature, will you build lots of boost at the line? A local DSM guy has some kind of no lab "thingy" on his car which lets him leave at 25+ psi!!!!!! Thing launches like a freight train!

Yes, the timing being pulled should spool the turbo at the line.

ETA: with the staging mod I was able to build about 6PSI at the line, and I am having WG issues. When it pulls timing we should be able to build boost like it is nobody's business.

DodgeZ
02-21-2008, 08:11 PM
What is this base for? +20's, 3 bar, 2.2 and stock swirl head?

cordes
02-21-2008, 08:14 PM
What is this base for? +20's, 3 bar, 2.2 and stock swirl head?


.....

Clay
02-21-2008, 08:15 PM
87 2.2 TII, so what ever came with that Im assuming. IF Im understanding this correctly, Rob took the BB60 code, kept all the good apects of it, and reset some items back to stock (like timing). Then he added a few more features.

clay

Clay
02-21-2008, 08:16 PM
+40s. Although you can change that easily in chem2 by using the drop down menu.

are you sure? Mine shows out of the box is scaled for 33 lb/hr injectors.

cordes
02-21-2008, 08:19 PM
are you sure? Mine shows out of the box is scaled for 33 lb/hr injectors.

I thought it was, but with the scaling being so easy with chem2 I suppose I could have changed it so fast that I forgot I had to do it in the first place. It runs well for me, and I have +40s, so if it doesn't come that way I did scale it.

ShelGame
02-21-2008, 08:31 PM
This is based on the 'stock' version of BB60 that a couple of guys on MoparChem did (sorry, I forgot your names right now...). So, it's 100% stock as-is. You'd have to set the switches in the assy and re-assemble for 3-bar. And then use D-Cal or CHeM2 to re-scale the fuel tables.

The cal (and all options) will work just fine in CHeM2, BTW. It's just that the option flags don't display properly. So, to use them, you'd need to know the right hex number for the options you want. Not the most user-friendly...

GLHNSLHT2
02-21-2008, 09:10 PM
building the boost at the line is nice but with my 2.5 anymore than 2750rpms and 0-1psi and the tires just go up in smoke. Although at that I can cut 2.1 60fts on street tires. Now with slicks maybe 4 grand and 6psi would work great :) The best part about the 2 step rev limit is intimidating ricers. Just pull up next to them and stand on it :) then disengage it and launch normally on the street :) Rob can't wait to try your smec setup. My 2.2 T2 Auto new yorker is seriously needing a calibration.

DodgeZ
02-21-2008, 09:25 PM
.....


Did you have something to say?

cordes
02-21-2008, 09:28 PM
Did you have something to say?

Sorry, I thought that it came set up for +40s, but I was wrong. It comes setup stock. I just forgot that I had changed everything I suppose.

Clay
02-21-2008, 09:30 PM
with a manual, and the BB60 launch control set to 5250, I build about 10psi off the line. If I could do more, so be it! ;)

BadAssPerformance
02-21-2008, 09:40 PM
what if it is set to Van Halen? 5150? ;) ... I need to learn about these codes and stuff... sounds fun!


Well, I can tell by the position of the sun in the sky that it is time for me to depart... ;)

ShelGame
02-21-2008, 09:49 PM
building the boost at the line is nice but with my 2.5 anymore than 2750rpms and 0-1psi and the tires just go up in smoke. Although at that I can cut 2.1 60fts on street tires. Now with slicks maybe 4 grand and 6psi would work great :) The best part about the 2 step rev limit is intimidating ricers. Just pull up next to them and stand on it :) then disengage it and launch normally on the street :) Rob can't wait to try your smec setup. My 2.2 T2 Auto new yorker is seriously needing a calibration.

I can post it if you want to try it as-is. But, like I said, I don't have 100% confidence in it since I have the ASD thing to figure out...

boost geek
02-21-2008, 10:06 PM
Can't wait to get my cal! Gonna have to try slicks this year. WOOT! :hail:

ShelGame
02-21-2008, 10:08 PM
Can't wait to get my cal! Gonna have to try slicks this year. WOOT! :hail:

It's done, just have to get my butt to the post office...

boost geek
02-21-2008, 10:11 PM
:number1:

GLHNSLHT2
02-21-2008, 10:17 PM
I can wait Rob. Barely though hehehe.

Aries_Turbo
02-21-2008, 10:43 PM
rob is this any different than what you gave me in the past? (the 50-150% peftbl caught my eye as different)

thanks

BTW the names you couldnt remember that worked on the original stock BB60 were me, Jeff Chojnacki and Rob Wojtowicz (aka bn880 on moparchem).

Brian

Clay
02-21-2008, 11:11 PM
I can post it if you want to try it as-is. But, like I said, I don't have 100% confidence in it since I have the ASD thing to figure out...

so the anti-lag feature isnt working yet?

MiniMopar
02-21-2008, 11:12 PM
Cool beans, Rob. I also spent many hours last year trying to undo some of the strange things that Geoff did to the BB cal. I've avoided the LB cal for the same reason. I've been happy with what I ended up with, but it will be interesting to see what you have done. I have also created a few TBL files for old ROMs with the naming conventions and scales fixed so that comparison is possible in D-Cal. There were also many missing CHEM and CHEM2 tags in the BB assembly and lots of scaling errors in the older tags. I think one or two advance tables were mixed-up as well.

cordes
02-21-2008, 11:28 PM
so the anti-lag feature isnt working yet?

I can't get it to work, but his post was in reference to the SMEC version of this cal and the ASD relay not working properly with that one. Has anyone got the anti-lag feature to work yet. With my limited abilities, I would not doubt that I have not set something up right, although I have tried it about 3 different ways.

ShelGame
02-22-2008, 08:45 AM
so the anti-lag feature isnt working yet?

No, anti-lag should be working. The problem is with my SMEC version of this stuff. The ASD is supposed to turn on for a second or so at key-on, and then turn itself bakc off if you don't start the car. Well, it doesn't turn off, it just keeps running. Which could be bad if you stall the engine or something. So, I need to figure out what's going on there before I post the SMEC version. The files posted here are just the LM version...

ShelGame
02-22-2008, 08:47 AM
I can't get it to work, but his post was in reference to the SMEC version of this cal and the ASD relay not working properly with that one. Has anyone got the anti-lag feature to work yet. With my limited abilities, I would not doubt that I have not set something up right, although I have tried it about 3 different ways.

I know the staging mod worked for r1sen. It may simply be that the max 16deg of retard isn't enough to make a noticeable change in the engine sound.

Did you ever get the staging mod to work?

Clay
02-22-2008, 09:32 AM
rob, so is the anti-lag feature tied in with the launch control portion? I guess what Im saying is does it need to be switched on or should it work right out of the box? I can play with it some this weekend to see if it makes a difference from my old BB60 cal.

thanks,
clay

ShelGame
02-22-2008, 09:57 AM
You can turn on either, both or neither if you wish. The only way they are tied together is if you have anti-lag enabled and the 2-step is 'active' (ie, the rev limit is lowered). In that case, it simply ignores the WOT requirement for the anti-lag. I made it so that anti-lag only works at WOT under normal running conditions so that it would not have an effect on part throttle driveability or emissions :).

You can enable anti-lag and turn the 2-step off, or vice versa.

Clay
02-22-2008, 11:05 AM
sweet!! gotta play around with this a bit!

cordes
02-22-2008, 01:20 PM
I know the staging mod worked for r1sen. It may simply be that the max 16deg of retard isn't enough to make a noticeable change in the engine sound.

Did you ever get the staging mod to work?

I have yet to get the staging mod to work with your cal. If r1sen is getting the staging mod to work then there must be something wrong with my car, or the way I am setting up the cal. although I believe I set up the cal the same way he did. I will have to try and check my SDS to make sure that it is not on the fritz.

Clay
02-22-2008, 04:53 PM
ok, over the last few hours, thanks to Cordes help, Ive become dangerous again ;)

One last question for Rob on this anti-lag feature. Let me try to explain this real world.

So I have a cal with the 2-step, and anti-lag turned on. 2-step RPMs are set to 5250 area. So, with the clutch in, I go WOT, and the RPMs come up and hover around 5250. Will the anti-lag be on at this point?

What I plan to do this weekend is setup a new cal similar to the BB60 Im currently running.

Then Ill do a comparison of BB60 2-step boost vs. Turbonator 2-step boost w/ anti-lag to see if the anti-lag helps me build more boost off the line.

thanks!
clay

ShelGame
02-22-2008, 05:39 PM
ok, over the last few hours, thanks to Cordes help, Ive become dangerous again ;)

One last question for Rob on this anti-lag feature. Let me try to explain this real world.

So I have a cal with the 2-step, and anti-lag turned on. 2-step RPMs are set to 5250 area. So, with the clutch in, I go WOT, and the RPMs come up and hover around 5250. Will the anti-lag be on at this point?

Yes, that's right. So long as the actual boost is less than the target boost. If you're using the boost vs. speed table to limit the boost on the line (as I do), then keep in mind your boost target might be lower than your max boost.


What I plan to do this weekend is setup a new cal similar to the BB60 Im currently running.

Then Ill do a comparison of BB60 2-step boost vs. Turbonator 2-step boost w/ anti-lag to see if the anti-lag helps me build more boost off the line.

thanks!
clay

You can play with the Anti-Lag retard table and pull more timing than it's currently setup for. I think it's only set for 9-12 degrees (I can't remember). You can max it out at 16deg, if you want.

Aries_Turbo
02-22-2008, 09:13 PM
you also could look at a scanner to see what the timing is. you should be able to calculate what the timing is supposed to be. i posted a spreadsheet on moparchem that makes the timing calcs easy. just pop in your cal data and input the rpm and boost and it spits out a number.

i have yet to try this. it needs to get warmer than 20. :) was 5 last week. car is outside. :(

Brian

Clay
02-24-2008, 05:39 PM
well, my testing has failed. Currently Im blaming myself because thats where the problem lies Im sure.

I played around with the stock turbonator cal, and here is what I did:

scaled for +20s, adjusted staging mod for 5300 RPM low, 5311 RPM high, exactly like my BB60, adjusted the boost tables to match the BB60, then I checked the boxes for the staging mod, and the anti-lag.

The first time I did this I used both Chem and D-cal. The car would fire up and idle, but ran very rich compared to my BB60. According to my WB it was bouncing in the 13s, then would slowly richen up, until it got into the 10s, and almost died. The staging mod never worked.

So I started over with a fresh turbonator cal, did everything again, but this time I restricted myself to Chem1 and Chem2. This time I scaled the cal for +20s, then I did a comparison to my BB60 fueling tables, and made a few adjustments. The car still ran rich, and the staging mod again didnt work.

I dont know enough to have a clue on the rich idle.

On the staging mod, the only thing I think might influence it is one thing. There is a "staginglimiterswitchselect" option in the 'turbonator' cal, which is set to 'brake switch', that I have not seen in the BB60 cal. I tried to get the staging mod to work with and with out the brake applied, with no joy.

Clay

ShelGame
02-24-2008, 10:16 PM
OK, you're the 2nd guy to say it runs rich. The Turbonator LM binary is assembled for 3-bar as I uploaded it. Are you running a 3bar MAP? I thought you might be running a 2-bar since it's based on the 'stock' converted BB60 which is setup to assemble for a 2-bar MAP.

cordes
02-24-2008, 10:19 PM
It sounds like myself and Clay are having the exact same problems, while having the same sucess with BB60 before. If wonder if it isn't something we are doing wrong since others have gotten the staging limiter to work. Are there any ideas that anyone has which I could try?

Aries_Turbo
02-24-2008, 10:30 PM
should be set up for stock injectors as well. i assume you scaled in chem2 for the bigger ones?

Brian

ShelGame
02-24-2008, 10:43 PM
It sounds like myself and Clay are having the exact same problems, while having the same sucess with BB60 before. If wonder if it isn't something we are doing wrong since others have gotten the staging limiter to work. Are there any ideas that anyone has which I could try?

Double check the limiter values. The 'OverRevFuelShutoffStagingLower' should be a lower RPM, but higher HEX value. The 'OverRevFuelShutoffStagingUpper' should be higher RPM, but lower HEX value. If the 'Lower' is higher RPM than the 'Upper', it won't do anything.

EDIT: But then, that's the same as BB60...

cordes
02-24-2008, 10:49 PM
should be set up for stock injectors as well. i assume you scaled in chem2 for the bigger ones?

Brian

I have scaled the injectors and aligned the part, full, and no fuel tables with those of the BB60stock based cal which I had running very well fuel wise.


Double check the limiter values. The 'OverRevFuelShutoffStagingLower' should be a lower RPM, but higher HEX value. The 'OverRevFuelShutoffStagingUpper' should be higher RPM, but lower HEX value. If the 'Lower' is higher RPM than the 'Upper', it won't do anything.

I just checked my file, and that checked out OK. I am actually feeling pretty good about myself, as I thought that might be the case the first time I had a problem and double checked it then too.

Another thought, could this be an L body issue? I would think not, but myself and clay both have TII converted GLHs. :confused2:

ShelGame
02-24-2008, 10:54 PM
I really don't know why the rev limit code uses inverse RPM instead of actual RPM. Seems silly to me...

ShelGame
02-24-2008, 11:11 PM
Here's a thought: Geoff changed BB somehow to alter the injector scaling. If the guys who originally converted BB60 back to 'stock' didn't take this into account, it could be the problem.

Brian - do you know if you guys considered that when you put the stock fuel tables back in?

I have no idea how Geoff did that change, unfortunately. But, I think I remember it was a factor of 2. So, maybe try scaling your injector tables by 50% (you'll have to use D-Cal to do it that way, CHeM only wants to scale by standard injector sizes; make a note of the 6-7 tables to scale while you're in CHeM).

cordes
02-24-2008, 11:14 PM
Here's a thought: Geoff changed BB somehow to alter the injector scaling. If the guys who originally converted BB60 back to 'stock' didn't take this into account, it could be the problem.

Brian - do you know if you guys considered that when you put the stock fuel tables back in?

I have no idea how Geoff did that change, unfortunately. But, I think I remember it was a factor of 2. So, maybe try scaling your injector tables by 50% (you'll have to use D-Cal to do it that way, CHeM only wants to scale by standard injector sizes; make a note of the 6-7 tables to scale while you're in CHeM).

I have taken out a bit of fuel, but I think that 50% would be a bit much from what I have seen thus far. I will try it and see how it goes the next time I get the car fired up for a test run though.

Aries_Turbo
02-24-2008, 11:17 PM
Here's a thought: Geoff changed BB somehow to alter the injector scaling. If the guys who originally converted BB60 back to 'stock' didn't take this into account, it could be the problem.

Brian - do you know if you guys considered that when you put the stock fuel tables back in?

I have no idea how Geoff did that change, unfortunately. But, I think I remember it was a factor of 2. So, maybe try scaling your injector tables by 50% (you'll have to use D-Cal to do it that way, CHeM only wants to scale by standard injector sizes; make a note of the 6-7 tables to scale while you're in CHeM).

i didnt know he did anything with scaling. youd have to ask him.

