Turbonator SMEC codebase

[ShelGame]

I think the clutch switch is alreayd wired in to the same input as the P/N switch on the auto cars, isn't it?

Anti-lag already works from a roll, anyway. It works during staging OR anytime you go WOT. Say you're cruising down the freeway, not in boost, and you go WOT to pass - anti-lag kicks in.

What good would the 2-step be in a situation like that?

[GLHNSLHT2]

I've got a clutch switch wired up to my system that allows the 2 step to activate. I only want it to activate when the clutch is in. I used a spring loaded door hing from Homie Depot and a brake light switch to get it to be adjustable so that it activates right after the clutch starts to disengage. Why would you want anti-lag or the 2 step to activate at anytime you go WOT only? I don't want anti-lag activating when I'm trying to pass a car. I want the timing cranked up and the car to rocket around the car I'm passing.

[ShelGame]

I've got a clutch switch wired up to my system that allows the 2 step to activate. I only want it to activate when the clutch is in. I used a spring loaded door hing from Homie Depot and a brake light switch to get it to be adjustable so that it activates right after the clutch starts to disengage. Why would you want anti-lag or the 2 step to activate at anytime you go WOT only? I don't want anti-lag activating when I'm trying to pass a car. I want the timing cranked up and the car to rocket around the car I'm passing.

It doesn't go at WOT only. Actually, the 2-step doesn't go at WOT at all. Only anti-lag. Both work while staging.

I guess it really depends on how big the turbo is on whether or not you'd be better off using anti-lag at speed. I think if you have a really big turbo, you'd be better off with it on. With a Mitsu, I doubt you'd notice the difference either way.

But still, why would you ever want the 2-step working at speed? What would the purpose be of limiting the rpm while shifting gears? If it's something guys really want, I can figure out a way to add it in. I just don't see the purpose.

[Tony Hanna]

But still, why would you ever want the 2-step working at speed? What would the purpose be of limiting the rpm while shifting gears? If it's something guys really want, I can figure out a way to add it in. I just don't see the purpose.

Rob,
Take a look at the "no lift shift" feature the new Cobalt SS TC is available with. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but supposedly it interrupts the power for a fraction of a second as the clutch pedal is pressed to allow for easier powershifting without the extra stress on parts. Maybe he's wanting to use the 2-step for something similar?

[GLHNSLHT2]

yea I tried using it like that. You've got to have the clutch swith adjusted just right so that you don't cut power before the clutch is disengaged or let the rpms jump another couple hundred rpm between shifts. I haven't had enough track time to try it with or without to see if it's hurting or helping. I can shift damn fast and the seat of my pants feels like I lose time with the no-lift shift vs. not using it. But the Cobalt comes with it, you can get it for SRT4's too.

What would be sweet is a staging limiter with an on off, anti lag with on or off, and a no lift limiter with on or off. All 3 activated through the clutch switch. A staging limiter because I have to set my launch rpm at 2750 but now it's probably gotta be like 2200, Anti-lag for well anti lag, and a no lift limiter set at whatever my shift point is. That what I can heel and Toe downshift and not have to deal with turning the current 2 step off to do so.

[Tony Hanna]

yea I tried using it like that. You've got to have the clutch swith adjusted just right so that you don't cut power before the clutch is disengaged or let the rpms jump another couple hundred rpm between shifts. I haven't had enough track time to try it with or without to see if it's hurting or helping. I can shift damn fast and the seat of my pants feels like I lose time with the no-lift shift vs. not using it. But the Cobalt comes with it, you can get it for SRT4's too.

What would be sweet is a staging limiter with an on off, anti lag with on or off, and a no lift limiter with on or off. All 3 activated through the clutch switch. A staging limiter because I have to set my launch rpm at 2750 but now it's probably gotta be like 2200, Anti-lag for well anti lag, and a no lift limiter set at whatever my shift point is. That what I can heel and Toe downshift and not have to deal with turning the current 2 step off to do so.

I think (and hopefully Rob will correct me if I'm wrong) that the big issue isn't the code for things like that as much as the limited number of physical inputs and outputs that are available to use.
What do we have, AC switch, cruise control switch, brake light switch, and park/neutral switch for inputs?

Then you've got to look at whether or not the extra code you want to run is ok beside the inputs primary function. For example, on a car with functional AC, you wouldn't want to use the AC switch for 2 stage boost control because you'd also be running the AC either on high or low boost (depending on switch polarity). Along the same lines, you wouldn't want to use the set or resume switches on a car with functional cruise. That cuts your options even farther.

[GLHNSLHT2]

could they all use the same input? It's been a while since I've looked at how they are activated. I know I'm using 2 inputs right now, one for the 2 step, and one for the high/low boost (which doesn't work :( ) but I can't remember which ones I'm using.

[Tony Hanna]

could they all use the same input? It's been a while since I've looked at how they are activated. I know I'm using 2 inputs right now, one for the 2 step, and one for the high/low boost (which doesn't work :( ) but I can't remember which ones I'm using.

I'm not really sure to be honest. I would guess that it would work, but I haven't tried it. Rob would be the one to give a definite answer, or somebody that's tried to run more than one extra feature off of the same input.

[ShelGame]

You could run all of the optional code off the same input, if you wanted. But then, they'd all be on at the same time.

[GLHNSLHT2]

well is there a problem with them all being on at the same time if they're all activated only when the clutch is depressed?

[Tony Hanna]

well is there a problem with them all being on at the same time if they're all activated only when the clutch is depressed?

The one problem I can see with running the staging limiter on a clutch switch is that it's going to disable the second you let your clutch out, so the neat feature of having it disable past a certain MPH isn't going to work anymore. That feature looked really nice as a traction aid, but if you can live without it, then I think it would work ok.

Obviously you wouldn't want to use a clutch switch for your high/low boost switch...:)

[GLHNSLHT2]

I really don't like a speed based limiter. If I have to set the rpm limit low then can you adjust the speed? Don't want to be banging off the limiter at 5mph cause it won't turn off till 10MPH??? I like the limiter on a clutch switch. The only thing I'd have on the clutch switch is the launch, anti-lag and WOT switch. I could never get the high/low boost to control my MP Plus or the S60 turbo correctly. So I just hooked up my driving lights to that switch and left the wire behind the dash. Just turn the grainger to 20psi and be done with it. If you want less boost back your foot out of it :) Although I was able to get the boost to work on on the computer with an 87 T2 setup. That was kind of fun having 15psi on the computer. But the MP plus that's on it now the stock 89 T2 cal won't control it. Maybe it's the enlarged wastegate hole but I don't know how to play with the different curves enough to adjust it. Nor do I know if the cal even has all the curves listed. I'm pretty good at getting the spark and fuel correct by moving the curves around but I wish I had someone local that could show me more about the more technical side of the program i.e. the hex and how it works.

[quantum]

I've been running this for the past few days and it idles nice as and runs well. I just have a few questions. I selected the switch to turn the staging mod on but no activation switch. Which one should I select for it to always be on? Also is the knock sensor table really sensitive or is it just me? Finally I'm getting a pretty noticable miss at light part throttle. I assume this is the miss that rob is working on but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks a lot for all the work you guys are putting in on this.

quantum


@Quantum

Hi,

if your car is T2 use the here attached project to build Turbonator.

This .asm has 2 important changes:

1. If your car is MTX and 2.2 then it has the right Rampvalues included for the build

2. It has the Turbonator Boost option set up in a way that you can use it in a T2 car without making any changes in your stock WG plumbing.