ShelGame
02-24-2008, 11:18 PM
Yeah, I was just comparing the '87 MP T2 to the 'stock' tables - the scale was changed from 16384 to 24576. I have no idea how/why he did that. But, at 10psi, the MP cal has a PW of ~12.5ms, Turbonator is ~14.0ms. So, that's 89% lower...

ShelGame
02-24-2008, 11:20 PM
i didnt know he did anything with scaling. youd have to ask him.

Do you know if anyone ran the BB60_stock cal?

I couldn't find anything in the injector PW timing that he changed. So, I don't know what's up with the scale change...

Clay
02-24-2008, 11:21 PM
OK, you're the 2nd guy to say it runs rich. The Turbonator LM binary is assembled for 3-bar as I uploaded it. Are you running a 3bar MAP? I thought you might be running a 2-bar since it's based on the 'stock' converted BB60 which is setup to assemble for a 2-bar MAP.

Im currently running a 3 bar map.

Clay
02-24-2008, 11:24 PM
should be set up for stock injectors as well. i assume you scaled in chem2 for the bigger ones?

Brian

Yup, I initially just used the Chem2 scaling, and it was running rich. (My BB60 hovers around mind 14s, +/- as it normally fluctuates).

The 2nd time I scaled it again using Chem2, then compared it to the BB60 and made some adjustments so it was more like the BB code. Granted, most of these adjustments were upper RPM adjustments, not where Im having issues.

Clay
02-24-2008, 11:29 PM
Another thought, could this be an L body issue? I would think not, but myself and clay both have TII converted GLHs. :confused2:

I doubt it. The staging mod works beautifully with my car using the BB code.

Clay
02-24-2008, 11:34 PM
Double check the limiter values. The 'OverRevFuelShutoffStagingLower' should be a lower RPM, but higher HEX value. The 'OverRevFuelShutoffStagingUpper' should be higher RPM, but lower HEX value. If the 'Lower' is higher RPM than the 'Upper', it won't do anything.

EDIT: But then, that's the same as BB60...

I did exactly what I did in the BB code. I took the 2 values (which mine says "stagingmodfuelshutoff") and increased them. The one that was lower to begin with, I kept the lower of the 2. etc.

I still wonder if it has something to do with the 'staginglimiterswitchselect' some how.

Clay
02-24-2008, 11:37 PM
Do you know if anyone ran the BB60_stock cal?

I couldn't find anything in the injector PW timing that he changed. So, I don't know what's up with the scale change...

My BB60 is bone stock in the fuel/boost department. The only thing I did was take the stock code, increase the staging mod RPM, and go. Been running like that for a while now.

cordes
02-24-2008, 11:42 PM
Do you know if anyone ran the BB60_stock cal?

I couldn't find anything in the injector PW timing that he changed. So, I don't know what's up with the scale change...

I have run BB60 successfully including the staging mod.

I have run BB60stock successfully including the staging mod and it ran better than BB60.

ShelGame
02-24-2008, 11:56 PM
I have run BB60 successfully including the staging mod.

I have run BB60stock successfully including the staging mod and it ran better than BB60.

OK, well that helps. My brain hurts. Let me look at it again tomorrow...

Aries_Turbo
02-25-2008, 12:06 AM
Yeah, I was just comparing the '87 MP T2 to the 'stock' tables - the scale was changed from 16384 to 24576. I have no idea how/why he did that. But, at 10psi, the MP cal has a PW of ~12.5ms, Turbonator is ~14.0ms. So, that's 89% lower...

see, i could care less what the axis says.... for any cal that im working on or comparing to, i just make the axes say the same thing so im effectively comparing the hex values. well that doesnt work with 87 to 89T1 comparisons as there is a 2x factor there but i know that. :)

Brian

ShelGame
02-25-2008, 08:57 AM
Yeah, but I though Geoff changed somethign in the code to make the scale different... I'll have to look...

EDIT: OK figured out the fuel thing. I changed the PumPEff scaling in the code from (0.0 to 1.0) to (0.5 to 1.5); but I forgot to change the actual table data accordingly. No wonder it runs rich, like 50% more fuel than you need!!!

I still can't see anything wrong with the changes I made to the staging limiter code, though. I did find a couple of things that just seemed odd, so I made a small change. I don't think it will have an effect on how it functions, though. If it still doesn't work, I may just junk it all and re-write the whole rev limiter to use actual RPM instead of inverse RPM.

Here's the updated Turbonator LM files...

EDIT 2: OK, I found a problem with the Anti-Lag also that was causing it to not actually do anything. I used the wrong conditional branch (DOH!). I also completely re-wrote the staging limiter to run the same way as what I wrote for the Turbonator SMEC (which I have personally tested in my car). It still uses inverse RPM. It's too much tear up to change it to regular RPM. The updated-updated Turbonator LM files are located in the original post...

If you DL'd the fix earlier this morning, you'll want to get this new verison '2'. Files are moved to the first post...

ShelGame
02-25-2008, 03:27 PM
If anyone DL'd Turbonator over the weekend, make sure to checkout the updates and the v2 release. I found problems in the original release...

Clay
02-25-2008, 03:43 PM
Sweet! thanks Rob! If time allows Ill give it a shot tonight. Just gotta make a few quick mods to the cal and burn the chip.

cordes
02-25-2008, 06:13 PM
That is great Rob! I have to change out my front wheel bearings tomorrow, but it looks like my omni will unfortunately be my DD for a little while so I will certainly get some testing time on the new cal. Thanks so much for all you do for us. :nod:

ShelGame
02-25-2008, 08:21 PM
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I only wish I had an LM car so that I could've tested it myself before posting it...

Let me know how the new version is wokring out...

Clay
02-25-2008, 09:54 PM
well, first try didnt go so well.

When I first fired it up the car seems to idle well, and the fuel seemed much better. BUT, after it warmed up the fuel was WAY lean. Pegging my WB to 19/20 at idle. It richened up when you got on the gas, so I let it warm all the way up and then tried to see if the staging mod would work.

well, thats when I found out something else was wrong. Anytime I went WOT, regardless of where I was in the RPM range, the fuel cut out completely until I let off the gas pedal a bit. 2000 RPMs or if I babied it to 5000, same thing. I think this is probalby something I have set wrong in the boost tables, because it would rev for just a minute, then cut out. I also need to make sure the map scaling is correct because I didnt touch it, assuming like the V1 it was already set to 3bar.

still playing with it and having fun! Thanks Rob for all the work you do! I know I could never get this far with out a lot of help!

Clay
02-25-2008, 11:00 PM
Hmmmmm map checks out, gotta be something else. Cordes, let me know how yours works out.

clay

ShelGame
02-25-2008, 11:25 PM
well, first try didnt go so well.

When I first fired it up the car seems to idle well, and the fuel seemed much better. BUT, after it warmed up the fuel was WAY lean. Pegging my WB to 19/20 at idle. It richened up when you got on the gas, so I let it warm all the way up and then tried to see if the staging mod would work.

well, thats when I found out something else was wrong. Anytime I went WOT, regardless of where I was in the RPM range, the fuel cut out completely until I let off the gas pedal a bit. 2000 RPMs or if I babied it to 5000, same thing. I think this is probalby something I have set wrong in the boost tables, because it would rev for just a minute, then cut out. I also need to make sure the map scaling is correct because I didnt touch it, assuming like the V1 it was already set to 3bar.

still playing with it and having fun! Thanks Rob for all the work you do! I know I could never get this far with out a lot of help!

The fuel may just be part of the learning curve for the ECU. The adaptives take a little time to work out. If it doesn't clean up after some miles, then it would be a cause for concern.

The cutout, though, may actually be the antilag doing it's thing. It only runs at WOT, so as soon as you back off, the timing comes back. I had some concern about how much timing to pull. It's setup for 8deg, which I thought would be pretty conservative. But, maybe it's too much. Try turning it down to 6 or even only 4 deg and see if it cleans up. There's a table for AntiLag retard from boost delta to target. Just scale it by 75% or 50%. Better yet, just turn off the AntiLag and see if that goes away. That would tell us for sure.

Here's another thought - was that under load? Or just free-revving it? Free revving it, you won't make boost, so the retard would be at the maximum almost all the time (delta to boost target is always high). It might behave differently under load...

ShelGame
02-26-2008, 12:15 PM
Hey hey! Another day - another Turbonator LM release.

I found a problem with the Anti-Lag code that would allow the wrong value to get stored in the Anti-Lag variable. That is probably why you got the cut-out when you went WOT, Clay. This should fix that. I also found a branch out-of-range assembler error related to my re-write of the staging limiter code. Fixed that now, too. Turbonator v3 files are in the 1st post now. Hopefully, this will be the last bug fix. I deleted the v2 files. If you got v2 yesterday, make sure you get v3 today!

Clay
02-26-2008, 02:11 PM
Good deal! Ill burn another chip tonight and give it a go!

as for everything Im doing, right now its all in the garage, not out on the roads. Its to crappy out to around here right now. Maybe next week Ill get some actual road time.

Clay
02-27-2008, 12:19 AM
well, nothing conclusive tonight. I didnt get much of a test at all.

This is V3 of the cal for reference. Car started up and idled fine. I let it run a while to warm up. Fuel was lean again, but not as bad, but Im not worried about that since the car isnt driving, or learning the injectors yet.

Tried to test the staging mod, and it zoomed right past 5300 RPMs the first time. Tried it again, and same thing. So then I tried WOT at a lower RPM, and it broke up a bit, but then started to have a similar sound to what Im used to hearing other cars with anti-lag have, but it didnt hold. It never made it to 5300 RPMs when I went WOT at lower RPMs (similar to before).

It then started to brake up real bad, then nothing until I let off the gas and it would idle down. Tried it a couple more times with similar results.

I did not get a chance to really play with it much because it was late and technically right on the verge of making to much noise to late in the day. Ill try some more tomorrow, and Im also going to make a cal with the staging mod RPMs reversed to see if Ive got it backwards.

clay

Clay
02-28-2008, 11:56 AM
well I gave the cal a good thrashing yesterday evening. I gave it plenty of time to warm up, and idle a bit. The idle fuel was still running pretty lean, though when you shut the car off and restart it, it will intially idle around 14/15 a/f. SO I think with some learning it would probalby be ok.

On the other hand, I tried the staging mod and anti-lag again, granted this was while reving in the garage. I had the same issue this time as with the V2 cal. I could rev right past 5300 easily, but I had to work to get it up there because if you flat footed the gas pedal, the car would essentially fall on its face/die every time you go WOT. Though it wasnt an immediate death, it would ref for a second, then die, and would not recover until you let off the gas pedal. WB readings went super lean when this happened, so Im assuming the injectors are turning off. Now, the one thing I noticed was with the short rev time after WOT is it appears, to me, that this issues is happening once you go into any kind of boost (basically anything above 0 PSIG). If I feather the throttle up a bit and start hitting some boost with out being full throttle (we are talking right on the cusp of boost, right at the edge of 0 PSIG) then the car will run, but cuts out and runs terribly.

I plan to make a couple more changes, and one will be to leave the anti-lag feature turned off completely and see what happens. Ill report back with results.

ShelGame
02-28-2008, 12:13 PM
Yeah, sounds like the anti-lag is pulling too much timing. Turn it off and see what happens. If it's fine W/O the anti-lag, then maybe turn it back on, but change the table to reduce the amount of retard (scale it by 50% as a start). I wouldn't have thought 8 deg of retard would do that, though.

ShelGame
03-02-2008, 11:47 PM
Any feedback from weekend testing?

FWIW, I did re-think how/where I took out the Anti-Lag (in the code), and I made another revision. But, I wanted to wait to post it until I got some more feedback.

cordes
03-02-2008, 11:51 PM
My brakes went all no-workie on Friday, so I have been trying to solve that mystery all weekend. :( As soon as I can test it out for you I will report back. I am hoping to have the brakes fixed by tomorrow.

Clay
03-03-2008, 04:18 PM
nothing from me either. :( I had a bunch going on and never got around to it. I have a cal modded and ready to go, and Im hoping to give it a shot tonight. Nothing spectacular, just shut off the anti-lag.

risen
03-04-2008, 07:48 PM
Hey guys, figured I'd stick my nose in this thread too just in case I can be of some help. I haven't had a chance to try out v2 or v3 of the turbonator cal yet as the weather's been crappy here and the GF's been complaining about how she's not gonna see me when the weather gets warm :ballchain: .

When I tested the staging limiter in my car I left everything as-is standard in the cal source, set the 3bar flag, and compiled it. Then I set the flags in dcal (turned on staging limiter and anti-lag, set no switch for staging limiter, and turned switchable boost off) and scaled the fuel for my +40's in chem2. When I tested it, I literally just went WOT with it to the floor in one shot, it hit ~3200 rpm and stayed +-100 rpm (bb60 was +- 250 rpm).

I did mention, over on moparchem, that sometimes with bb60 the limiter wouldn't set if I hadn't rolled the car a little so that the speed sensor was moved. If I rolled the car 5 or 10 feet and it would set.

I wanted to try and datalog the difference in timing between bb60 and turbonator with antilag on and off, but I haven't gotten a shot at it.

As to the cutout, does the LM use the speed vs boost table to calculate a overboost situation? I'm wondering if once it creeps into positive manifold pressue and the speed is 0 it just shuts off?

Clay
03-05-2008, 10:00 PM
well I tried the cal again last night with the only difference being I shut off the anti lag. Pretty much the same result with the car cutting out badly when I go WOT. This time I tried it with and with out the brake pedal depressed, with no difference. More in the next reply.

Clay
03-05-2008, 10:04 PM
Hey guys, figured I'd stick my nose in this thread too just in case I can be of some help. I haven't had a chance to try out v2 or v3 of the turbonator cal yet as the weather's been crappy here and the GF's been complaining about how she's not gonna see me when the weather gets warm :ballchain: .

Welcome! The more the merrier!!!!!!! ;)


When I tested the staging limiter in my car I left everything as-is standard in the cal source, set the 3bar flag, and compiled it. Then I set the flags in dcal (turned on staging limiter and anti-lag, set no switch for staging limiter, and turned switchable boost off) and scaled the fuel for my +40's in chem2. When I tested it, I literally just went WOT with it to the floor in one shot, it hit ~3200 rpm and stayed +-100 rpm (bb60 was +- 250 rpm).

Well, thats one thing I have not done. I have not compiled the code myself. I have just run the .bin file that comes with the down load. This is something i guess I should try to see if for some reason there might be a difference.


I did mention, over on moparchem, that sometimes with bb60 the limiter wouldn't set if I hadn't rolled the car a little so that the speed sensor was moved. If I rolled the car 5 or 10 feet and it would set.


Ill have to try this as well. Ive never moved the car when I start it.


As to the cutout, does the LM use the speed vs boost table to calculate a overboost situation? I'm wondering if once it creeps into positive manifold pressue and the speed is 0 it just shuts off?

In looking at the cal, I wondered the same thing. BUT when doing a comparision, the bb60 has this same table and Ive made the values identical. 0.5 mph/5psi, 6 mph/20 psi. Maybe I can make it a straight line with no ramp and see what happens.

Clay
03-06-2008, 11:15 PM
ahhhhhhh where to begin.

Test 1.

Ok, I put used the same cal as last time, started the car, moved it around so the speed sensor would see a signal (backed it out of the garage, pulled back in), basically the same thing. When the engine is cold it also seems I can rev to high heaven (or can I).

Test 2

started over from 'stock'. Burned a new chip with nothing done to it except scaled for +20s. Started the car up, hit the gas, and it was breaking up immediatley. I noticed it wouldnt go much over 0 psig when it was breaking up. Funny thing, when I go WOT I still get the scenerio where the car basically dies, so I held it to see what would happen. At about 1000 rpms it started sputtering and popping and trying to run, but was just breaking up really badly. End test 2.

Test 3.

Same cal as test 2 with one adjustment, I took the 'boostallowedvsspeed' and made it a solid line, ie no taper at the beginning, just 12 psi across the board. Results: same as test 2. So test 2 and 3 were done with the stock cal, no anti-lag, no staging mod, no boost adjustment, and I still have this bad breaking up issue.

Next thing Im going to try is to compile the cal from the assembly file and see what I get.

clay

risen
03-07-2008, 03:05 PM
Hmm, well I'm out of suggestions at the moment. I'm going to be moving my car to a new garage this weekend, so I'm working on a new turbonator v3 cal right now and will have a shot to test it tomorrow (although I probably won't have time to datalog).

I'm not too sure that re-compliing the code is going to make a difference, though. The reason I did it in my test was because the cal was only supplied as source (I believe).

Clay
03-07-2008, 03:08 PM
well Ive finally got my Innovate SSI-4 here, so after I get it hooked up maybe I can datalog a by myself to see whats going on.

ShelGame
03-07-2008, 10:16 PM
Yeah, I don't understand the breaking up thing. The only WOT checks I added/altered are in the Staging Limiter and Anti-Lag code. And, you turned those off.

I do have a v4 ready with a small change to the anti-lag code, but still waiting for more feedback before I release it.

risen
03-07-2008, 11:16 PM
well Ive finally got my Innovate SSI-4 here, so after I get it hooked up maybe I can datalog a by myself to see whats going on.

Dunno if you're interested or not, but over on moparchem there's a couple of datalogging programs. There's LMlog and also a program (that I wrote) that integrates with Innovate's logworks2 software. You would have to mod the LM to have a serial or USB interface on it, but all the info is over there to tackle the project start to finish.

Since you have the external logger, it may be more trouble than it's worth but I figured I'd mention it.

risen
03-07-2008, 11:16 PM
Yeah, I don't understand the breaking up thing. The only WOT checks I added/altered are in the Staging Limiter and Anti-Lag code. And, you turned those off.

I do have a v4 ready with a small change to the anti-lag code, but still waiting for more feedback before I release it.

TEASE!!!!

ShelGame
03-08-2008, 10:40 AM
Sorry, I just don't want to release it only to find some other problem later that same day...

risen
03-09-2008, 12:10 AM
Sorry, I just don't want to release it only to find some other problem later that same day...

I understand, seemed funnier when I wrote it.

Anyways, I had a chance to try the V3 cal today. My car does pretty much the same thing clay's does. It bounces at the limiter like 2 or 3 times, then basically shuts off until you lift off the throttle. Even a little lift on the throttle starts to bring the car back to life. I can go WOT with my car without worrying about it over-revving. My car also doesn't break up, just bounces off the limiter a few times. It does start to come back alive when the rpm's go close to idle. I can say that v1 would bounce off the limiter for quite some time. It seems like the fuel or timing is shut off until it gets back to idle.

I didn't have a chance to try it with the anti-lag off. I haven't had a chance to look at the code but is it possible that the cal is continually subtracting timing, until it gets to the point where the car no longer is sparking?

The cal was configured as below:
Set manual transmission and 3 bar in source and compiled.
Used dcal to set the config flags for staging limiter and anti-lag all others were off, unchecked all switches for staging limiter.
Scaled fuel in chem2 (way lean @ idle, but probably my fault)
Raised staging limiter set point to 6 mph, set idle transition to 6 mph.
Low boost clip set to 20, all other boost tables set up to 20 psi (switch boost off).

Clay
03-09-2008, 01:09 AM
I understand, seemed funnier when I wrote it.

Anyways, I had a chance to try the V3 cal today. My car does pretty much the same thing clay's does. It bounces at the limiter like 2 or 3 times, then basically shuts off until you lift off the throttle. Even a little lift on the throttle starts to bring the car back to life. I can go WOT with my car without worrying about it over-revving. My car also doesn't break up, just bounces off the limiter a few times. It does start to come back alive when the rpm's go close to idle. I can say that v1 would bounce off the limiter for quite some time. It seems like the fuel or timing is shut off until it gets back to idle.

I didn't have a chance to try it with the anti-lag off. I haven't had a chance to look at the code but is it possible that the cal is continually subtracting timing, until it gets to the point where the car no longer is sparking?

The cal was configured as below:
Set manual transmission and 3 bar in source and compiled.
Used dcal to set the config flags for staging limiter and anti-lag all others were off, unchecked all switches for staging limiter.
Scaled fuel in chem2 (way lean @ idle, but probably my fault)
Raised staging limiter set point to 6 mph, set idle transition to 6 mph.
Low boost clip set to 20, all other boost tables set up to 20 psi (switch boost off).

Yup, sounds familiar. I guess the staging mod (or rev limit of some kind) could be setting this off. I noticed it does tend to happen around the staging limit RPM, and does seem to pick back up around idle. I just called this breaking up, as I dont have a better name for it.

The cal running super lean at idle is also something I see.

ShelGame
03-09-2008, 10:49 AM
Yup, sounds familiar. I guess the staging mod (or rev limit of some kind) could be setting this off. I noticed it does tend to happen around the staging limit RPM, and does seem to pick back up around idle. I just called this breaking up, as I dont have a better name for it.

The cal running super lean at idle is also something I see.

Yeah, but it happened to you even when you had the anti-lag and staging limiter turned off i nthe cal, right? If so, then it's probably something else.

OK, I'll give it all a good look over next week and see if I can find this.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Clay
03-09-2008, 11:01 AM
Rob - yup, your right it did the same thing with out the staging mod turned on.

ShelGame
03-09-2008, 12:16 PM
I still don't like where I pull the anti-lag out. So, I need to rethink that. But, that doesn't explain why it breaks up with anti-lag off. Hmm...

risen
03-09-2008, 06:12 PM
Yup, sounds familiar. I guess the staging mod (or rev limit of some kind) could be setting this off. I noticed it does tend to happen around the staging limit RPM, and does seem to pick back up around idle. I just called this breaking up, as I dont have a better name for it.

The cal running super lean at idle is also something I see.

@ Idle, my W/B was saying 23.0:1 for afr (basically pegged lean). Once I gave it a little gas it cleared up, but once back to idle, it would go super lean again. Still odd, as I scaled the fuel in v1 the same way ad I did in this cal. Anyways, once I get some more time I'll try and run the cal with a datalog and with the various options on/off.

ShelGame
03-09-2008, 07:25 PM
I guess that could be an effect of the anti-lag. It tries to control idle with spark and fuel, and if the anti-lag was taking timing out, it might mess with the mixture at idle.

I think the problem with the breaking up was due to how I was removing the anti-lag timing (anti-lag was broken in v1 and didn't do anything). I totally changed that and I'll post v4 later tonight. Just need to check it over again...

ShelGame
03-09-2008, 11:19 PM
OK, v4 is posted. If this doesn't fix the breaking up issue, then I'll probably pull my hair out. Wait, it's already mostly gone.

I changed how I was removing the Anti-Lag retard. I now remove it directly from the WOT timing table before it gets saved to the temp variable. Everything else is the same as v3.

Clay
03-10-2008, 06:54 PM
ok, dont pull your hair out just yet.

Today I burned a v4 cal. Only thing I did was open the cal in chem2 and scale for +20s. Thats it, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing turned on or moved.

My first impression is the idle a/f is much better, around 16/17, where the others were pegged at 23.99.

This time it didnt seem to "break up", but the WOT/engine revs/engine dies/engine starts chugging around idle (1000 RPM) condition is still there.

I let it warm up, the matted the go pedal. The engine would rev up to 4500/5000 range, then just die. I left my foot on the gas pedal, and waited, when the RPMs hit around 1000/idle range, it would start going again, and the revs would very slowly chug their way up. I never left it in that for very long. Remove foot from pedal, and back to idle, all was normal.

ShelGame
03-11-2008, 04:17 PM
I've looked it over pretty much all day today and I can't find anything wrong with it - especially if the anti-lag and staging mods are turned off. I'm going to have to take a couple days off from it. I'll probably see it just fine after I haven't looked at it for a while...

Clay
03-13-2008, 11:13 AM
ok, found something that may contribute, maybe not.

I was reading this post: http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=282374&postcount=12

Do you think that could have something to do with it, the autocal part is what Im talking about.

Ive never disconnected the computer since I started playing around, so the old BB60 ram info may be still in the computer. Hmmmmmmmm.

risen
03-13-2008, 11:26 AM
ok, found something that may contribute, maybe not.

I was reading this post: http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=282374&postcount=12

Do you think that could have something to do with it, the autocal part is what Im talking about.

Ive never disconnected the computer since I started playing around, so the old BB60 ram info may be still in the computer. Hmmmmmmmm.

To be honest with you, I was wondering the same thing after reading that. The first time I tried the v1 cal it was in a freshly socketed LM that I had never run before, but there were vairous problems with that cal. I didn't have a chance to try it in the newer LM the last time, so mabye the bb60 adaptives are causing my lean idle. If I get a chance I can use lmlog next time to look at them and see what they look like.

However, I still don't see how the adaptives could cause the cal to shut off after hitting the limiter a couple of times.

Clay
03-13-2008, 11:33 AM
true.

Ive got my LM out right now, so Ill try it again this weekend.

MiniMopar
03-13-2008, 02:26 PM
The dipsh*t that wrote that post has his head up his *ss. All he does is talk...blah blah blah. What a moron.

I've been looking to integrate some of Rob's code tweaks into my BB-based cal, but before I do that I'm trying to finish my "uncal.pl" script so that I can push my table mods back into the source instead of doing it by hand. Kind of a pain correlating everything...needs the LSt file, etc. The other option is doing a binary diff to create a patch and then reapplying it after reassembling. It will work as long as the table addresses and sizes don't change.

There he goes again. Blah blah blah... Idiot.

risen
03-13-2008, 03:08 PM
The dipsh*t that wrote that post has his head up his *ss. All he does is talk...blah blah blah. What a moron.

I've been looking to integrate some of Rob's code tweaks into my BB-based cal, but before I do that I'm trying to finish my "uncal.pl" script so that I can push my table mods back into the source instead of doing it by hand. Kind of a pain correlating everything...needs the LSt file, etc. The other option is doing a binary diff to create a patch and then reapplying it after reassembling. It will work as long as the table addresses and sizes don't change.

There he goes again. Blah blah blah... Idiot.

Wow, where did that come from?

Clay
03-13-2008, 03:48 PM
Wow, where did that come from?

He is the guy that wrote that post..... :lol:

MiniMopar
03-13-2008, 03:53 PM
I'm a little punchy today.... It's nice outside and I want to be out there wrenching, not sitting here pretending to care about work.

risen
03-13-2008, 04:20 PM
He is the guy that wrote that post..... :lol:

I'm still trying to figure out who is the dipshit, and whether or not I should just keep to myself....

moparzrule
03-13-2008, 04:30 PM
He was referring to himself, calling himself a dipshit.....

MiniMopar
03-13-2008, 04:31 PM
LOL...I was referring to the post that Clay linked to....

risen
03-13-2008, 05:10 PM
LOL...I was referring to the post that Clay linked to....

Oh, sorry for a second there I thought you were refering to Clay or I. Man am I confused.

As a side note I've been using perl quite a bit at work lately perhaps I can give you a hand with that script. I have a perl script that takes a .tbl and .bin and generates a spark map for boost vs rpm (3d map). It's not completed, but it mostly works, and might work as a base for your script. I can send it to you if you want or post it here.

Although, I would think that the standard unix diff and patch would probably work pretty well for what you need to do. Have you tried it and found it to be a pain?

MiniMopar
03-13-2008, 05:41 PM
uncal.pl is a mess, but at the moment it loads the LST file into a table and then loads the table data from the BIN. The hard part is slipping the tables back into the code as assembly instructions because the code is inconsistent in how it depicts tables (bytes, pairs of bytes, etc). At the moment it stomps on the code and makes it unbuildable. That's when I went to the diff method. I do something like this so that it is also slightly human readable:

$ xxd mycal.bin > mycal.hex
$ xxd origcal.bin > origcal.hex
$ diff -uN origcal.hex mycal.hex > mycal.hex.diff

Then build the new cal and apply the patch:

$ xxd newcal.bin > newcal.hex
$ patch newcal.hex mycal.hex.patch

Finally, convert the hex dump into binary again:

$ xxd -r newcal.hex newcal.bin

risen
03-13-2008, 07:47 PM
uncal.pl is a mess, but at the moment it loads the LST file into a table and then loads the table data from the BIN. The hard part is slipping the tables back into the code as assembly instructions because the code is inconsistent in how it depicts tables (bytes, pairs of bytes, etc). At the moment it stomps on the code and makes it unbuildable. That's when I went to the diff method. I do something like this so that it is also slightly human readable:

$ xxd mycal.bin > mycal.hex
$ xxd origcal.bin > origcal.hex
$ diff -uN origcal.hex mycal.hex > mycal.hex.diff

Then build the new cal and apply the patch:

$ xxd newcal.bin > newcal.hex
$ patch newcal.hex mycal.hex.patch

Finally, convert the hex dump into binary again:

$ xxd -r newcal.hex newcal.bin

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant running diff/patch on the source code before it gets compiled. Something like this:

risen@sleipnir:~/turbonator_cal$ diff 87T2_Master.asm 87T2_Master_new.asm > cal.patch
risen@sleipnir:~/turbonator_cal$ cat cal.patch
731c731
< hex 54 10 FF33
---
> hex 54 10 FFFF

If the lines get moved around in the new cal, you would have to edit the numbers on the left (I believe) of the change line, so it puts it in the right place. I have to do this with configuration files @ work all the time, and it takes some care, but it's saved me a boatload of trouble many times over.

Although, I think the best would be to csplit the cal into 3 files (one for def's, one for tables, and one for code). Any new cal just split out the tables and cat yours in the middle. That's probably even less trouble, just a csplit and a cat.

risen@sleipnir:~/turbonator_cal$ csplit 87T2_Master.asm /RomBegin/ "/Begin code/"
29112
130441
361163


The xx01 file should be tables, to reconstruct you could do

cat xx00 <your table file> xx02 > output.asm

I don't know how you're doing it with binary diffs, I'd have broken something long, long ago.