The injectors in the .asm are left stock because I prefer to scale them later in CHEM2. This basically because before I scale, I set the FuelMonitorConversionFactor to be included in the scaling. This way I get a quite close to reliable Fuelmilage info on my Trip Computer.

If your car is NOT TURBO 2 you will have problems using the Turbonator Boost control feature set up in my .asm. So in this case use my .asm as a template for setting up Primary- and Secondary Kick- and Limitcells. That'll sort out your idle!

[Tony Hanna]

I really don't like a speed based limiter. If I have to set the rpm limit low then can you adjust the speed? Don't want to be banging off the limiter at 5mph cause it won't turn off till 10MPH???...

You can set the MPH past which the limiter is disabled.
The table name (in v14) is StageLimiterCutoffSpeed. I played with it a little on the Sundance, but due to some other problems with the car, I didn't get a chance to spend as much time as I would have liked fooling with it.

[MopàrBCN]

I've been running this for the past few days and it idles nice as and runs well. I just have a few questions. I selected the switch to turn the staging mod on but no activation switch. Which one should I select for it to always be on? Also is the knock sensor table really sensitive or is it just me? Finally I'm getting a pretty noticable miss at light part throttle. I assume this is the miss that rob is working on but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks a lot for all the work you guys are putting in on this.

quantum

Hi, the "miss" is what I was mentioning.

However, on the miss issue you may want to try this:

(This recipe is for T2 cars only...)

1. Download Rob's v15 Testversion
2. Set the v15 .asm to 2.2, MTX and to Use Turbonator Boost option
3. Set the injectors in the .asm to have them scaled instantly or not scaled (I prefer to scale them seperately)
4. Copy the 3 Wastegate Dutycycle Tables for Boostoption Turbonator and 3 Bar MAP from the v14 .asm you quoted me on
5. Build the cal (note you will have the MPH Limiter set like this - you may want to disable this in the .asm as well - but you can do it later with d-cal as well)

Then do as you would with any cal, do fuel etc.

This in my case reduced the occurence of the miss notably. However, not entirely.

On the staging limiter:

I was wandering about this myself. However, if it works with the same principle as switchable boost, it should be sufficient to enable the staging limiter and then NOT assign a switch. In theory that should give you then the staging limiter always on. (If not try to set the "Switch Polarity Option" for the Staging limiter without assigning a switch)
But I have not tested this yet, because I either want it switchable (SL works not well at high altitudes!) or not at all.

[ShelGame]

You can have the staging limiter with no switch and only enabled by speed. Then, set the speed very low (2-3mph).


I played with the spark-based rev limiter this past weekend without much sucess - it didn't do anything. I've looked at the code and I don't understand why. So, I'm going to try a couple of things and see if I can get it to work...

[1966 dart wagon]

well the main reason i would want a clutch switch is so i have antilag/2step from a roll say im going 30, some stupid mustang pulls up by me i can press the clutch in shift to 2nd and dump it at whatever set rpms(for the staging limiter) and burn my tires, i can do this already by just hitting the gas but i have to wait for the turbo to spool, i want it suddenly. Thats why i want this, plus maybe this could get rid of the problem with the antilag/cutout/2 step or whatever it is im getting at 4k(my staging limiter rpm) when I floor it in 4th and it just cuts out

[ShelGame]

The 2-step isn't an anti-lag feature. It's a staging feature - it holds RPM. It won't help spool the turbo. Especially since it cuts fuel and not spark. Now, when (if?) I get the spark-based rev limiter to work, that might help spool when staging or from a roll like you suggested because it will force burning of the fuel in the exhaust.

If you're hitting the 2-step at 4k all the time, then something is wrong. What MPH cutoff do you have the 2-step setup for? Switch?

[1966 dart wagon]

The 2-step isn't an anti-lag feature. It's a staging feature - it holds RPM. It won't help spool the turbo. Especially since it cuts fuel and not spark. Now, when (if?) I get the spark-based rev limiter to work, that might help spool when staging or from a roll like you suggested because it will force burning of the fuel in the exhaust.

If you're hitting the 2-step at 4k all the time, then something is wrong. What MPH cutoff do you have the 2-step setup for? Switch?

the cutoff is 10mph, which is what it was when i assembled it

highboostselectswitch ac switch, even though i have it off, i still hit 20psi, do i need to switch the polarity?

staginglimiterenableswitch: ac switch, again ac is off i still have staging/antilag

NOTE: this is all in ver. 1.4, I cannot run a 1.3/1.5 test since i no longer have a chip burner I am currently hunting ebay

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa268/1966dartwagon/vaclinesetup.jpg
this is my vac hookups, i forgot to add my bov and fpr, but those are directly off the intake. also the blue/red boxes on the green line are the size orfacies I used, do i need to get rid of the blue one and just place a connector in that spot instead?

[Tony Hanna]

the cutoff is 10mph, which is what it was when i assembled it

highboostselectswitch ac switch, even though i have it off, i still hit 20psi, do i need to switch the polarity?

staginglimiterenableswitch: ac switch, again ac is off i still have staging/antilag

NOTE: this is all in ver. 1.4, I cannot run a 1.3/1.5 test since i no longer have a chip burner I am currently hunting ebay

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa268/1966dartwagon/vaclinesetup.jpg
this is my vac hookups, i forgot to add my bov and fpr, but those are directly off the intake. also the blue/red boxes on the green line are the size orfacies I used, do i need to get rid of the blue one and just place a connector in that spot instead?

That boost control plumbing looks really weird to me. I'm not understanding how it could work with a vacuum source on both sides of the solenoid.
What type of boost control do you have the cal setup for?

[ShelGame]

the cutoff is 10mph, which is what it was when i assembled it

highboostselectswitch ac switch, even though i have it off, i still hit 20psi, do i need to switch the polarity?

staginglimiterenableswitch: ac switch, again ac is off i still have staging/antilag

NOTE: this is all in ver. 1.4, I cannot run a 1.3/1.5 test since i no longer have a chip burner I am currently hunting ebay

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa268/1966dartwagon/vaclinesetup.jpg
this is my vac hookups, i forgot to add my bov and fpr, but those are directly off the intake. also the blue/red boxes on the green line are the size orfacies I used, do i need to get rid of the blue one and just place a connector in that spot instead?

Ah! Tha AC switch is not actually the AC switch - it's the AC clutch input. So, if you completely removed the AC, then the button on the dash is not connected in any way to the SMEC. There's a pair of wires you can connect, though, that will effectively connect the AC button the SMEC. I'm not sure which wres, they are, though...

[1966 dart wagon]

Ah! Tha AC switch is not actually the AC switch - it's the AC clutch input. So, if you completely removed the AC, then the button on the dash is not connected in any way to the SMEC. There's a pair of wires you can connect, though, that will effectively connect the AC button the SMEC. I'm not sure which wres, they are, though...

Its a CS model, that never had ac but somebody did either a 'dealer' installed or after market install on the car, it has the factory style ac pannel. I found the 2 wires you are talking about they were in the middle of the harness that runs along the firewall, both wires were cut at the time, i stripped the ends and connected them to 'complete' the circuit.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa268/1966dartwagon/acdiagram.jpg
that is a picture of the wiring diagram off ondemand5 i found the DK GRN - ORG AND BROWN wire and connected those. I know there is a connector going into the compressor that had 2 inputs on it, i have not connected those, perhaps that needs to be connected too.