MiniMopar
03-13-2008, 08:27 PM
As long as the table addresses and sizes don't change, the binary diff works. This has allowed me to rebuild the code a couple of times and reapply the tuning that I spent so much time on. The problem is the calibration tools all work on the binary only. Patching the assembly only works if you already have the tables in assembly form.

ShelGame
03-13-2008, 08:57 PM
Yeah, I've been thinking we need an editor that can write out the table data (DATA, not just the definitions) into the form that the assembler uses so that we can edit tables before assembling the binary. Wish I was a C++ programmer. I may just have to break out my old C++ text books and re-learn it. VB is so much easier, though...

Clay
03-13-2008, 10:19 PM
oh, stop it, you guys are making my head hurt!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

risen
03-14-2008, 07:27 PM
I took my perl script that generates a spark map and hacked it apart to make a script that will dump the hex values for a table to your screen. I tested it against a couple builds of the 87T2_Master code and the values looked ok. It took about an hour to get working, as the other code was already working pretty well. You can just run the script for a usage example.

I can probably use perl2exe to create an executable for all the windows folks (if anyone wants it) or they can get a perl runtime (which can be a PITA). It doesn't currently dump out any FF bytes after the table, but that should be a simple update if wanted. I would like to eventually add this and the config flag to chem2, but I dunno when I'll be able to get to it. Since I can't seem to post attachments here's the code:



#!/usr/bin/perl
#program to read .tbl and .bin and print table info out in format
#usable by chemasm for LM's
#
#usage: dump_entries($table_offset, $FILE_WITH_CAL_DATA );
sub dump_entries()
{
$off_info = $_[0];
$CALFILE = $_[1];
$offset = hex($off_info) - hex(C000);
#seek to position in bin, and read the number of entries for this table
seek( $CALFILE, $offset, SEEK_SET );

#read and convert number of entries
read( $CALFILE, $in, 1);
$num_tbl_entrs = unpack("C", $in);

#dump number of table entries
printf("hex %02x\n" , unpack("C", $in));

# print STDERR "number of entries in " . @$tbl_info[0] . " : " . $num_tbl_entrs . "\n";
# print STDERR "offset of table: " . $offset . "\n";

#for the number of entries in the tables
#read through the next set of bytes and dump them out
for( $i=0; $i < $num_tbl_entrs; $i++)
{
#read x value from ith table entry
read($CALFILE, $in, 1);
printf("hex %02x " , unpack("C", $in));

#read y value from ith table entry
read($CALFILE, $in, 1);
printf("%02x ", unpack("C", $in));

#if not at last entry, dump slopes for this entry
if ($i < $num_tbl_entrs-1)
{
#rise
read($CALFILE, $in, 1);
printf("%02x", unpack("C", $in));
#run
read($CALFILE, $in, 1);
printf("%02x\n", unpack("C", $in));
}
else
{
printf("\n");
}
}
}

my($input_tbl, $input_bin, $maplist);
my(@raw_tbl_entries);

if ($#ARGV != 1)
{
print STDERR "Usage: dump_tblinfo.pl <base filename> <comma seperated list of tables to dump> \n";
print STDERR "Example: dump_tblinfo.pl 87T2_S1 WOTMAP,HOTMAP,CLDMAP,PEFTBL\n";
exit(1);
}

$input_tbl = $ARGV[0].".tbl";
$input_bin = $ARGV[0].".bin";

#substitute commas for pipes to be used in regex
$_ = $ARGV[1];
s/\,/\|/g;
$maplist = $_;

open(TBL,"<$input_tbl") || die "couldn't open file $input_tbl";
open(BIN,"<$input_bin") || die "couldn't open file $input_bin";
binmode(BIN);

# read and parse table
while( <TBL> )
{
@raw_tbl_entries = split(' ', $_);

if(@raw_tbl_entries[12] =~ m/$maplist/)
{
print "@raw_tbl_entries[12] \n";
&dump_entries(@raw_tbl_entries[0], BIN);
}
}

Stratman
03-17-2008, 12:27 AM
Looks like a party going on in here!:)
Thanks Cordes for pointing me to this subject from Moparchem.
I race with an A-413 trans and will see if the v4 code will work or not on my end. I just changed the torque converter only to find it was tighter than my previous 3800 stall and all I can get is 4 psi brake boosting so I have been playing around will timing retard with hardly any luck at all. So, let's play!

ShelGame
03-18-2008, 10:07 PM
Has anyone else tried it? Any more feedback? I found a couple of small things I changed, but nothing that should cause the breaking up...

risen
03-18-2008, 10:42 PM
Has anyone else tried it? Any more feedback? I found a couple of small things I changed, but nothing that should cause the breaking up...

Haven't had a chance to, been busy moving into the new garage ATM. I may get a chance this weekend. If not this weekend then I'll try to do something more in-depth with some datalogs next weekend.

Stratman
03-18-2008, 11:05 PM
Same for me. I will be able to once this rain stops!

risen
03-23-2008, 12:41 AM
Has anyone else tried it? Any more feedback? I found a couple of small things I changed, but nothing that should cause the breaking up...

I tried v4 today a couple times. For some reason the idle fueling is way off after scaling in chem2. Tried to bring it back in line based upon the fueling guide in chem2 but no go, still really lean. Funny thing was, the idle fuel seemed OK with the doubled pumpeff table (v1), but once the pumpeff table was scaled properly to be 50-150, it seems like idle is really lean once the start to run transition is complete. It's possible that it's unrelated, but I figured I'd mention it.

Anyways, I tested with the anti-lag both on and off, and it acted the same way. The car revs to the limiter around 3k rpm, then dies off, hits the limit again, and then goes back to idle (and stumbles a little when it gets there). I didn't get a chance to try it with both anti-lag and staging limiter off to see if the car ran alright, maybe next weekend.

ShelGame
03-23-2008, 07:39 AM
I tried v4 today a couple times. For some reason the idle fueling is way off after scaling in chem2. Tried to bring it back in line based upon the fueling guide in chem2 but no go, still really lean. Funny thing was, the idle fuel seemed OK with the doubled pumpeff table (v1), but once the pumpeff table was scaled properly to be 50-150, it seems like idle is really lean once the start to run transition is complete. It's possible that it's unrelated, but I figured I'd mention it.

Anyways, I tested with the anti-lag both on and off, and it acted the same way. The car revs to the limiter around 3k rpm, then dies off, hits the limit again, and then goes back to idle (and stumbles a little when it gets there). I didn't get a chance to try it with both anti-lag and staging limiter off to see if the car ran alright, maybe next weekend.

OK Thanks. I'll dive into it again this week.

EDIT: Already dove into it. I found a problem with how I was calculating the PumpEff re-scale. That was likely the cause of the lean running and the break-up, since it would cause an overflow and an effective PumpEff of ~20-30% instead of 70-80%. That's not enough fuel and it would cut out, same as the rev limiter.

So, v5 is now posted on the original post. I think (hope?) this fixes it.

Everyone - please let me know how it works out if you get a chance to try it.

Stratman
03-23-2008, 05:44 PM
Hey Rob,
This V5 is the first version I've used so far. The car had a terrible time running. Seemed very rich, but when I drop the PE it still had trouble. Giving it some throttle would rev a little and drop the RPMs again with a little intake backfire when I tried to keep it running. Had all values the same as my previous cal.

Stratman
03-23-2008, 05:47 PM
Is there a way I can change these versions and not have to match the maps everytime?

ShelGame
03-23-2008, 08:47 PM
OK, I give up on the 50-150% PumpEff table for now. It's just too difficult in the LM. I posted v6 - it's the same as v5, but I removed the PumpEff re-scale, and re-set the PumpEff data.

Stratman
03-23-2008, 08:53 PM
First post still says V5. Has it been changed?

EDITED: LOL, nevermind.

risen
03-31-2008, 12:35 AM
I tested v6 today. The cal runs pretty well, I get like 3 or 4 psi of boost while sitting still with the antilag. No more problems with the car shutting down until it gets back to idle. I did have a problem with the cal breaking up at the top of the rpm range but I didn't spend much time working on the fueling although it wasn't lean or knocking from what I could tell.

Aries_Turbo
03-31-2008, 11:39 AM
cool. thats a little wierd though cause without the antilag and the staging limiter sitting at 5000 id get 9psi.... or do you not have the staging on?

Brian

risen
03-31-2008, 02:29 PM
cool. thats a little wierd though cause without the antilag and the staging limiter sitting at 5000 id get 9psi.... or do you not have the staging on?

Brian

Staging and antilag were both on, however the limiter was set to 3000 rpm, so that may be the reason I get less boost. It definitely spools the turbo harder than the bb60 cal I usually run. My BOV won't sound with the bb60 cal after holding at the limiter and snapping the throttle shut, but the turbonator cal sounds the bov. The guage reads a little over 0 with the bb60, and with the turbonator it reads around 3-4 psi. I can try and raise the limiter, but the car is hard to launch with the limiter @ 3000. 5000 is going to blow my tires away (until I get the OBX and new clutch in :D ).

moparzrule
03-31-2008, 02:30 PM
I used 3500 on street tires, and 4500 at the strip.

cordes
03-31-2008, 07:13 PM
Staging and antilag were both on, however the limiter was set to 3000 rpm, so that may be the reason I get less boost. It definitely spools the turbo harder than the bb60 cal I usually run. My BOV won't sound with the bb60 cal after holding at the limiter and snapping the throttle shut, but the turbonator cal sounds the bov. The guage reads a little over 0 with the bb60, and with the turbonator it reads around 3-4 psi. I can try and raise the limiter, but the car is hard to launch with the limiter @ 3000. 5000 is going to blow my tires away (until I get the OBX and new clutch in :D ).

How many degrees of timing were you pulling?

risen
03-31-2008, 11:41 PM
How many degrees of timing were you pulling?

I started with the base setting which was 8 (my boost target was 20). I worked up to 10, but it didn't change much. I also changed the spark tables to be more like the 89 tables, but that didn't seem to have a large effect. One weekend I'll have the time to do some more in-depth testing with some datalogs.

Aries_Turbo
04-01-2008, 12:10 PM
cool, ill have to try this new version soon. :)

Brian

Frank
05-15-2008, 02:47 PM
So is this a 3-bar or 2-bar? It appears to be a 2-bar, but the properities in the description appear to be 3-bar.


Thanks
Frank

MiniMopar
05-15-2008, 02:50 PM
BB60 can be assembled for either MAP sensor. Its an assembly-time switch, though, so deciding which MAP has to be step one.

Frank
05-15-2008, 03:13 PM
BB60 can be assembled for either MAP sensor. Its an assembly-time switch, though, so deciding which MAP has to be step one.

I am confused by what you mean.

risen
05-15-2008, 03:19 PM
I am confused by what you mean.

If you look at the zip file in the first post with "_source" in it's name, that file will contain the raw data to build the calibration from source code. In the 87T2_Master.asm file, there are 2 lines that determine which map sensor to use. If you want 3 bar, set map2bar to 0 and map3bar to 1, it's the opposite if you want 2 bar. After selecting which map you want, you need to run chemasmlm.exe to build the .bin calibration. From there, you can tweak it with dcal or chem however you want to.

MiniMopar
05-15-2008, 03:28 PM
If you look at the zip file in the first post with "_source" in it's name, that file will contain the raw data to build the calibration from source code. In the 87T2_Master.asm file, there are 2 lines that determine which map sensor to use. If you want 3 bar, set map2bar to 0 and map3bar to 1, it's the opposite if you want 2 bar. After selecting which map you want, you need to run chemasmlm.exe to build the .bin calibration. From there, you can tweak it with dcal or chem however you want to.

Right. The true source of the entire cal is the assembly source (the ASM file). When you assemble this, you get a BIN, which you then tune using D-Cal or ChEM or whatever. Switching the MAP sensor affects a lot of tables and constants. In the past, one had to take the 2-bar cal and hand edit every single one in D-Cal (or a hex editor way back in the day). Now you can create the BIN with either 2-bar or 3-bar tables preinstalled.

The trick is that you need to decide this first. Once you make the BIN and start calibrating it, you can't go back. There is currently no simple way of taking changes made to the BIN in D-Cal and reapply them to the ASM. If you want to change the MAP type later, you have to reassemble the BIN and start over. There are other things you can set at assembly time too. Some of these I have made switchable in DCal if you use my TBL file.

Here is how I make a cal with BB/LB:

1) Setup the source ASM the way I want (MAP, CEL mod, staging limiter, etc) and assemble it.

2) Load the binary into ChEM2 and use it to scale all the fuel tables for the injectors I am using. It does most of the work in one shot.

3) Load the result in D-Cal and get to work tweaking (usually pulling up a similar cal for comparison).

Frank
05-15-2008, 03:39 PM
Thanks guys.

Aries_Turbo
05-15-2008, 09:11 PM
shoot frank, i should have gone over all this stuff when you were here... oh well.

I tried out turbonator LM and it works well for me. startup is a little lean but I have the warmup curves set to stock 2.2L and my old cal had a hybrid 2.2/89_2.5L curve that seemed to work well. i basically overlayed the 2.5L over the one i was useing and all the places where the 2.5L was richer than the 2.2, i bumped up the 2.2. all the rest i left alone. seemed to work well and ill try it again.

drivability is great. much less "rabbit gas" at low speed puttering, partially i think because the injectors dont totally shut off as hard as the bb60 stuff.

antilag.... dunno if its doing anything. I have 9-10psi at 4500rpm while sitting there on the staging limiter. ill shut it off and see if it changes.

i havent checked the alky stuff yet. i need a piece of cat5 and some led's in the cabin to test easily.

knock.... the knock threshold is lower with the turbonator than the BB cause Geoff use the 89curve. I get a little knock at high gear, 10psi part throttle even though the fuel is perfect at +12.2/11.9 or somewhere near. timing calculated should be less at part throttle by about .5 deg with the way i have the tables setup. no biggie though. its only pulling 1deg i bet. ill check with the scanner.

18psi roll on quick rise boost still gives me knock retard at around 4000rpms in the higher gears but the alky will take care of that. its only a deg or two and it goes away at closer to 5k. i bet the coolant mod to the head would work well to combat that too.

overall, this cal works nice. i still have to try the switchable boost and id like a little less boost at part throttle as it rips the tires some at 10psi in 1st and sometimes second.

Brian

Frank
05-15-2008, 09:40 PM
I have to reassemble the bin file first. I had gotten the cal all done and realized that it was for a 3-bar. Once I reassemble it tomorrow, it should only take me a little bit to get it ready for the car... the only thing is I have to learn how to assemble the bin via the command line and it's options, etc.

Should be easy enough.


Frank

ShelGame
05-16-2008, 07:06 AM
There should be a batch file included that'll assemble it for you. Just make your changes to the .asm and run the .bat. You'll need to get a copy of Geoff's LM-customized assembler from MoparChem.com. I guess I could include it in my distribution; but it's Geoff's software, so I didn't.