[ShelGame]

Unfortunately, I don't remember the deatils. Do a search for how to do it. I know others have done it - it's a 'shortcut' way to force the fan to come on by switch (the fan is always on if the A/C compressor clutch is engaged).

[lametec]

The wires are the two wires for the AC low pressure switch (mounted on the h-valve). 1966 dart wagon has the right wires.

This also causes the fan to be on whenever the HVAC selector is in "defog" mode.

Don't short or connect the two wires going to the AC clutch. You'll blow a fuse.

I've heard of people doing everything right and still not getting the fan to come on using the AC switch.

[Tony Hanna]

Don't short or connect the two wires going to the AC clutch. You'll blow a fuse.


I wonder if a person could use a resistor or an 1156 bulb to complete the circuit in place of the ac clutch? I'm not sure if there has to be something to complete the circuit there in order for the switch to work properly or not...

[1966 dart wagon]

That boost control plumbing looks really weird to me. I'm not understanding how it could work with a vacuum source on both sides of the solenoid.
What type of boost control do you have the cal setup for?

thats the style for the TI hookup, but after looking at gary's site i see there is only one connection to the waste gate solenoid. weird, i though did it right. anyways, what would cause me to be over boosting now that its colder out, the other night i was getting 23-24psi when its computer controlled to 20psi. Still unsure about the ac switch setup too.

http://thedodgegarage.com/turbo/turbo189.jpg

[Tony Hanna]

thats the style for the TI hookup, but after looking at gary's site i see there is only one connection to the waste gate solenoid. weird, i though did it right. anyways, what would cause me to be over boosting now that its colder out, the other night i was getting 23-24psi when its computer controlled to 20psi. Still unsure about the ac switch setup too.

http://thedodgegarage.com/turbo/turbo189.jpg

Yeah, that's more along the lines of what I'm used to seeing. Here's one I cleaned up awhile back to show just the boost control plumbing. I'd try plumbing it that way and see how it acts. If that doesn't help, you might try going to a slightly bigger restrictor orifice. If that still doesn't solve it, then some tweaking to the wastegate duty cycle table might be necessary.

[1966 dart wagon]

Yeah, that's more along the lines of what I'm used to seeing. Here's one I cleaned up awhile back to show just the boost control plumbing. I'd try plumbing it that way and see how it acts. If that doesn't help, you might try going to a slightly bigger restrictor orifice. If that still doesn't solve it, then some tweaking to the wastegate duty cycle table might be necessary.

so what your saying is disconnect the other line that hooks to the waste gate, that has manifold vacuum? and run only the one orifice instead of two?

[Tony Hanna]

so what your saying is disconnect the other line that hooks to the waste gate, that has manifold vacuum? and run only the one orifice instead of two?

Right. In fact, I'm thinking that the solenoid on my Sundance was just a 2 barb solenoid with a connection to the line coming from the turbo and a little foam filter on the other port. So, no place to even connect a second vacuum source. I'd try unhooking the second vacuum source first, and leave the restrictors alone for the time being. See how it acts like that.

If you're using a 3 barb solenoid, just make sure you've got the hose connected to the proper barb. You might have to block one of the other two. Basically what you want is this: The barb that the vacuum hose is connected to should be sealed up (can't blow through it) when the solenoid is unpowered and open to atmosphere when the solenoid has power.

If you're using a 2 barb solenoid, then it will simply be a matter of disconnecting your second vacuum source and leaving that barb on the solenoid open to atmosphere. Ideally you'd put one of the little foam filters on the open barb, but they always seem to dry rot and disappear.

Hopefully that will sort your boost control problems out.:thumb:
Let us know what you find.
Tony

[TopDollar69]

What Tony is saying makes sense since the late TI boost control is a variable bleed style wastegate control. The turbo should make it's own vacuum, and the computer controls the variable bleed through the solenoid.

[GLHNSLHT2]

88+ T1 boost control goes like this. A line off the turbo outlet to a T fitting. A line from there to the wastegate actuator on the turbo, and the other line to the wastegate solenoid.

That way the wastegate opens ASAP to slow the spool of the mitsu. And the ECU bleeds pressure off to raise the boost in the higher rpms(LAME :) )

85-87 T1 and 87-89 T2 boost control has a line from the intake, goes to the solenoid then from there goes to the actuator.

This keeps pressure away from the actuator and helps to spool the "BIG" garrett ASAP then as the pressure get's close to what it's supposed to be the computer opens the solenoid to send pressure to the actuator and open the wastegate. This way is the best way to do it as you get the max spool up the turbo can do with a decent or larged size turbo.

If you insist on running a tiny puny thing that would be better suited on my lawnmower then the 1st way is what you're probably gonna have to do.

Now you have to run whatever vacuum routing the ECU is set to if it's set correctly. I've tried both ways with the cal I'm running (rob's old T1 based cals) and I can't get it to work at all. So On goes the grainger and all is good :)

[Tony Hanna]

...the computer controls the variable bleed through the solenoid.

Exactly! That sort of setup also makes the TI wastegate control failsafe (as Rob has mentioned before) because if something goes wrong, the solenoid is going to stay closed which will keep the wg actuator seeing full boost pressure. The result would be low boost (5-7 psi on a stock turbo) in the event of a failure.

The downside to the TI style is that they're picky about the size of the restrictor orifice (for the same reason as a manual bleed). Too large of a restrictor and you'll get slow spoolup possibly never hitting your boost target because the solenoid won't be able to bleed off a large enough volume of air to keep pressure from building in the wg actuator. Too small and you can get spiking because the low volume of air fills the plumbing and wg actuator too slowly and the response time of the wg suffers.

With the right size restrictor and the wg dutycycle table set up right, they work really well though. It just takes a little tinkering to get it there.

[GLHNSLHT2]

I'll take faster spool up than some extra (Maybe False) security.

[Tony Hanna]

I ran the TI style wastegate control on the Sundance with a clipped wheel in a .63ar turbine housing and didn't have a bit of trouble with spoolup. It's all in what size restrictor you use and how you set up the dutycycle table. But, I was posting to help 1966 dart wagon get his boost control problems sorted out, not clutter Rob's thread with an argument about which type of boost control is better. One is as good as the other to me. Use what you prefer. I'll stick with TI because my cars came with the 2 barb solenoid and the TI wastegate plumbing and it works fine for me.:)

Tony

[jl93sundance]

Just curious, whens the SBEC version coming out?

[ShelGame]

Soon!

[mcsvt]

Awesome I'm socketing my SBEC now!

[ShelGame]

88+ T1 boost control goes like this. A line off the turbo outlet to a T fitting. A line from there to the wastegate actuator on the turbo, and the other line to the wastegate solenoid.

That way the wastegate opens ASAP to slow the spool of the mitsu. And the ECU bleeds pressure off to raise the boost in the higher rpms(LAME :) )

85-87 T1 and 87-89 T2 boost control has a line from the intake, goes to the solenoid then from there goes to the actuator.

This keeps pressure away from the actuator and helps to spool the "BIG" garrett ASAP then as the pressure get's close to what it's supposed to be the computer opens the solenoid to send pressure to the actuator and open the wastegate. This way is the best way to do it as you get the max spool up the turbo can do with a decent or larged size turbo.

If you insist on running a tiny puny thing that would be better suited on my lawnmower then the 1st way is what you're probably gonna have to do.

Now you have to run whatever vacuum routing the ECU is set to if it's set correctly. I've tried both ways with the cal I'm running (rob's old T1 based cals) and I can't get it to work at all. So On goes the grainger and all is good :)

That's a common mis-conception about our boost control. All that really matters is the pressure that's allowed to get to the WGA. In the T1 style control, the WGA is actually MORE responsive because there is less volume of air between the manifold and the WGA (when the WG Sol is closed). But, it IS very sensitive to the restrictor (and tubing size used). Getting it to run acurately at higher boost pressures may take some tuning.

The slow response you're taking about is strictly a side effect of the factory tuning. Not the system itself. Even the 3 uses a similar system.

[jl93sundance]

Soon!

Awsome!:thumb:

[jl93sundance]

I'm having an issue with using 85-87 T1 and 87-89 T2 boost control, it just overboosts, I can't get it to control the boost at all, Do I need a restrictor orifice in between the wg solenoid and the actuator for the computer to control the boost?

[ShelGame]

I think it should work without a restrictor. If it's overboosting, then the WGA is never seeing the MAP signal. Check your WG solenoid vac connections...

[moparzrule]

Hey Rob, just tried out your V14 of turbonator on my car. I just downloaded the BIN file. Changed the fueling since I have a 2.2L.
I can't seem to get the staging limiter to work first of all. Second, I am now getting codes 34 and 53 which is weird cuz with your other base cal (89/T2/2.2/MTX/3 bar/+40 etc) I was not getting either code. Now 34 is just a the cruise control, I guess this board is meant for cruise but my car never came with it (don't have the original board socketed). But code 53, kinda scary cuz thats a logic module failure. Any suggestions here? Thats kinda strange IMO to get that code when the car seems to be running fine.
Oh and I also get code 62 with ALL of your cal's no matter which base cal I use. Wierd. Has it been my logic board all along?

[Tony Hanna]

A code 53 is a pretty common occurrence with a custom cal.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22456

[moparzrule]

I see. Strange that I never got it with the other base cal made by Rob.

[MopàrBCN]

I think we all got this with turbonator (as well with ladybug to be honest) and sometimes a 60 something as well

[moparzrule]

OK thats good. Just wanted to make sure.

[ShelGame]

How many guys are getting a code 62 with T-SMEC?

I'm trying to add in the lock-up converter control. And I want to make sure that the PTU doesn't affect anything else. By my docs, the PTU and the EMR (Emis Maint Reminder) use the same output. Code 62 is related to the EMR. I'm not sure why that code is being set, or if it's even related to the lamp ilumination.

1st, I need to figure out if the code 62 is common or not. It's possibly a hardware issue, too. Since it's related to EEPROM memory that the T2 SMEC's didn't use (and possibly don't even have).

[1966 dart wagon]

I rerouted my vacuum lines for the TI of 89, with just the line from the turbo then orifice, then wg, then blue orifice then to solenoid, hooked to the middle nipple. and nothing else connected to the solenoid, i was still overboosting. Would removing the blue orifice between the waste gate and the solenoid make a difference?

[moparzrule]

Anybody else getting the code 62???

[TurboJerry]

How many guys are getting a code 62 with T-SMEC?

I'm trying to add in the lock-up converter control. And I want to make sure that the PTU doesn't affect anything else. By my docs, the PTU and the EMR (Emis Maint Reminder) use the same output. Code 62 is related to the EMR. I'm not sure why that code is being set, or if it's even related to the lamp ilumination.

1st, I need to figure out if the code 62 is common or not. It's possibly a hardware issue, too. Since it's related to EEPROM memory that the T2 SMEC's didn't use (and possibly don't even have).

The '88 SMEC is missing the EMR/mileage counter in the processor. The '88 has "0550VFN" as the last seven of the pn on the chip, The '89 has "0557VFN". (hence the code 62) For the LU/EMR counter stuff to work, everyone trying to use LU will have to use the 0557VFN processor/board. I know there were '88 TBI cars that had LU, but I *think* they had a different output for the LU to work, I'm not sure though.....

[moparzrule]

Oh so I just need an 89' board then to stop the code 62? Whats LU?

[Tony Hanna]

Whats LU?

Lock up torque converter I'm assuming

[ShelGame]

The '88 SMEC is missing the EMR/mileage counter in the processor. The '88 has "0550VFN" as the last seven of the pn on the chip, The '89 has "0557VFN". (hence the code 62) For the LU/EMR counter stuff to work, everyone trying to use LU will have to use the 0557VFN processor/board. I know there were '88 TBI cars that had LU, but I *think* they had a different output for the LU to work, I'm not sure though.....

I don't see any special hardware references in the EMR mileage counter routine. Though, there are 2 different routines - turbo/tbi and V6. The V6 being significanty different.

But, I don't understand why LU would be hardware dependant. It's just an unused output. I wouldn't think there was any special hardware required. Or am I wrong there? If so, what special hardware does the PTU require?

[moparzrule]

Lock up torque converter I'm assuming

Oh, well I have a 5 speed and am running rob's cal for MTX...so how would that affect me?

[ShelGame]

Oh, well I have a 5 speed and am running rob's cal for MTX...so how would that affect me?

It wouldn't...

[ShelGame]

OK, would anyone care if I gutted the EMR (Emiss Maint Reminder) code from T-SMEC?

I mean, the '89 T2 doesn't have anything like it. I'm gonna guess that noone will care if it's there or not.

I think it only actually turns on a light in the 3.0 V6 code. In the T1 code, it just records the mileage so that it can be read later using a DRB-II. It really has no other purpose. But, I could see it being an emissions item somewhere (Cali, for example). But, I'm not sure.

Oh, and any volunteers to test out the PTU code? Does anyone actually have an A413 with PTU in a turbo car?

[moparzrule]

I think atleast 99% of us running a cal like this do not have any emission's equipment on our cars LOL. I don't even have a CAT.

[ShelGame]

I decided to make it possible to completely bypass the EMR code with an option flag. That way, if someone actually needs it (those poor Cali bastards!), they can use it. I had to add a 3rd option flag constant anyway to be able to enable/disable the PTU control...

OK, so what other cool ideas/features can we come up with to add to the code?

[moparzrule]

Are you still working on the spark cut instead of fuel cut for the staging limiter? Right now I think that would help spool the turbo out of the hole.

[ShelGame]

Are you still working on the spark cut instead of fuel cut for the staging limiter? Right now I think that would help spool the turbo out of the hole.


Yeah, I thought I had it worked out finally. But, when I tested it weekend before last, it did nothing. Not cut at all. So, I gotta figure out what's going on there. I just decided I needed a diversion, so I added the PTU code in...

[moparzrule]

OK cool.
When I tried the staging limiter on V14 it did not work at all though.

Also, I was wonder about the part throttle cruising miss, I also had this issue and I saw someone else did too. What is the cause? And will it be fixed for version 15?

[ShelGame]

There's a 'test' version 15 a few pages back that does fix the miss issue. It's in the 'official' v15, too.

[moparzrule]

Ahh OK, just missed that one I guess.

[Tony Hanna]

OK, so what other cool ideas/features can we come up with to add to the code?