Frank
05-16-2008, 07:53 AM
There should be a batch file included that'll assemble it for you. Just make your changes to the .asm and run the .bat. You'll need to get a copy of Geoff's LM-customized assembler from MoparChem.com. I guess I could include it in my distribution; but it's Geoff's software, so I didn't.

ya I figured that out. I also figured out that I needed the .exe in the same directory as that cal. I tend to have folders that represent revisions of things I am working on. :)

Frank
05-16-2008, 10:04 AM
I moved posts to http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25354

cordes
05-24-2008, 09:22 PM
Who all is using this code these days? I put it in my car after carrying over some of the changes from BB60stock that I liked and it is running smoother than ever. My AFR is looking great in the short run to the pizza place I took tonight.

There are two interesting things I noticed this evening though.

1. My power loss light now works again. I thought the bulb had burnt out, but I guess BB60stock didn't like it functional?

2. My car won't rev past the upper limit of the staging mod rev limiter now. I haven't used it in a while, so I guess it could be my SDS going out. I will try again tomorrow with a cal that has the staging mod turned off. The staging mod did work great although it did not sound like it was pulling any timing at all.

Aries_Turbo
05-24-2008, 10:21 PM
im using it. works well. i had to make all kinds of changes to run the 2.5L but other than a little lean at cold idle, it runs well.

I need to test the alky injection outputs and do a comparison between antilag and no antilag and see how much that changes things.

Brian

risen
05-24-2008, 10:29 PM
I'm not running it ATM since BB60 matches my setup pretty well out of the box since I have a 89 cb and swirl head, and bb60 uses mostly 89 tables. I will say that when I was running it I noticed 2 things.

The first was that the staging limiter seemed much smoother than bb60's (it didn't seem to surge as hard).

The second was that the anti-lag would sound my BOV much harder and actually build 2 or 3 psi boost while staging.

I think it wasn't building more boost because there was still too much timing in the cal for my car as I hadn't touched the timing curves. It ran good, it was just easier for me to stay with bb60. I am thinking about putting my intercooler sprayer on the meth pump switch in the turbonator cal when I put it in.

Aries_Turbo
05-31-2008, 12:21 PM
ok, I tested a few things last night and am still in the process ie not done.

ALKY

I hooked up a relay to the purge circuit with a long wire in the car and to that my voltmeter set to beep on continuity and hooked to the relay contacts.

I had the pump turn on set to 5.36psi and off at 3.8psi. then i went for a drive. unfortunately it was turning on at ~20inhg and back off at ~15inhg. so not turning on in boost but in vacuum. i have the config turned on in the cal.

im not done messing around yet. i have to figure out the wiring for the old cruise control stuff and i want to burn a chip with all the setpoints set the same so i can get a better test of whats going on.

ok, the cruise outputs.... do they ground out when on or do they supply voltage? i cant tell from a wiring diagram. I know there is a 4 pin connector that went to the vacuum actuator and one of the pins goes through the brake switch and back to the ecu and one goes directly to ground and one for cruise vent and the other for cruise vacuum. i just dont know what state the the cruise vent and cruise vac triggers are in when energized; connected to ground through the LM or connected to +12 from the LM?

im leaning being connected to Ground when energized as most of the circuits in the ECU are like that cause NPN transistors were cheaper back in the day im pretty sure.

anyone know the operation of the purge solenoid stock?

what im leaning towards is that the range of the constant might be off? its set pretty low so the range might be from -14.7 to 29.4 rather than 0-44psi?

Brian

Aries_Turbo
06-02-2008, 12:45 PM
no one knows how the cruise control outputs work?

i might have to just try and hope i dont trash anything.

Brian

ShelGame
06-02-2008, 01:08 PM
ok, I tested a few things last night and am still in the process ie not done.

ALKY

I hooked up a relay to the purge circuit with a long wire in the car and to that my voltmeter set to beep on continuity and hooked to the relay contacts.

I had the pump turn on set to 5.36psi and off at 3.8psi. then i went for a drive. unfortunately it was turning on at ~20inhg and back off at ~15inhg. so not turning on in boost but in vacuum. i have the config turned on in the cal.

im not done messing around yet. i have to figure out the wiring for the old cruise control stuff and i want to burn a chip with all the setpoints set the same so i can get a better test of whats going on.

ok, the cruise outputs.... do they ground out when on or do they supply voltage? i cant tell from a wiring diagram. I know there is a 4 pin connector that went to the vacuum actuator and one of the pins goes through the brake switch and back to the ecu and one goes directly to ground and one for cruise vent and the other for cruise vacuum. i just dont know what state the the cruise vent and cruise vac triggers are in when energized; connected to ground through the LM or connected to +12 from the LM?

im leaning being connected to Ground when energized as most of the circuits in the ECU are like that cause NPN transistors were cheaper back in the day im pretty sure.

anyone know the operation of the purge solenoid stock?

what im leaning towards is that the range of the constant might be off? its set pretty low so the range might be from -14.7 to 29.4 rather than 0-44psi?

Brian

Basically, you're right. MAP is shown in MAP absolute (0 - 44.1). I'll change the range to be MAP guage(-14.7 - 29.4). This is true for all of the Alky constants...

AFAIK, all of the driven outputs are grounded by the ECU. Easy enough to check - see if there is 12v on one terminal of the solenoid (with the ignition on).

Aries_Turbo
06-02-2008, 03:55 PM
Basically, you're right. MAP is shown in MAP absolute (0 - 44.1). I'll change the range to be MAP guage(-14.7 - 29.4). This is true for all of the Alky constants...

AFAIK, all of the driven outputs are grounded by the ECU. Easy enough to check - see if there is 12v on one terminal of the solenoid (with the ignition on).

problem is that there is a output on the computer that goes through the brake switch that is interrupted when you hit the brakes that goes to the connector for the cruise control solenoids/actuator. i dunno, it might be power and that the solenoids go dead when you hit the brakes and that it is energized when you turn the cruise on. problem is that my car doesnt have any of the other cruise stuff to test. also there is a wire to the connector that goes to ground too?

the connector is like this:

[ GND - Wire from ECM/through the Brake Switch - Cruise Vent - Cruise Vac ]

Im gonna go out and probe wires and snag the cruise servo and take it apart/probe stuff in it.

Brian

MiniMopar
06-04-2008, 09:00 AM
The cruise circuitry changed every year 86-88 due to where in the car the real control happened. What year's diagrams are you referring to? Most of the drivers are common-emitter types, which means they can only drive a source to ground. The brake switch has a set of contacts for cruise, but my memory is a little fuzzy with how it works. I know they make darn sure that even if something goes wrong with the cruise control, hitting the brake pedal will cut it.

Aries_Turbo
06-04-2008, 10:35 PM
im dealing with 87 H body harness.

Im going to hook 12v to my relays (80ohm coil) for the alky injection and then to the Cruise Vac and Cruise Vent and see if it works. either way it shouldnt mess up. if they were +12v outputs, it will just not do anything. +12V and +12V from the same source is still +12V. :)

Brian

cordes
06-04-2008, 10:41 PM
How much timing to most two steps pull? I have the rev limiter working well now that I have changed my SDS, but it doesn't sound or act like it is pulling timing at all.

risen
06-04-2008, 11:18 PM
How much timing to most two steps pull? I have the rev limiter working well now that I have changed my SDS, but it doesn't sound or act like it is pulling timing at all.

Did you enable the anti-lag? I think it only pulls timing if it's enabled. Anyways, when I tested turbonator on my car with 8 degrees removed, it would sound the BOV much harder than bb60 would after 3-5 seconds on the limiter.

cordes
06-04-2008, 11:24 PM
Did you enable the anti-lag? I think it only pulls timing if it's enabled. Anyways, when I tested turbonator on my car with 8 degrees removed, it would sound the BOV much harder than bb60 would after 3-5 seconds on the limiter.

What box are you checking, or not checking to enable it?

ETA: I have the anti-lag retard box checked under the configurationflags heading.

I just looked at how much timing I have it set to pull, and it wasn't pulling any out below 1.8PSI. I would think that I would still notice it, but I haven't upped my staging limiter which is only at 3K and I have been driving the car rather easily lately, so perhaps I am just not noticing it when I am in boost, and I don't notice it while using the staging mod since I am not really building any boost?

risen
06-05-2008, 12:08 AM
What box are you checking, or not checking to enable it?

ETA: I have the anti-lag retard box checked under the configurationflags heading.

I just looked at how much timing I have it set to pull, and it wasn't pulling any out below 1.8PSI. I would think that I would still notice it, but I haven't upped my staging limiter which is only at 3K and I have been driving the car rather easily lately, so perhaps I am just not noticing it when I am in boost, and I don't notice it while using the staging mod since I am not really building any boost?

It's been a couple months since I looked at it so I don't remember what my exact settings were. But with my limiter set @ 3k rpm, it would build 2-3 psi of boost. bb60 would barely creep into the positive territory.

ShelGame
06-05-2008, 07:04 AM
What box are you checking, or not checking to enable it?

ETA: I have the anti-lag retard box checked under the configurationflags heading.

I just looked at how much timing I have it set to pull, and it wasn't pulling any out below 1.8PSI. I would think that I would still notice it, but I haven't upped my staging limiter which is only at 3K and I have been driving the car rather easily lately, so perhaps I am just not noticing it when I am in boost, and I don't notice it while using the staging mod since I am not really building any boost?

As supplied, Anti-lag won't do anything until you start to build boost (>0psi guage). That's because I setup the anti-lag retard table to pull 0 timing up to ~2psi (?) delta to boost goal. You could set that table to pull timing even at 0 boost goal delta, but then it would pull that amount of timing any time you are at WOT. Anti-lag doesn't work only in conjunction with the staging limiter - it also works on a roll. It works any time you got WOT, actually. The only difference for the staging limiter is, it will also work at part throttle while staging (but only while staging).

cordes
06-05-2008, 10:04 AM
As supplied, Anti-lag won't do anything until you start to build boost (>0psi guage). That's because I setup the anti-lag retard table to pull 0 timing up to ~2psi (?) delta to boost goal. You could set that table to pull timing even at 0 boost goal delta, but then it would pull that amount of timing any time you are at WOT. Anti-lag doesn't work only in conjunction with the staging limiter - it also works on a roll. It works any time you got WOT, actually. The only difference for the staging limiter is, it will also work at part throttle while staging (but only while staging).

Thanks for that explanation Rob. I will get this thing figured out yet.

cordes
06-08-2008, 01:17 PM
Just to be clear as to how it works, the anti-lag feature only pulls timing when there is a difference between the current boost level and the boost goal while the car is at WOT or the staging mod is activate correct?

ShelGame
06-08-2008, 03:52 PM
No, not correct.

Anti-lag will lookup the value in the Anti-Lag retard table (based on the difference between the boost target and the actual boost) and use that value to retard the timing. Whether or not it pulls timing depends on how the table is setup.

Anti-lag is active under 2 different circumstances when enabled as an option:

1) Anytime at WOT.

2) Anytime the staging limiter is 'active'; ie, limiting the RPM. Whether at WOT or not.

So, it will work when staging, but it will also work without the staging limiter at all.

cordes
06-08-2008, 04:42 PM
No, not correct.

Anti-lag will lookup the value in the Anti-Lag retard table (based on the difference between the boost target and the actual boost) and use that value to retard the timing. Whether or not it pulls timing depends on how the table is setup.

Anti-lag is active under 2 different circumstances when enabled as an option:

1) Anytime at WOT.

2) Anytime the staging limiter is 'active'; ie, limiting the RPM. Whether at WOT or not.

So, it will work when staging, but it will also work without the staging limiter at all.

OK, that is how I thought it was supposed to work. Shouldn't the timing table be a negative slope then? Otherwise it will continue to pull timing all the way to 29.9? Am I just looking at this wrong?

ShelGame
06-08-2008, 07:18 PM
OK, that is how I thought it was supposed to work. Shouldn't the timing table be a negative slope then? Otherwise it will continue to pull timing all the way to 29.9? Am I just looking at this wrong?


That table is not Boost - it's delta to boost target. (or, boost target minus boost actual). So, if your target is 30psi and you're at 0psi actual, then yes it will pull timing. But, if you are at 28psi actual, it won't (30-28psi = 2psi) - at least the way I set up the table. Obviously, it's tuneable...

cordes
06-08-2008, 08:04 PM
OK, I think I understood it properly the first time, but didn't word it correctly. Thanks for clarifying yet again. You must feel like you are explaining this to a rock. :o

ShelGame
06-09-2008, 06:58 AM
No, not at all. I really need to document better...

MiniMopar
06-09-2008, 04:12 PM
I spent a few hours this weekend merging my BB60 changes into your source. Mostly chem tag cleanups so that I could properly compare my current cal with this one and start applying table changes plus a few tweaks that I have done to the code. Sadly, my EMP-10 seems to have kicked the proverbial bucket as I could not get it to work. I ordered a new USB-only Willem which will also make flashing at the track a lot simpler.

So, my trial will have to wait. I applied my fueling changes and some other odds and ends but left the advance tables alone for the moment. I set the boost to 12/15psi for now until I sort out the rest of the tables. If memory serves, the shape of things above 15psi is not ideal in the advance tables. My concern comes from the fact that a few of the other advance tables in your cal do not match mine, even though I did not touch them from BB60. Thus it is probably best to start over.

I look forward to trying the anti-lag.

ShelGame
06-09-2008, 05:25 PM
The advance tables in T-LM are copied from BB60_Stock that Brian and Jeff Chojnaki, et all worked on. As far as I know, they are the original '87 T2 advance tables.

You're right, the advance over 15psi is not tuned at all by Chrysler. They never intended this stuff to go that high...

amcpacer
06-10-2008, 02:38 AM
Rob, your cal sounds awesome! I just finished converting my 85 Laser to TII status with socketed 87 electronics. I am trying to change some fueling and ignition curves to work with my G-Head 2.2. Your cal is loaded with so many options!

Currently I have a water injection system that is controlled by some adjustable pressure switches. I plan to dump the pressure switches and use the LM to control the flow solenoid relays directly. Luckily my laser has the old style cruise control that does not rely on the LM so cruise can still work while the water injector mods are in place. It looks like I have lots of trial and error tuning in my future.

Stratman
06-17-2008, 06:48 PM
I've been neglecting the poor CSX for a couple months now and really want to flash this code into the car for testing at the track. Since the F4 cam and lower stall converter I've lost alot of power down in the lower RPM band. It does spool if you brake boost it, but it takes a little more time now than it used to. At this point I don't think I can pull off the 1.72 60' like I have last year. Have any of you tried the anti-lag while stalling the auto trans yet?

MiniMopar
06-18-2008, 04:32 PM
OK, so I am on rev 2 of this cal. It needs some tuning, but it works. The idle is aweful...too lean when cold but even when warm and at stoich it is very rough. The timing needs some more tuning, as it's a bit of a dog in some places and the EGTs at full boost are higher than they were with my BB60.14 cal. The switchable boost feature doesn't seem to work either, so I'll have to look at that.