I've got an idea regarding an existing feature. Actually, turning the existing features on/off when you've got a car with functional cruise and AC. Instead of requiring a switch to be in a certain position, why not have it look for specific events? An example that comes to mind is the staging limiter. Instead of using a switch to activate/deactivate it, why not set it up so that it's activated whenever it sees both the brake light switch closed and the TPS at WOT at the same time then have it remain active (regardless of inputs) until the MPH is passed to disable it? I wouldn't think many people are going to be on the brakes at WOT unless they are staging (or stoplight staging:)) so the limiter would only be there when it's needed and only require that the driver act normally for the situation to engage it.:thumb:

Another example would be using the AC as your high/low boost select switch. Instead of requiring that the AC be either on or off, why not set it up to look for a combination of "on" cycles within a certain time? Say for example on-off-on-off-on within 5 seconds to switch between low and high. Any less than 3 "on" cycles in that time period would be ignored and treated as a normal AC request. Then the AC would function as normal but switchable boost control would be there when it's desired. A neat addition to that would be to have the ECU tell you which setting you're switching to by flashing the CEL, kicking the IAC, or something similar. Sort of a "blink once for yes, twice for no" type of deal.

The same could be done with the cruise control inputs by requiring that the brake light switch be closed in order for the cruise control inputs to toggle an extra feature on or off. Since normally nobody is going to be setting or resuming their cruise control while on the brakes, it would work as normal for cruise, but still be able to switch something else.

Anyhow, that's just an idea I had. I'm not sure if something like that would be possible, but it seems to me that it might help with the limited number of inputs and conflicts between the inputs and the extra features.

Thanks,
Tony

[MopàrBCN]

OK cool.
When I tried the staging limiter on V14 it did not work at all though.

Also, I was wonder about the part throttle cruising miss, I also had this issue and I saw someone else did too. What is the cause? And will it be fixed for version 15?

Hi, the staging limiter should have worked as well in v14 provided you did set the right switch for this. You have to enable it in this cal option flag thing (using d-cal to make it easier) and aditionally you have to set a switch which out of my head I can not remember what it's called, but you'll find it next to the staging limiter cut off speed thing.

For the rest, yes, go with v15. The miss issue is much better (although not 100%! Rob?? :bump2:)

[moparzrule]

Hi, the staging limiter should have worked as well in v14 provided you did set the right switch for this. You have to enable it in this cal option flag thing (using d-cal to make it easier) and aditionally you have to set a switch which out of my head I can not remember what it's called, but you'll find it next to the staging limiter cut off speed thing.

For the rest, yes, go with v15. The miss issue is much better (although not 100%! Rob?? :bump2:)

Yes I have it enabled in the config flag table, and it is my understanding that by not selecting anything as a switch it just uses the speed sensor. Atleast thats how it worked with the other cal I've been working fine that way.

[quantum]

Hi, the staging limiter should have worked as well in v14 provided you did set the right switch for this. You have to enable it in this cal option flag thing (using d-cal to make it easier) and aditionally you have to set a switch which out of my head I can not remember what it's called, but you'll find it next to the staging limiter cut off speed thing.

For the rest, yes, go with v15. The miss issue is much better (although not 100%! Rob?? :bump2:)

Is there a way to not have a switch? I want the stage limiter "on" anytime I'm under 6mph. I don't have a/c, cruise, manual trans. Which "switch" should be selected for on all the time?

[moparzrule]

^Thats what I was asking Chris. With the other cal (89_T2_2.2_MTX_3bar_+40_etc) when you had nothing selecting that means on all the time. That didn't seem to work with turbonator though, and I even had the flag switched on too.
IMO the antilag didn't seem to work well either, not sure if it was even on cuz I didn't feel any difference. I have that enabled too.

[MopàrBCN]

Hi, well, I actually never tried staging unswitched, but I felt (I think I saw it in the code-but not sure) it wouldn't work without a switch set for it unlike boost for example.

BTW, you can set one switch for multiple things! You could set the cruise control on off to switch on Staging Limiter and High boost at the same time. That does work.

The Antilag I tested in various ways and in fact with Antilag off I feel a difference. With antilag off, Turbonator performs like Ladybug. So this is where I figured the difference between Turbonator and Ladybug to a large extend had to come from Antilag. But to be honest, I am not sure.

What is true, with Turbonator I needed quite some tweaking to get it right. Especially the boost control needed some inventions. While Ladybug is a complete cal, with no issues at all, Turbonator is the whittier of the both. And has progressed a lot since version 11 (which was my first version).

What type of car set up are you using Turbonator on?

[moparzrule]

It's an 88' Shadow with 2.2/MTX/3bar/+40's/etc. I just used the BIN file for version 14 which is for a 2.5/MTX and scaled the fueling back for 2.2.

[MopàrBCN]

That sounds pretty much like my set-up. You use the T2 Style Boost Controll? If so I'll send you my current cal. Send me an PM with your email, if you like!

[moparzrule]

I just use a manual boost controller. But send away anyway!

matthug@juno.com

[MopàrBCN]

Hi, I did send it but receive an error from your mail server....

[moparzrule]

Hmm OK, try-

matthuggler@verizon.net

[MopàrBCN]

on its way!

[ShelGame]

OK, to everyone who has not been able to get the cruise control to work - I think I figured out why. There is a mask/enable constant for the outputs. By default, T-SMEC disables these outputs. Probably because the cal I originally dis-assembled did not have cruise. I'm going to post a v14.5 for now with a couple of fixes in it. v15 will come after I can get the spark-based rev limiter to work and can at least confirm the PTU code works.

So, look to the 1st post again for v14.5...

[ShelGame]

Does anyone have a desire for SMEC-based alky injection control? T-LM has it, but as far as I know, only Brian Bucar uses it. The code is done for T-SMEC, I've just never incorporated it into the build. If there's any interest in it at all, I'll put it in v15...

[MopàrBCN]

Could be me! How would that work?

[ShelGame]

It uses the 2 cruise + the purge solenoid output to drive the alky pump and 2 injectors. I guess it could be reconfigured to run only 1 injector, if necessary. There are MAP setpoints to turn on the pump, and each injector. And then a setpoint to turn them off (allowing a little hysteresis). Flow rates are controlled by the injectors, pump, etc. It's a pretty basic system, really.

[MopàrBCN]

Ahh, one thing to the cruise control, in my case cruise control worked just fine! The problem with cruise was in V12!

To the alky, well it sounds interesting but don't worry until it would make a crowd of people happy.

[Tony Hanna]

Does anyone have a desire for SMEC-based alky injection control?

In a word, YES!:)

Tony

[TopDollar69]

My cruise also works with the early version of 15. I have noticed the miss since installing this cal, it's pretty pronounced IMO. I will give it a few more days to see if it gets any better.

[ShelGame]

My cruise also works with the early version of 15. I have noticed the miss since installing this cal, it's pretty pronounced IMO. I will give it a few more days to see if it gets any better.


You have miss with the 'test' version of v15 that I posted a couple weeks ago? Or with a version previous to that?

[MopàrBCN]

Rob. it's true, the miss is still there. In V145 and V15. But in my opinion it got better then V14 and previous! But once the car is warmed up it's evident.

[TopDollar69]

Yes, I have the miss with the test version of 15.

[ShelGame]

Doh!

!!@^%^^&*(&%*&^%*(!!

[MopàrBCN]

=)·($·)=($=?"(·$?!"·(!/"·?)(!/·¿"$)(· ="·)$(·)=$()·($) - I think you should have mentioned this as well :D:D:D

[MopàrBCN]

One thing which might be interesting: Is it only 2.2 Turbo 2 guys having this miss?? Just to pint point in what sections to look at.

[ShelGame]

Well, if it's code related, it shouldn't matter if it's built as 2.2 or 2.5. My assumption is that it's code related (mostly because it seems to be random). Plus, I had the miss with v14 on my 2.5. I haven't driven v14.5 or v15 Test, so I don't know if the miss is gone or not from my 2.5 build.

[ShelGame]

OK, I missed a couple of flag definitions in the v14.5 (and the 'test' version). 14.6 is now posted that fixes those typos. Someone give it a whirl...

[TopDollar69]

I have the miss with my 2.5L build. I will try the new build later today.

[MopàrBCN]

I will now in 15 mins

[MopàrBCN]

Just run the batch file, it will create all of the files.

As it is, the supplied .bin and .asm are setup for 33pph injectors, 3-bar MAP, and ATX trans. You can re-set the switches in the .asm file for MTX (for example) and run the batch file, and you get a .bin, .tbl, .calx, etc. for the MTX.

Just on the injectors, you have set them to be automatically scaled to 55pph!

BTW: Did some running with it. I can't provoke the miss which is good news but I did have it once in the beginning. It was when I was getting off the gas at low RPM and then in the same gear picking it up again.

I've only done some 20 miles - good enough to warm up though. Will do some more tomorrow (stupid me I forgot to set the Overboost, so accelerating was no fun at all)..

The only thing I can say is, that if it happens it happens at low RPM under load!

[MopàrBCN]

@Rob, the miss is still there but now only in one situation, and I think @Badassperformance has triggert a thought which may be worth while considering:

In another issue I am dealing with in another thread he mentioned: "I'm not into cals, but maybe there is too much of a step in the transition from open loop to WOT?" --- This general idea does make sense to me. The "miss" happens now at slightest throttle at low RPM going into throttle (albeit not full throttle). However, the Narrowband switches in this moment always into pig rich for a moment, which I noticed to be a thing of Turbonator all the time. This transition exists as well in Ladybug but much less. In Ladybug it blinks quickly blue to go to green and then to closed loop = no light or occasional red (Dawes Device). Your Cal at times keeps after such a transition blue for more then half a minute!

Maybe here lies a problem. The random miss during cruise as I experienced it befor seems to have gone. But going from slight into somewhat near full throttle does produce the Miss!!!

When the miss happens it is not like a bang or something like this. It is as if for a moment the engine is off just to carry on normally after this.

I think we can find the issue!

[ShelGame]

Hmm, Sounds like the accel pump function needs some re-calibrating. I wonder why? I'm 99.9% sure I haven't missed anything. I'll look at that, though.

Thanks for the excellent feedback, as always.

EDIT: Would you say the misfire is worse or better when the engine is cold vs. engine hot (normal temp)? I ask because there are 2 different accel-pump type functions.

[ShelGame]

You use the 2.2 build, right? I think the problem is somewhere in the translation of the calibration from the T2 code to the T1 code. The T1 accel pump function is very different from the T2. I'll make a better translation. Probably not this week, but maybe by the end of next week...

[TopDollar69]

I have the same problem with the 2.5L build. The miss is very evident when the car is warm and mostly at part throttle cruising, but also at part throttle accelerating from a stop.

[ShelGame]

I have the same problem with the 2.5L build. The miss is very evident when the car is warm and mostly at part throttle cruising, but also at part throttle accelerating from a stop.


Even on v14.6?

[MopàrBCN]

Hmm, Sounds like the accel pump function needs some re-calibrating. I wonder why? I'm 99.9% sure I haven't missed anything. I'll look at that, though.

Thanks for the excellent feedback, as always.

EDIT: Would you say the misfire is worse or better when the engine is cold vs. engine hot (normal temp)? I ask because there are 2 different accel-pump type functions.

If there is someone who has to say thank you it's us! It is for you that I enjoy my hobby the way I do!

To answer your question: Yes it almost allways happens when the car is warmed up!


You use the 2.2 build, right? I think the problem is somewhere in the translation of the calibration from the T2 code to the T1 code. The T1 accel pump function is very different from the T2. I'll make a better translation. Probably not this week, but maybe by the end of next week...

Yes, I build for 2.2

[MopàrBCN]

Question about v146:

You have those PIAMSK_ Optionflags. I don't quite make sense of them:

1. What is "Part Throt Unlock" (I have it unchecked)?
2. Cruise Vacuum and Cruise Vent (Were unchecked - I've checked them)?

Well to be honest, I don't understand what they are ment for. What happens if I check/uncheck them?

Also in the second of those:

What is Emission Light?

Thanks!!

[ShelGame]

Those simply mask the errors associated with those outputs. If the box is checked, then the error code is enabled. So, if you don't want to see the error codes for the PTU solenoid, uncheck that box. It doesn't do anything else.

The emission light was only used on the Vans. It was there to remind you to get the spark plugs, O2 sensor, Air filter, etc. changed every so many miles.

[MopàrBCN]

Ok, thanks!!

[TopDollar69]

I have the miss with version 15 2.5L build. I haven't had a change to swap chips yet, but I have burned a V146 to try. Hopefully I can get it swapped out tonight.

[TopDollar69]

Rob,

I was able to reburn the chip tonight with V1.46. As MoparBCN pointed out, it did seem to be scaled for 55pph injectors, and I had to manually scale it back in chem2. I'm not sure what happened to make it come that way after I assembled it, unfortunatly I don't know enough about the code that you use for your assemblies. The miss does seem better so far, but we just had a bunch of snow dump on the ground and it was hard to actually drive very far. I will let you know what I find after I drive to work and back tomorrow (120 miles round trip).

Thanks,

Ben Huebner

[TopDollar69]

After driving the car to work this morning I can say that the car still has the miss. This is version 1.46 2.5L build rescaled for 33pph injectors, 2 bar map sensor, antilag, staging limiter, 2 stage boost, charge temp sensor, and CEL mod all on. So far every version on turbonator I've tried has the miss (12,13,15). I've noticed it when the engine is cold and also when warmed up.

[ShelGame]

Alrighty, thanks. I'll keep looking...

[ShelGame]

After driving the car to work this morning I can say that the car still has the miss. This is version 1.46 2.5L build rescaled for 33pph injectors, 2 bar map sensor, antilag, staging limiter, 2 stage boost, charge temp sensor, and CEL mod all on. So far every version on turbonator I've tried has the miss (12,13,15). I've noticed it when the engine is cold and also when warmed up.

Can you do me a favor? Try a build without the anti-lag or staging limiter and see if the miss is still present? I can't figure out where it's coming from...

[TopDollar69]

Do you want me to just turn them off in D cal?

[ShelGame]

Do you want me to just turn them off in D cal?


Yeah, just turn them off in D-Cal. If the miss stays or goes away at least I'll be able to tell if it's in the new code or if I screwed something (else) up in the original code). Thanks :thumb:

[MopàrBCN]

Hi,

I don't think personally that the problem comes from one of the newer features. Fact is that the miss was already present in version 12!

I did test with Ladybug again, just to go a 100% sure, that there is no car related problem.

Fact is, with Ladybug the car runs with absolutely no drivability issues at all. As well it's fact, that Turbonator, using the same basic parameters in fueling, timing and boost runs much stronger. So here is, why it's worth while finding out what is going wrong.