That said the main reason I am trying this cal, the anti-lag mod, works! Before I could not reach full boost (21psi) until 4000 RPM best case. Now I can get there around 3200-3500! The best part is not so much about when I hit full boost, but rather the spool rate. Getting to 10-15psi sooner means more usable power sooner. I think I am going to change how it works though as I don't like what it does to drivablility when I accidentally cross into WOT at low RPMs. There is no hope or intention of getting into boost below 2000 RPM and adding 8 degrees of retard makes it a dog. My plan is to add a retard vs RPM table and have the routine use the lesser value of the new table and the current retard vs delta-MAP table. That way the effect can be rolled-in smoothly at low RPMs.

Thanks for your hard work, Rob! I've done some additional chem tag fixes and will post the final result once I have the bugs worked out.

Aries_Turbo
06-18-2008, 09:55 PM
yeah mine idles rough and is cranky during cold idle and a warm restart too but im working on it. i think i need to pull some timing at idle.

on mine, if you lug the engine, it gets pig rich below 1000rpms and wants to stall really bad. you have to push the clutch in and goose the gas a little.

im going to pull the adaptives and do some low speed, vacuum tuning soon. does anyone know the ranges for each adaptive cell? i mean 5 blocks from -X psi to 0psi and what are the two rpm ranges? its useless for tuning if you dont know the ranges that you are looking at.

Brian

risen
06-19-2008, 12:34 AM
Well since everyone else is coming out of the closet, I'll share my experiences from tuning the cal in this week too (and I thought it was just me, lol). I originally built the cal and copied in my spark and fuel tables from my bb60 cal. While the full throttle and part throttle tables were great, I was getting a rich decel (like 10-12 afr) when I'd snap the throttle shut. I made adjustments to the no throttle table and things are better, but I found it curious that I couldn't just copy the fuel tables.

I do have the same idle problem, it's a bit of a roll in my car and seems to follow the vaccum. I believe that Geoff had set the idle in bb60 to have a static amount of advance, I may try that once I'm satisified with the rest of the cal. I can deal with a poor idle, it's a weekend car.

I don't have any real good info on the anti-lag in my car, but the boost guage comes up to 20 in a much more linear fashion. It was lazy from 15-20 before, but now it snaps right up. It's also much more responsive part throttle, it's was almost hard to control at first. I've gotten used to the part throttle response, I don't know if I'll ever be able to go back to a cal without anti-lag.

Russ: have you thought about lowering the boost vs rpm table instead of adding things? That would allow you to set the boost goal low @ 2k rpm, and the antilag shouldn't pull any (or much) timing if your delta is low.

MiniMopar
06-19-2008, 03:10 AM
Russ: have you thought about lowering the boost vs rpm table instead of adding things? That would allow you to set the boost goal low @ 2k rpm, and the antilag shouldn't pull any (or much) timing if your delta is low.

That is a good idea. I will try that. Didn't even occur to me.

Have you tried the hi/lo boost feature? I was able to just drop my fuel and spark tables from BB60 into this cal and it works largely the same.

One note, Rob's PEFTBL is wildly different from stock 87 T2. BB42 had two PEFTBLs, the original 87 with just a few points and a new table with a lot more points and a very different curve. BB60 only had the stock table while Rob's is more like BB42's.

I also pulled up my CSX Stage II cal with a modified TBL file that allows proper comparisons of whatever tables are in there. The rest of Rob's cal is pretty much like stock. The issue with the idle must be one of Geoff's spark scatter mods gone awry.

ShelGame
06-19-2008, 07:21 AM
That is a good idea. I will try that. Didn't even occur to me.

Have you tried the hi/lo boost feature? I was able to just drop my fuel and spark tables from BB60 into this cal and it works largely the same.

One note, Rob's PEFTBL is wildly different from stock 87 T2. BB42 had two PEFTBLs, the original 87 with just a few points and a new table with a lot more points and a very different curve. BB60 only had the stock table while Rob's is more like BB42's.

I also pulled up my CSX Stage II cal with a modified TBL file that allows proper comparisons of whatever tables are in there. The rest of Rob's cal is pretty much like stock. The issue with the idle must be one of Geoff's spark scatter mods gone awry.

FWIW, I pulled ALL of Geoff's code mods out of T-LM (well, except for the Speed Sensitive Aero, I thought that was pretty cool).

Not sure why it would idle poorly. As far as I can tell, I got everything back to stock. Maybe I need to look at it again...

Also, my experience with anti-lag was less than sucessful. But, I don't think it's the code. My Mitsu turbo is shot. With the stock code, it would spool to 18psi in about 1sec (looking at datalogs). Now, it spools to 15-16psi, hangs there for several seconds and slowly climbs up to 18psi. Anti-lag didn't help it at all, but I'm not sure anything would help this turbo except a trip to the recyclers...

risen
06-19-2008, 08:58 AM
That is a good idea. I will try that. Didn't even occur to me.

Have you tried the hi/lo boost feature? I was able to just drop my fuel and spark tables from BB60 into this cal and it works largely the same.


I didn't try the hi/lo feature because I don't have a switch for it at the moment. I did notice that the leanout off throttle table (forget it's exact name) was different between the 2 cals, maybe I should look more closely at that table.




One note, Rob's PEFTBL is wildly different from stock 87 T2. BB42 had two PEFTBLs, the original 87 with just a few points and a new table with a lot more points and a very different curve. BB60 only had the stock table while Rob's is more like BB42's.


I'm pretty sure there's 3 pumpeff tables in the bb60 source, 2 are commented out. I've tried all 3 of the pumpeff tables in bb60, but the one in turbonator v6 suits my car pretty well, so I haven't needed to mess with it. Geoff's "hacked" peff table from bb was too rich in the upper rpm range for my car.

cordes
06-19-2008, 09:46 AM
I have been having the same issues as everyone else. Changing the fuelleanoutoffthrottle table to where I had it adjusted from BB60 and any tweaks I made solved the rich condition on deceleration. Now it is really lean off throttle, but there isn't any popping etc. coming out of the exhaust so I am happy with it. I would think that a value somewhere in between the stock TLM table and the BB60 would give a nice AFR.

MiniMopar
06-19-2008, 03:52 PM
Yeah, the decel mixture is a little touchy when you have a loud exhaust. BB60 was lean during decel partly due to the bottom of the FuelNoThrottle table, but also a scaled-down FuelLeanoutFactorOffThrottle.

MiniMopar
06-20-2008, 11:31 AM
OK, so messing with the boost vs RPM table seems to allow me to do what I wanted. Cool. Not much progress with the idle....

risen
06-30-2008, 05:39 PM
Is anyone else getting spark blow out with this cal? It seems that I occasionally get one or 2 missed sparks up by 5k rpm where my bb60 didn't. Datalogs show brief lean spikes, and I can feel and hear the pop in the exhaust so I'm pretty certian that it's not sparking. I need to run my bb60 cal again for a while to confirm it's not doing the same thing.

I know there's a thousand other items that could cause it, but my hep, wires, cap and rotor have less than 2k on them. My plugs and coil have less than 500mi. I still had the factory coil and plugs were a little old (but by no means bad) so I swapped them last weekend. I've also tried my ngk gr-5 and I'm currently running br9es gapped to .030. Both sets of plugs act the same.

As a side note, I've been looking @ msd boxes (6al-2), which is probably good all around, but figured I'd post first. Anyone else running one?

MiniMopar
06-30-2008, 05:55 PM
Is anyone else getting spark blow out with this cal? It seems that I occasionally get one or 2 missed sparks up by 5k rpm where my bb60 didn't. Datalogs show brief lean spikes, and I can feel and hear the pop in the exhaust so I'm pretty certian that it's not sparking. I need to run my bb60 cal again for a while to confirm it's not doing the same thing.

I know there's a thousand other items that could cause it, but my hep, wires, cap and rotor have less than 2k on them. My plugs and coil have less than 500mi. I still had the factory coil and plugs were a little old (but by no means bad) so I swapped them last weekend. I've also tried my ngk gr-5 and I'm currently running br9es gapped to .030. Both sets of plugs act the same.

As a side note, I've been looking @ msd boxes (6al-2), which is probably good all around, but figured I'd post first. Anyone else running one?

I've had some of that with BB60 on cold mornings. I can't remember if I decided it was too much ro not enough advance, but you might look into that. I also put a MSD Blaster 2 coil in, which cleared up the other occasional miss I'd have an high boost/high RPM.

risen
06-30-2008, 06:25 PM
I've had some of that with BB60 on cold mornings. I can't remember if I decided it was too much ro not enough advance, but you might look into that. I also put a MSD Blaster 2 coil in, which cleared up the other occasional miss I'd have an high boost/high RPM.

That's exactly what I replaced my factory coil with, so I'm good on that account. It's been happening on 80-95 degree days after I've let the car fully warm up. Pretty much just driving it to get lunch or something and tag it hard, 1st->2nd->3rd and near the top of 3rd it will miss sometimes. I'm going to pop the cap and hit the rotor and terminals with some scotch-brite to clean them up.

MiniMopar
06-30-2008, 06:52 PM
You can try to gap-down the plugs to see if it is an issue with ignition output or something else. In my case, I had to tweak the cold spark table a bit. Where do you have the constant that switches from the cold advance tables set to?

Aries_Turbo
06-30-2008, 10:52 PM
ive had a few studders around 5800 with my 2.5L when i was revving it out but i thought that was 2nd gear... maybe it was third. it was fine today in 1st and 2nd. i have fresh wires and plugs gapped at .028" i think and the coil has never given me problems. ive had high rpm misses with other cals before too. RP, BB60 and this one. i usually dont shift that high so i dont bother to tune up there either.

Brian

MiniMopar
07-01-2008, 12:32 AM
Yeah, I know what you mean. I had a tired coil in the CSX for a long time (was leaking oil), but I nenver did anything about it because it worked fine. I usually shifted around 5500 because power would really taper off. I can't remember if it was when I got the adjustable cam sprocket dialed in or when I put the full 3" exhaust on it, but I was able to wake up the redline and noticed a break up. I put an old used Blaster 2 from JT in there and it fixed it right up!

risen
07-01-2008, 09:18 AM
My plugs are currently @ .030 maybe I'll try going down to .028 and see if that clears it up. I'm curious to see if .002 makes much of a difference. The hot-rod shop I bought the coil from was shocked to hear that I reduced the gap on the plugs, he thought I should go wider. Nevermind the look I got when I pointed to the CSX and told him it was for that car out in the parking log. :)

Frank
07-01-2008, 09:50 AM
What changes has everyone made to the FuelLeanoutFactorOffThrottle? I was thinking about shifting it so that it is <1 below 3k rpms and >1 above 3k rpms. For me, 70mph is pushing 3k rpms and I am trying to really make this thing fuel efficent.

I am going to lean out my WOT and PART fuel tables a bit more when at cruise. I have bumped them from an average of 14.6 to 14.8. This was with a drop in 1ms of PW. I am going to attempt a 15.4 before Carlisle. Right now I am pushing 30mpg and want more.

cordes
07-01-2008, 10:08 AM
What changes has everyone made to the FuelLeanoutFactorOffThrottle? I was thinking about shifting it so that it is <1 below 3k rpms and >1 above 3k rpms. For me, 70mph is pushing 3k rpms and I am trying to really make this thing fuel efficent.

I am going to lean out my WOT and PART fuel tables a bit more when at cruise. I have bumped them from an average of 14.6 to 14.8. This was with a drop in 1ms of PW. I am going to attempt a 15.4 before Carlisle. Right now I am pushing 30mpg and want more.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/photopost/data/500/fuelleanoutoffthrottle.gif

This is a screen shot of stock TLM cal open and BB60 in the background.The red dots is about where I was at with my last cal for that table. It would read "LEAN" on my WBO2 when off throttle this way.

in regard to leaning out the cal with the part throttle table, the cal will still search for 14.7 when you take fuel out. I have found that there is a sweet spot where you can get it to run a little leaner without making it angry for not being able to run where it should. My question is how do we get it to search for about 16:1 or so while at part throttle? I think that would be a better route, but that is just my experience.

ShelGame
07-01-2008, 10:26 AM
If you want to run leaner at P/T, adjust the adaptive cell kicks.

For example, the Priamry Cell 1 kicks might be 1a 1a. That's 1a counts to the rich side, and 1a counts to the lean side. Theoretically, having the kicks equal will cause it to run near stoic. If you decrease the rich kicks (the first byte), or increase the lean kicks, it should make the engine run leaner on average. Adjusting the P/T table leaner will not have as much of an effect, I think, due to the adaptives. But, adjusting the kicks should have a bigger effect. You'll have to adjust all of the primary and secondary cells. I wouldn't bump them more than a couple kicks at a time unitl you get a feel for how far to go. For example, the MP cal (that runs really rich at P/T) has the same kicks set to 1a 05, which is what causes it to run richer than stock. Finally, the numbers are signed hex, so a value of $fd is actually -$02.

There are 10 cells + an idle cell. Each cell has a specific MAP and RPM range that it works in.



closed throttle = cell 12 (idle), otherwise:
$ff
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 |
R1 >+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
rpm^ +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
map> MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MP5 $ff


R1 and MP1-5 are constants in the cal. You can look them up if you want to know the value.

EDIT: Doh! Why does the forum software always remove the extra spaces? Makes building a table really difficult. If you need a better illustration, look for it in the .asm file...

MiniMopar
07-01-2008, 10:43 AM
Is there a way just to change the stoich goal? Someone (again, memory failure, Cordes?) was talking to me about a constant that is believed to be the O2 sensor encoded value for stoich. It seems like this could be bumped just a tad to make it run on the lean side.

cordes
07-01-2008, 10:49 AM
Is there a way just to change the stoich goal? Someone (again, memory failure, Cordes?) was talking to me about a constant that is believed to be the O2 sensor encoded value for stoich. It seems like this could be bumped just a tad to make it run on the lean side.

Yes, I was wondering if there was a constant that was the stoich goal. I thought that I came in at the end of a conversation at SDAC where someone was talking about adjusting the cal to run leaner by changing the goal for it to toggle to. I just caught the very end of it though.

boost geek
07-01-2008, 12:23 PM
My plugs are currently @ .030 maybe I'll try going down to .028 and see if that clears it up. I'm curious to see if .002 makes much of a difference. The hot-rod shop I bought the coil from was shocked to hear that I reduced the gap on the plugs, he thought I should go wider. Nevermind the look I got when I pointed to the CSX and told him it was for that car out in the parking log. :)

I have mine gapped at .022.

risen
07-01-2008, 02:09 PM
Yes, I was wondering if there was a constant that was the stoich goal. I thought that I came in at the end of a conversation at SDAC where someone was talking about adjusting the cal to run leaner by changing the goal for it to toggle to. I just caught the very end of it though.