1. The test of switching off Antilag and Staging I already did with no result. Here I don't think is the problem.

2. The problem mainly occurs when the Car is warmed up. So this limits somewhat to where to look.

3. The problem (in my case) nearly always occurs in a transistion eg.from no load to load. Here I noted some things specific to turbonator, which may lead to the problem:

a) It seems to me, that the TPS may be interpreted wrong. If it's not this then in my opninion the transition from closed to open loop and reverse at least is the area to look at.
Example: By accelerating slightly from cruise the narrowband shows suddenly full rich, which I would expect only to happen at WOT. Only when I nearly let off the throttle it switches back to O2 Feedback. Now, it is exactly this situation when the miss occurs.
Ladybug behaves the same way but only for a split second.

b) Fueling in general: Turbonator is, using the same main fueling table calibration and PE calibration, richer then Ladybug. Now, comparing the cals the main difference is in Load enrichment between the both. Considering the moments when the miss happens I could imagine that maybe here is a problem.

c) This is a completely different theory but: The miss we are experiencing is not a miss in the sense of a "bang". It is like a sparc cut for a quick moment, as you have it as well when hitting overboost. I wonder if there is something in your code which may interpret a situation during the transistion as a reason for cutting sparc. This to me bears a certain logic because the problem always happens in similar situations.

Well, my 2 cents to the subject. I will try to do a logical report of the main difference between both cals to see if this may help you out.

[MopàrBCN]

Hi,

I don't think personally that the problem comes from one of the newer features. Fact is that the miss was already present in version 12!

I did test with Ladybug again, just to go a 100% sure, that there is no car related problem.

Fact is, with Ladybug the car runs with absolutely no drivability issues at all. As well it's fact, that Turbonator, using the same basic parameters in fueling, timing and boost runs much stronger. So here is, why it's worth while finding out what is going wrong.

1. The test of switching off Antilag and Staging I already did with no result. Here I don't think is the problem.

2. The problem mainly occurs when the Car is warmed up. So this limits somewhat to where to look.

3. The problem (in my case) nearly always occurs in a transistion eg.from no load to load. Here I noted some things specific to turbonator, which may lead to the problem:

a) It seems to me, that the TPS may be interpreted wrong. If it's not this then in my opninion the transition from closed to open loop and reverse at least is the area to look at.
Example: By accelerating slightly from cruise the narrowband shows suddenly full rich, which I would expect only to happen at WOT. Only when I nearly let off the throttle it switches back to O2 Feedback. Now, it is exactly this situation when the miss occurs.
Ladybug behaves the same way but only for a split second.

b) Fueling in general: Turbonator is, using the same main fueling table calibration and PE calibration, richer then Ladybug. Now, comparing the cals the main difference is in Load enrichment between the both. Considering the moments when the miss happens I could imagine that maybe here is a problem.

c) This is a completely different theory but: The miss we are experiencing is not a miss in the sense of a "bang". It is like a sparc cut for a quick moment, as you have it as well when hitting overboost. I wonder if there is something in your code which may interpret a situation during the transistion as a reason for cutting sparc. This to me bears a certain logic because the problem always happens in similar situations.

Well, my 2 cents to the subject. I will try to do a logical report of the main difference between both cals to see if this may help you out.

[TopDollar69]

I haven't had a chance to burn a new chip since I'm out of town for the week, but I have been having some serious problems with the restarting the car once it's warmed up. It happened three times in a row last night. when you first start the car it runns so rich it barely stays running. If you clean it out right away by reving it up it comes out of it, but if you let it idle like that for awhile it seems to last much longer (several minutes before it will clear out).

[ShelGame]

Hi,

I don't think personally that the problem comes from one of the newer features. Fact is that the miss was already present in version 12!

I did test with Ladybug again, just to go a 100% sure, that there is no car related problem.

Fact is, with Ladybug the car runs with absolutely no drivability issues at all. As well it's fact, that Turbonator, using the same basic parameters in fueling, timing and boost runs much stronger. So here is, why it's worth while finding out what is going wrong.

1. The test of switching off Antilag and Staging I already did with no result. Here I don't think is the problem.

2. The problem mainly occurs when the Car is warmed up. So this limits somewhat to where to look.

3. The problem (in my case) nearly always occurs in a transistion eg.from no load to load. Here I noted some things specific to turbonator, which may lead to the problem:

a) It seems to me, that the TPS may be interpreted wrong. If it's not this then in my opninion the transition from closed to open loop and reverse at least is the area to look at.
Example: By accelerating slightly from cruise the narrowband shows suddenly full rich, which I would expect only to happen at WOT. Only when I nearly let off the throttle it switches back to O2 Feedback. Now, it is exactly this situation when the miss occurs.
Ladybug behaves the same way but only for a split second.

b) Fueling in general: Turbonator is, using the same main fueling table calibration and PE calibration, richer then Ladybug. Now, comparing the cals the main difference is in Load enrichment between the both. Considering the moments when the miss happens I could imagine that maybe here is a problem.

c) This is a completely different theory but: The miss we are experiencing is not a miss in the sense of a "bang". It is like a sparc cut for a quick moment, as you have it as well when hitting overboost. I wonder if there is something in your code which may interpret a situation during the transistion as a reason for cutting sparc. This to me bears a certain logic because the problem always happens in similar situations.

Well, my 2 cents to the subject. I will try to do a logical report of the main difference between both cals to see if this may help you out.

The revlimiter/overboost etc. is actually a fuel cut. Not a spark cut. So, if the problem is fuelling related, then it makes sense that it would feel similar.

The thing is, the code is not altered from stock for the load enrichment. I must have an error in the dis-assembly or calibration there somewhere.

[ShelGame]

OK, something else to try.

I found 3 constants that are different in Turbonator from stock. You can fix these in D-Cal or CHeM easily.

Address - Name - Fix
0x83F9 - PTENR_EppPerAmountForIncreasing - Change this value from 0x01 to 0x32
0x83FA - PTENR1_AmountForIncreasingMultiplier - Change this value from 0x08 to 0x01
0x83FB - PTENR2_EppPerAmountForDecreasingMultiplier - Change this value from 0x06 to 0x3D

Try that and see what happens...

EDIT: Actually, I need to make separate calibration values for 2.2 and 2.5. This should work for now, the values supplied in the .asm are garbage either way. Whether or not this fixes the misfire, I'll update the next build with calibration values for both 2.2 and 2.5.

[MopàrBCN]

Tonight I will try to make an analysis of your code. Although I am not having near to the knowledge as you have where cals are concerned, on the pure IT side of things I should be able to help out.

[MopàrBCN]

PS: Forgot to mention that I will try this fix in 15 minutes!!

[1966 dart wagon]

I haven't had a chance to burn a new chip since I'm out of town for the week, but I have been having some serious problems with the restarting the car once it's warmed up. It happened three times in a row last night. when you first start the car it runns so rich it barely stays running. If you clean it out right away by reving it up it comes out of it, but if you let it idle like that for awhile it seems to last much longer (several minutes before it will clear out).

I also have this issue, I figured it was because I was running e85 and it being so cold out lately. At least know we know its cal related and not e85. I hope with the last edit, the misfire is fixed that would be awesome:thumb:

[MopàrBCN]

Ok, I tested it for 90 km. On the first 45 km I really thought it was fixed, until I came into a mountainroad. When under load the miss comes back. But I did not have it at all during cruise for the first time.

Also what is fixed is that fueling issue during transition! This is now spot on!!! So that fix is worth while putting in.

I can now say this:

Fueling seems to be now in all situations spot on! It does not go at all anymore full rich when slightly pressing the throttle.