Jeff C and I were discussing things along this line in an email conversation. Basically, we were wondering if the cal could be tweaked to read the analog wideband output (0-5v). If we could find the constant that sets the toggle point, and adjust it so that it's toggle point would be 2.5 v (for stoic) or like 2.8v (for 15.4 or so). I'm not sure if the linear map of a wideband will help by being more sensitive, meaning car strays less from desired afr, or if it will cause all sorts of crazy behavior because it's too sensitive.

I know that lc-1's can be setup to fool the ecu based upon the simulated narroband output, but that's no good for the techedge and zietronics folks.

Frank
07-11-2008, 09:53 AM
I think there might be a mistake that has prerpetuated itself thru some of these calibrations. The following hex values are in the calibration...



table_name hex dec volts af
o2rampswtchhighlimit 19 25 0.488 14.56
o2rampswtchlowlimit 18 24 0.469 14.58
o2closedloophighlimit 1F 31 0.605 14.43
o2closedlooplowlimit 0F 15 0.293 14.74
o2midlevelhighlimit 1C 28 0.547 14.53
o2midlevellowlimit 12 18 0.352 14.80


Now considering these calibrations are to be centered around 14.6, I find it odd that rampswitchlowlimit, is a bit off, while the others are only off a little bit. Well since I am now running the NBsim into the computer and it sits where the cat was, I have noticed that is overshoots the rampswitch values and acts more sensitive in other regards. So during a discussion with Brian, we felt that because the computer was setup for a 3 wire and I am now essentially running a 4 wire, I should look at the SMEC values and compare to see how those are setup. Well they are indeed tighter. Since I am not running at cat, I tightened the ramp values up even more. Since I want 14.7, I recentered everything around it.

This is what I now have....



table_name hex dec volts af
o2rampswtchhighlimit 14 20 0.385 14.65
o2rampswtchlowlimit 0F 15 0.285 14.75
o2closedloophighlimit 1C 28 0.549 14.50
o2closedlooplowlimit 0A 10 0.205 14.90
o2midlevelhighlimit 17 23 0.440 14.60
o2midlevellowlimit 0D 13 0.249 14.80

It works like a champ! She autocal'ed suprisingly fast and it is fairly stable at cruise bouncing around 14.6 to 14.8

cordes
07-11-2008, 12:17 PM
That is great Frank. That is a pretty wide sweep from what I have seen with any of my other cals though. Is it pretty smooth as it makes that large of a transition? Would the middle of the sweep be in the low 16s now?

Frank
07-11-2008, 01:57 PM
That is great Frank. That is a pretty wide sweep from what I have seen with any of my other cals though. Is it pretty smooth as it makes that large of a transition? Would the middle of the sweep be in the low 16s now?

Uhh? I tightened the sweep and only shifted it from being centered around 14.6 to 14.7.

cordes
07-11-2008, 02:02 PM
It works like a champ! She autocal'ed suprisingly fast and it is fairly stable at cruise bouncing around 14.6 to 17.8

I sense a typo then. I wasn't sure so that's why I asked. :thumb:

Aries_Turbo
07-12-2008, 12:09 AM
frank (king typo), you wrote 17.8 for the high value. lol

Brian

Frank
07-12-2008, 06:54 AM
I sense a typo then. I wasn't sure so that's why I asked. :thumb:


frank (king typo), you wrote 17.8 for the high value. lol

Brian

Jezz. I read that thing 5 times and my mind couldn't see it. Ya, 14.8

Aries_Turbo
07-15-2008, 09:57 PM
ok.... can anybody tell me why i get 9 degrees electronic advance when i am at idle and anytime i let off the throttle?

if i let off the throttle at real high rpm i might get 10 deg advance and then when i ease onto the throttle just a little, im at like 23 deg of elec advance.... ie what the tables tell me i should have.

i wonder if this has anything to do why TLM has crap idle for so many.

any time the throttle is closed i get ~9 deg. any other time it follows the tables.

thanks

cordes
07-15-2008, 09:59 PM
That certainly could explain the idle. I am wondering just how far off some of the things in BB60stock were from actual 87' TII still, and if this could be resultant of that.

risen
07-16-2008, 12:29 AM
From the brief look I just took at the code it appears that the cal uses the PNIDLE table when @ idle and skips most of the calculations. The comments for the table say that the value is subtracted from the advance, however it looks to me like the code actually adds the value from the table (which may work out the way the comment says if the value is negative).

ShelGame
07-16-2008, 04:22 AM
That table (PNIDLE) has a zero return in every turbo cal. It's basically never used. But, it appears Chrysler put it in to help with idle. It's a signed table, the lookup value is added to the final timing cale. So, maybe change it to ~3-4 degrees and see what happens.

Aries_Turbo
07-16-2008, 11:10 PM
it says automatic only in the stock 87t2 cal i was just looking at but not turbonator. ill check it out sometime soon.

Brian

cordes
07-17-2008, 12:09 AM
Is anyone running this cal without their charcoal canister hooked up? I see that TLM comes with it set on in the ASM file, and I hadn't noticed that today. I downloaded a couple of BB codes from a while back that would actually boost and they had it turned off by default. Could this be causing the code that I have been having (I realize that I have other issues right now) and limiting my boost? I know it seems far fetched, but I am running out of logical ideas after almost a year of chasing this problem.

ETA: That is the major difference that I can see between the cal which allowed boost and those that did not. I think I will test one of the old ones tomorrow to see if that solves any of my problems.

Aries_Turbo
07-17-2008, 09:21 PM
no canister on mine. the solenoid is used for something else too in mine.

i didnt get a chance to try changing the timing at idle yet but ill post updates.

the only thing that bugs me is that i shouldnt have to mess with timing at idle. i think there is something up.

Brian

Aries_Turbo
07-19-2008, 07:54 PM
.EngineIdle
lda RPM_W ; load a with memory contents
cmpa PNRPM_AdvanceParkNeutralIdleRPMSwitch ; compare a with memory contents (data is 01)
bhi .2 ; branch if higher
lda Z83_PortCdata ; load a with memory contents
bita #$08 ; * check park/neutral
bne .2 ; branch if not equal (not zero)
lda CoolantTemp ; load a with memory contents
ldx #PNIDLE_AdvanceParkNeutralIdle ; load index with value
jsr LookupTable ; call subroutine
adda Scratch_b6
sta Scratch_b6 ; store a into memory
.2 jmp L1694

ok i was looking at this.... the table description in an older stock 87 t2 cal (and a chrysler 88 T2 factory document) says auto only for this PNIDLE thing and the code checks the park/neutral switch.... so based on that, i shouldnt be able to use this for my car unless i ground that park neutral switch wire so that when it reads Z83_PortCData $08 it will allow the PNIDLE function to work properly.

is that what im gathering from the code?

I would also have to change ParkNeutralIdleRPMSwitch to a reasonable limit so that idle was below that rpm... say <1100rpms or something like that. now this doesnt solve my issue of when i back off the throttle when at speed, the timing drops really low. this issue makes the car difficult to putter around at low speed cause it wants to buck as the timing is changed a bunch with low movements of the throttle.

then there is this note in the assembly:


Returned the timing code back to stock. Previously, code for idle had been removed for auto trans. But, this code mod used P/T timing when at idle (rather than a constant value).

so Rob, are you saying that the stock code has the timing coded as a single value for idle like what im seeing from my scanner? where is the table/constant to adjust it?

Brian

ShelGame
07-19-2008, 09:00 PM
Only if you're running an auto trans. I forgot about the P/N check when I commented that. Geoff simply removed that code if you built the code for a manual.

Aries_Turbo
07-19-2008, 10:52 PM
oh ok.... so my ecu should be using HOTMAP and GOVNER to determine idle timing with the cal set to use a manual trans... ie the "AutoTrans Bit" not checked? could there be a goofup in the code for that that looks for the single timing value for idle even with a manual trans? any chance you can take another look at that? even if there isnt a goofup, where do you insert the timing value for the ecu to make that idle calculation?

now, theres still the issue of using the PNIDLE thing with a manual trans without grounding (i assume) that trans pin. now, can i comment out these lines to remove that requirement or does it mess with other stuff?


lda Z83_PortCdata ; load a with memory contents
bita #$08 ; * check park/neutral
bne .2 ; branch if not equal (not zero)

thanks

Brian

Aries_Turbo
07-20-2008, 12:37 AM
nevermind on all this timing at idle stuff. its not the issue.

i popped in my old RP cal (with some changes to better match it to my 2.5L that wasnt done originally) and it started and idled smooth as butter.

you know why, cause it has no 02 feedback at idle and sits there at 12.5 on the wideband. its based on MP.

then i took it out and let it warm up and when id let off the throttle, same 9 deg elec advance just like the turbonator stuff.

its gotta be in how the fuel is set up and idle control and stuff like that.

Brian

Aries_Turbo
07-20-2008, 12:50 AM
Now here is my next problem. I made two new versions of turbonator to test. unfortunately i pulled a simon ;) and changed a zillion things at once so i cant pinpoint the real issue yet.

I wanted to test out the switchable boost and i wanted to see how different the boost response is without the antilag so i shut that off. and i turned on the sw boost and set all those parameters. now heres the potential problem. even though it said to not use the AC switch, i was going to try anyway and see what happened cause i have the ac switch easily accessable. i made some other changes to but they arent related to this (lower starting fuel in the higher temps as it starts hard, fixed my fan values that i goofed up cause i didnt have the y axis limits set right, took a degree of timing out where i get knock retard when the boost hits hard, and also added a little fuel there cause it was lean on a full throttle 4th gear roll on, and changed my alky setpoints so i can test them later). so i popped in the switchable boost chip in clicked the key to start and the fuel pump kicked on and didnt shut off. i heard some relays and stuff clicking under the hood to so i shut it off. i then tried the non switchable boost chip that i made too and it did the same thing. though i had the switchable boost deselected, i still had that ac switch selected in the other config constant area. dunno if thats the issue or possibly the antilag.

ill have to roll back all those goofy changes and test just my fuel and spark changes and then go back out and start testing the other stuff one by one.

I still cant get over how must smoother the idle is on a MP based cal. not a miss, not a stumble at all. i dont even mind my solid mount with it cause its not shaking the piss out of the dash. id love to find that constant that turns off o2 feedback at idle and just tweak the no throttle curve to make the idle a little less rich.

risen
07-20-2008, 10:44 AM
I still cant get over how must smoother the idle is on a MP based cal. not a miss, not a stumble at all. i dont even mind my solid mount with it cause its not shaking the piss out of the dash. id love to find that constant that turns off o2 feedback at idle and just tweak the no throttle curve to make the idle a little less rich.
Just FYI, my BB60 based cal would toggle @ idle and it didn't have the idle issues that T-LM has. With regards to the timing changes that bb60 had, maybe the increase in timing from the part throttle table was enough to keep it running smoothly.

Aries_Turbo
07-20-2008, 02:31 PM
yeah mine wasnt as blubbery either but both of them will almost die upon releasing the throttle and pressing in the clutch and catch at ~800 rpms and then come back up to a slightly blubbery idle. its annoying.

i guess i dont want to make all kinds of goofy changes to the tables to get something to idle right when there might be something wrong with something else or if i could remove o2 feedback at idle and tune it manually.

Brian

Aries_Turbo
07-20-2008, 04:06 PM
ok so i tried every combo that i could with antilag on and off and switchable boost on and off and i couldnt get those cals to work. oh well. i tried the file that i "save as'd" to make them and it works fine so something probably got corrupted so i deleted it and im back to square one with that stuff.

oh well. luckily im motivated right now. :)

Brian

amcpacer
07-21-2008, 01:34 PM
I downloaded the Turbonator LM source and edited the text file to reflect 2bar instead of three and compiled the cal. I opened the cal up in Chem190 and switched on the alky injection flag. Then in zChem2 I scaled everything for 27pph injectors. Since I have an 85 turbo engine I changed a few of the timing curves to look similar to the 85DC/IC cal where there is much more advance from like -8psi to like -1psi. I put the cal in and the car starts right up and as idle rpms come down the exhaust begins to get richer and richer blowing out smoke and misfiring. It does however drive just fine and the rich condition goes away when the throttle is opened.

My question is how exactly would I go about leaning out idle fuel. The fuel no throttle and fuel part throttle say 0 pulsewidth when more than 12psi of vacuum are present. I even tried moving the pumping efficiency down in the low RPM range and finally the car wont start if it is adjusted too low. I am running 27pph injectors and I even tried doing a scale for injectors in zChem2 to select +20s hoping it would really lean it out since it was expecting larger injectors. The result was it would still idle way too rich but would hesitate and try to stall when the throttle is depressed. Forgive me I am not very knowledgeable yet on editing cals. I must be overlooking some table that determines idle pulsewidth.

Clay
07-21-2008, 02:03 PM
amcpacer - thats the way the first few versions of the turbonator cal worked for me as well, BUT I thought this was fixed in the latest version. Which version are you using?

amcpacer
07-21-2008, 02:33 PM
I compiled the ver6 source.

Aries_Turbo
07-21-2008, 09:46 PM
remember, -12psi vac is not -12inhg that your gauges may read. its something like 2.2ingh=-1psi

Brian

Aries_Turbo
07-22-2008, 05:19 PM
oh and just in case i seem like a complainer ;) i do appreciate the effort that has been put into this codebase and i am quite grateful for how it does work and run.

part of my idle issue might be the fact that im trying to get this to run smooth on a 2.5L rather than a 2.2.

everything might just be fine and i am the problem.

plus if you all had MP based stuff in your cars to start with, the occasional misfire sound that the stock setup makes is going to seem rough.

the other day when i said that i couldnt get some cals to start and run well.... that must have been some corruption in a file. i started over and all was well.

Brian

Clay
07-23-2008, 10:04 AM
oh absolutely Brian!! I do appreciate it too!! As soon as things calm down here a bit, I plan to get back on the turbonator horse and try to work some more stuff out. Thanks to guys like Rob and yourself, Im able to do some of this stuff!!!!

tvanlant
07-28-2008, 07:06 PM
Does anyone have the bugs worked out of the T-LM code?
If you have one that you like, would you mind sending it to me to try?


The main thing I am after is just the anti-lag feature.

Thanks

risen
07-29-2008, 12:31 PM
Does anyone have the bugs worked out of the T-LM code?
If you have one that you like, would you mind sending it to me to try?


The main thing I am after is just the anti-lag feature.

Thanks

The only real issue I have left is the idle problem but my car only sees a few hours of of driving per week so there may be other things I haven't fixed yet. I can send you a copy of mine. It's basically T-LM with bb60 tables.

I'm going to try and make some code adjustments to see what happens when I use the bb60 style advance calc.

risen
07-29-2008, 12:34 PM
I was looking through the transient tables and noticed that the enrichment for map was set to be scaled with injectors but the transient for tps enrich table wasn't. Shouldn't both tables be scaled for injectors? I know I get a real hard rich spike when I smack the throttle in my car and I'm wondering if one of those tables not being scaled properly is the cause.

tvanlant
07-29-2008, 01:03 PM
The only real issue I have left is the idle problem but my car only sees a few hours of of driving per week so there may be other things I haven't fixed yet. I can send you a copy of mine. It's basically T-LM with bb60 tables.

I'm going to try and make some code adjustments to see what happens when I use the bb60 style advance calc.

Sure, I'll give it a try and give you some feedback if you'd like.

Aries_Turbo
07-29-2008, 09:51 PM
i dont think the issue with idle is timing. both a stock cal and a RP cal and BB and TLM have 9 deg at hot idle.

the richest cal idles the best. we shouldnt be shooting for stoich at idle.... just a touch richer. that means messing with those kicks and limits and crap.

Brian

MiniMopar
07-29-2008, 09:55 PM
My BB idles smooth at stoich. I'm thinking it might be spark scatter or something like that.

Frank
07-29-2008, 10:07 PM
i dont think the issue with idle is timing. both a stock cal and a RP cal and BB and TLM have 9 deg at hot idle.

the richest cal idles the best. we shouldnt be shooting for stoich at idle.... just a touch richer. that means messing with those kicks and limits and crap.

Brian

Last I saw, even the BB code had those kicks and limits the same as T-LM

Aries_Turbo
07-30-2008, 05:03 AM
yeah i guess it could be spark scatter stuff but what is the difference between the two in the settings?

i dunno. its been a while but BB60 didnt idle that well for me either.

im going to try some of the MP kicks and limits and stuff.

Brian

Frank
07-30-2008, 06:53 AM
Ya the BB doesn't idle any different in my CSX either.

cordes
07-30-2008, 10:30 AM
BB60 will idle significantly better than T-LM for me. This would be without any changes to either, just the cals right out of the box.

MiniMopar
07-30-2008, 12:31 PM
Ya the BB doesn't idle any different in my CSX either.

Really? BB60 idles nice and smooth for me. The plot thickens....

Clay
07-30-2008, 02:33 PM
BB60 idles well for me also.

risen
07-30-2008, 05:38 PM
Do the people with the crappy BB60 idle all have automatics or have the cal set for an automatic transmission?

When I read through the code that was the only difference for the spark calculation. If the cal was setup for an automagic, the factory calc was left alone. If it's set for MTX then a good chunk of the spark calcs were skipped. Rob gave a good summary of how the spark calc was altered previously.

I just made myself a new T-LM cal with the bb60 style idle advance calc that I'm going to test soon.

Aries_Turbo
08-01-2008, 10:24 PM
hey, a long shot but i have a question.

any chance of making a custom mod just for testing that allows the timing advance and/or fuel to be able to be adjusted on a cylinder by cylinder basis?

im going to be making a hybrid engine and i want to be able to test different knock cyl locations and ensure that the knock sensor is "hearing" all the cyls somewhat evenly.

if thats too difficult, i wonder if the knock sensor voltage levels could be logged on a cyl by cyl basis. jeff chojnacki, if you read this sometime, please comment if something like that could be added to LMLog or SMECLog.

now something more reasonable. I think that we could use a low and high boost DLTKNK threshold table. i wonder how hard that could be to add.

I know everyone is busy so absolutely no rush. :)

Brian

jpcturbo
08-02-2008, 03:01 PM
Knock events happen really fast. Much faster than are currently able to log. The ECU does this for us by listing the retard per each cylinder.
Logging knock voltages for each cylinder would require a new mod for the cal. Perhaps some kind of DRB command that sets the ecu into a higher baud? and just spits out cylinder 1,2,3,4 knock voltages as the ecu evaluates them for cylinder knock. Maybe that would work.

Posting from the wife's family reunion in the UP, help me.

Jeff Chojnacki

BadAssPerformance
08-02-2008, 03:04 PM
...Posting from the wife's family reunion in the UP, help me.

Jeff Chojnacki

LOL! :lol:

cordes
08-02-2008, 11:06 PM
Posting from the wife's family reunion in the UP, help me.

Jeff Chojnacki

You poor soul. :(

Aries_Turbo
08-02-2008, 11:53 PM
Knock events happen really fast. Much faster than are currently able to log. The ECU does this for us by listing the retard per each cylinder.
Logging knock voltages for each cylinder would require a new mod for the cal. Perhaps some kind of DRB command that sets the ecu into a higher baud? and just spits out cylinder 1,2,3,4 knock voltages as the ecu evaluates them for cylinder knock. Maybe that would work.

Posting from the wife's family reunion in the UP, help me.

Jeff Chojnacki

hehe. at least you have a computer to post from while you are rotting up there. :)

yeah I know its super fast. but a scanner/logging program spits out knock voltage somehow.

actually, i dont need to log knock voltage when i have actual knock. i just need to datalog the noise coming out of the knock sensor circuit with reference to which cyl is causing that level so i know if the sensor is picking up all cyls.

i really dont want the car to be knocking at this point. i just want to determine a noise curve and to make sure im picking up all the cyls.

no rush though. car is broken anyway (input shaft bearing failure)

Brian

MiniMopar
08-03-2008, 10:15 PM
I tried to build a knock meter once using the raw sensor signal. It was quite difficult to get it to filter correctly and to know when to sample the voltage. I ended up using the coil driver output, but I never really got it to work satisfactorily. The ECU knows when to sample the sensor since it is in control of ignition. It also has a filter on it that I think is there to slug the decay of the voltage.

Aries_Turbo
08-04-2008, 11:48 AM
thats why i want to view the memory location with reference to cyl firing. the OTC scanner (an i think jeffs programs im pretty sure) already shows knock voltage anyway.

i think you guys are missing what im looking for. all i want to see is knock voltage when there isnt knock, ie the noise threshold that the engine makes WHEN THERE ISNT KNOCK and that is fairly steady state. the specific thing that im thinking about is being able to see that voltage THAT IS ALREADY LOGGED BY THE ECU AND OTC SCANNERS but split into 4 logged values with reference to which cyl it is so i can find a good position for a knock sensor on a hybrid motor.

we already have great knock detection for what we are doing. i just want to log non-knock values. id run race gas and less timing so i knew i wasnt getting knock.

Brian

Stratman
08-04-2008, 02:11 PM
BB60 with 72 pph injectors using pump gas to C12 fuel idles great in my CSX with auto trans. T-LM does not. It seems to have a slow lean to rich swing that won't go away. Seems it wants to stay on the rich side of the swing even with tuning the fuel down.


Do the people with the crappy BB60 idle all have automatics or have the cal set for an automatic transmission?

When I read through the code that was the only difference for the spark calculation. If the cal was setup for an automagic, the factory calc was left alone. If it's set for MTX then a good chunk of the spark calcs were skipped. Rob gave a good summary of how the spark calc was altered previously.

I just made myself a new T-LM cal with the bb60 style idle advance calc that I'm going to test soon.

MiniMopar
08-04-2008, 02:15 PM
Ah. Well, you'll need to make a code mod I think, since it will be impossible to accurately time reading the voltage through the serial port. The knock detect routine is a little confusing with how it indexes the four knock retard variables, but you'll want to do something similar with the RawKnockSensor before it gets converted by the tables and store them away. Then you just look them up with the logger. I'm not sure how many RAM locations are available anymore....

amcpacer
08-04-2008, 06:41 PM
I wonder if there is a hardware difference between some 87 logic modules. My car runs perfect with the stock 87 TII cal and a modified 87 cal also. For some reason it idles super rich with the turbonator cal. I have tried setting many different combinations of flags and the result is always a rich idle. I am using a 2 bar map sensor and 27pph injectors on a freshly compiled from v6 source. Other people get this to idle just fine and I am wondering if my 87LM is somehow incompatible with turbonator.

Aries_Turbo
08-04-2008, 09:31 PM
nice to chitchat with you tonight amc. (i forget your real name though, sorry). sorry i had to run. my phone was going dead and i had some friends over too lol. they were fine watching tv though.

Brian

risen
08-04-2008, 11:16 PM
thats why i want to view the memory location with reference to cyl firing. the OTC scanner (an i think jeffs programs im pretty sure) already shows knock voltage anyway.

i think you guys are missing what im looking for. all i want to see is knock voltage when there isnt knock, ie the noise threshold that the engine makes WHEN THERE ISNT KNOCK and that is fairly steady state. the specific thing that im thinking about is being able to see that voltage THAT IS ALREADY LOGGED BY THE ECU AND OTC SCANNERS but split into 4 logged values with reference to which cyl it is so i can find a good position for a knock sensor on a hybrid motor.

we already have great knock detection for what we are doing. i just want to log non-knock values. id run race gas and less timing so i knew i wasnt getting knock.

Brian

You should be able to do this with the winlog plugin. There should be a checkbox for raw knock sensor voltage. It just pulls the value from memory every time the program requests it, which may or may not give you enough resolution. It would also depend on how quickly the LM reads the a/d converter and stores it to that variable.

risen
08-04-2008, 11:20 PM
BB60 with 72 pph injectors using pump gas to C12 fuel idles great in my CSX with auto trans. T-LM does not. It seems to have a slow lean to rich swing that won't go away. Seems it wants to stay on the rich side of the swing even with tuning the fuel down.

Thx, I guess we can rule the automagic timing differences out. I changed the T-LM idle advance calculation to be like bb60 and it seems better (or at least more to my liking). I really need to do a back to back warm idle test with the 2 cals to be sure.

ShelGame
08-05-2008, 07:37 AM
Here's something to try if you guys want to (might fix the rich idle thing):

Open your T-LM cal in D-Cal or CHeM2 and change 'MP1_AutocalMapCellBoundary1' from 0x18 to 0x1B.

This is the MAP value for the 1st autocal cell boundary. The stock (2-bar) value is 0x24. This scales to 0x18. But, this is -10.5psi. Which is near where some cars idle. So, it's possible that you're actually running in cell 2 - instead of cell 0 - at idle. Which might make it run rich (it also might not - I'm not sure). 0x1b = -10.0 psi.

BB60 uses the 0x1b value. T-LM and BB60_Stock use the 0x18 value. It's worth a shot.

Frank
08-05-2008, 10:53 AM
Very interesting! I maybe able to give this a try tonight.

amcpacer
08-05-2008, 12:30 PM
I just edited MP1_AutocalMapCellBoundary1 on the 2 bar version of this cal to reflect -10psi instead of -10.5psi. I will try it out in a couple of hours. Thanks Rob!

Aries_Turbo
08-05-2008, 04:26 PM
You should be able to do this with the winlog plugin. There should be a checkbox for raw knock sensor voltage. It just pulls the value from memory every time the program requests it, which may or may not give you enough resolution. It would also depend on how quickly the LM reads the a/d converter and stores it to that variable.

you guys are still not understanding what im looking for. i know i can read knock volts from multiple programs!!!!!!!

i already know this. i guess im not explaining it well or correctly.

what i want to see is the raw knock value with an indicator for what cyl just fired to create that knock voltage on the knock sensor. the ecu already has to know what cyl just fired to determine how much timing to pull from that cyl. what i want to be able to know is how much noise each cyl individually generates to the centrally mounted knock sensor to make sure that i have it in a good location.

here is an example:


KNOCKVOLTS1 | KNOCKVOLTS2 | KNOCKVOLTS3 | KNOCKVOLTS4

2.40V | 2.35V | 2.23V | 2.45V

I want to see the knock voltage that the ecu grabs for each cylinder individually. I dont care if there is actual knock.... actually i do. i dont want the car to knock during my testing. ill make sure it doesnt. this has nothing to do with actual detonation. it has everything to do with individual cylinder background noise and the amount of signal the knock sensor is generating with reference to the cyl that just fired.

I know that i wont see every event on a serial datalog but it will grab data every so often so if i make the engine rev slower (ie brakes) i can get a good sampling on how much noise each cyl is transmitting to the knock sensor. you dont see every event from any of the sensors when you are datalogging them serially.

I know the serial stuff is slow. what i am proposing is to grab not only the raw knock value but also some kind of cyl designation in one shot. like one byte of the raw knock value and one byte of which cyl it was when the raw knock value was grabbed.

arent the MPH and RPM 2 byte values in a stock cal? the ecu already has to have some kind of memory location for what cyl has fired to do the knock retard per cyl calculation. could that be snagged alongside the knock value? could the memory location be changed to right next to the raw knock value so they can be snagged in one shot?

is that more clear?

cool find on the potential idle issue. ill have to try that soon.

Brian

risen
08-05-2008, 06:28 PM
you guys are still not understanding what im looking for. i know i can read knock volts from multiple programs!!!!!!!

i already know this. i guess im not explaining it well or correctly.

what i want to see is the raw knock value with an indicator for what cyl just fired to create that knock voltage on the knock sensor. the ecu already has to know what cyl just fired to determine how much timing to pull from that cyl. what i want to be able to know is how much noise each cyl individually generates to the centrally mounted knock sensor to make sure that i have it in a good location.

here is an example:


KNOCKVOLTS1 | KNOCKVOLTS2 | KNOCKVOLTS3 | KNOCKVOLTS4

2.40V | 2.35V | 2.23V | 2.45V

I want to see the knock voltage that the ecu grabs for each cylinder individually. I dont care if there is actual knock.... actually i do. i dont want the car to knock during my testing. ill make sure it doesnt. this has nothing to do with actual detonation. it has everything to do with individual cylinder background noise and the amount of signal the knock sensor is generating with reference to the cyl that just fired.

I know that i wont see every event on a serial datalog but it will grab data every so often so if i make the engine rev slower (ie brakes) i can get a good sampling on how much noise each cyl is transmitting to the knock sensor. you dont see every event from any of the sensors when you are datalogging them serially.

I know the serial stuff is slow. what i am proposing is to grab not only the raw knock value but also some kind of cyl designation in one shot. like one byte of the raw knock value and one byte of which cyl it was when the raw knock value was grabbed.

arent the MPH and RPM 2 byte values in a stock cal? the ecu already has to have some kind of memory location for what cyl has fired to do the knock retard per cyl calculation. could that be snagged alongside the knock value? could the memory location be changed to right next to the raw knock value so they can be snagged in one shot?

is that more clear?

cool find on the potential idle issue. ill have to try that soon.

Brian

I see now. So you want to know both of which cylinder just fired and the raw knock voltage. I seem to recall that there's a comment in the bb60 code that says that there's a byte where the high 2 bits can be used to know which cylinder just fired. I forget exactly how it does that, but maybe pulling that byte out too will be enough to give you the info you need. If you look through the ram locations at the beginning of the code you should see the comment.

jpcturbo
08-06-2008, 02:27 PM
Yeah I knew what you are looking for. Ok, mostly. Much like discussed at the SDAC tech session (optimal sensor location). ;) Knock, belt slap, noisy lifter, all the same events.

Top bits of CylinderRetard1 supposedly may almost have the current cylinder.

I feel an update of LMLog coming.

Thanks for the support on my recient trip to Escanaba, MI(U.P. horror). :thumb:

Jeff C.

Aries_Turbo
08-06-2008, 05:42 PM
cool, thanks jeff.

in dont know the exact limitations or capabilities of the serial interface. can it pull both the raw knock and the cyl last fired at the same time so you arent affected by the serial speed (or lack thereof)?

cool.

Brian