Now the miss. As said earlier on, from putting the chip in to 45 km of driving I did not have a hint of it. This was a novelty. I always would have got it soon after the car warmed up.

However, the miss still occurs when under load at low RPM. I experienced it going uphill in low gear around 2000 RPM or later on a slight rise on a highway type road going in 5th at around 2200 RPM. It has completely gone where constant throttle is applied however, in this situations, engine under load at low RPM it still is there. However, it has improved notably if not to say dramatically.

It would be great if some of the other guys having trouble with this miss could try this fix and confirm my experience.

I will check now two other things, because those 3 constants are on my difference list as well. But there is a fourth one of the same group which I will check now.

Rob, you are definately on the right track, even though it is not fixed entirely yet.

Thanks for all your efforts!!

[MopàrBCN]

BTW: Since I was in a rush earlier on, I copied your values "as is".


0x83F9 - PTENR_EppPerAmountForIncreasing - Change this value from 0x01 to 0x32
0x83FA - PTENR1_AmountForIncreasingMultiplier - Change this value from 0x08 to 0x01
0x83FB - PTENR2_EppPerAmountForDecreasingMultiplier - Change this value from 0x06 to 0x3D


Double checking them now in Ladybug I see there are different to your old and new ones (as you pointed out there are different for 2.2/2.5)

Tomorrow I will test with those:

EppPerAmountForIncreasing (PTENR) .byte 0x01 (equal between old turbonator and ladybug)
AmountForIncreasingMultiplier (PTENR1) .byte 0x01 (in old turbonator it was 0x08)
EppPerAmountForDecreasingMultiplier (PTENR2) .byte 0x03 (in old turbonator it was 0x06)

[ShelGame]

BTW: Since I was in a rush earlier on, I copied your values "as is".



Double checking them now in Ladybug I see there are different to your old and new ones (as you pointed out there are different for 2.2/2.5)

Tomorrow I will test with those:

EppPerAmountForIncreasing (PTENR) .byte 0x01 (equal between old turbonator and ladybug)
AmountForIncreasingMultiplier (PTENR1) .byte 0x01 (in old turbonator it was 0x08)
EppPerAmountForDecreasingMultiplier (PTENR2) .byte 0x03 (in old turbonator it was 0x06)

It's different because Ladybug uses the Mopar Performance T2 values. The values I gave are for the 'stock' T2. I'm not sure why they are different, but I would think the stock values would give better driveability. I know the MP T2 had some other changes for road racing that are not very friendly on the street (such as O2 ramps and adaptives). The MP T2 usually runs richer than stock because of these issues.

Actually, you should also copy the 3 tables preceding these 3 constants from the T2 (MP/Ladybug or stock - so long as they all come from the same cal as a group).

RPMMAP_SwitchPointForDownUp_FromRpm; PTELMT_MultiplierMaxLimitFromRpm; and PTEADJ_EnrichAdjust_FromMap

Please noe, that the 1st and 3rd tables are MAP-related and should use the correct MAP scale (2- or 3-bar) when you copy them from the 'donor' cal. I'm going to do a little more checking, but I plan to post v14.7 tomorrow with these cal fixes in them.

It's amazing how such a small portion of the fuel code can have such a dramatic affect...

[ShelGame]

v14.7 now posted on the 1st post...

[moparzrule]

What are the updates/differences?

[MopàrBCN]

v14.7 now posted on the 1st post...

Cool! I will give feedback for my part hopefully by the weekend. Right now, my car is down......(ran the tranny dry.....).

[ShelGame]

What are the updates/differences?

Calibration fix (2.5 and 2.2) for the spark scatter/fuel control. It should fix the part throttle misfire.

[jpcturbo]

Dropped 14.7 in to the 2.2 MTX caravan. Setup values for MTX, 2.2, and 33pph. Fuel maps verified against old cals. Outside temp a lovely 15F. It did start quickly but missed a little but smoothed out in a few moments. Pretty good for that temp. Once engine temp got warm I felt this miss part thorttle accelerating soon after a stop. Perhaps more like 2500-3000 in 2nd or 3rd at like 1/3 thorttle. This only happened 3 times on my 7 mile trip to work. Closer to work I got on it abit harder and did not feel any miss. WOT was fine. Cold dry air and Anti-lag gets that boost guage needle moving.

[ShelGame]

Hmm, lemme know if it keeps doing that. It could just be the learning procedure. Doesn't necessarily sound the same as MoprBCN's descritption. But, if it still does it after a couple of days, definitely let me know.

Thanks for the feedback! :thumb:

[badandy]

I've got the miss as well and it doesn't seem to be speed or RPM dependant...more transition tipping into the throttle. I can't give much input yet as this is all new to me and I don't have much seat time with the cal.

[ShelGame]

I've got the miss as well and it doesn't seem to be speed or RPM dependant...more transition tipping into the throttle. I can't give much input yet as this is all new to me and I don't have much seat time with the cal.

This is with v14.7?

[badandy]

This is with v14.7?

Yes, but I am a tad confused as the file is labeled 14.7 but within it still says 14.6?...otherwise this is the best cal I've ever had thus far.

[ShelGame]

Yeah, looks like forgot to update the version markers in the .asm. No biggie, though.

Anyway, I'll keep looking at the transient fuel stuff...

[jpcturbo]

Hmm, lemme know if it keeps doing that. It could just be the learning procedure. Doesn't necessarily sound the same as MoprBCN's descritption. But, if it still does it after a couple of days, definitely let me know.

Thanks for the feedback! :thumb:

Thanks. After work on Friday I took the van on a little trip for about 40 miles. The miss was actually worse once the engine warmed up compared to the drive earlier. I never happens below a certain engine temp. Most noticeably the miss occurs going up hills. I.E. keeping 70mph up hill on the Interstate. Its bad, I counted 3 in about 15 seconds at one point. After driving for a while I found myself avoiding certain throttle positions. Near the end I would drive at no throttle or over 1/3 throttle. I went back to my LB stock cal the next day.
Also, the ecu adapts out the high idle, but it still will idle high and drop immediately on a hot start.

With v14.7 were all the consts setup (ex: PTENR_EppPerAmountForIncreasing) or was I supposed to change more than the flags?

I forgot to disable the anti-lag and the other features for testing. Except for an annoying loud lean pop on decel @ 2000 the LB stock cal works flawlessly on the van. Even so, can you think of anything else I could change in the 14.7 cal or test in hardware.

I see the campaign to revert some constants back to stock has begun. Is it worth the time and effort to evaluate all the MP data and convert back as close to stock as possible? (as a seperate cal for a test)

[ShelGame]

Thanks. After work on Friday I took the van on a little trip for about 40 miles. The miss was actually worse once the engine warmed up compared to the drive earlier. I never happens below a certain engine temp. Most noticeably the miss occurs going up hills. I.E. keeping 70mph up hill on the Interstate. Its bad, I counted 3 in about 15 seconds at one point. After driving for a while I found myself avoiding certain throttle positions. Near the end I would drive at no throttle or over 1/3 throttle. I went back to my LB stock cal the next day.
Also, the ecu adapts out the high idle, but it still will idle high and drop immediately on a hot start.

With v14.7 were all the consts setup (ex: PTENR_EppPerAmountForIncreasing) or was I supposed to change more than the flags?

I forgot to disable the anti-lag and the other features for testing. Except for an annoying loud lean pop on decel @ 2000 the LB stock cal works flawlessly on the van. Even so, can you think of anything else I could change in the 14.7 cal or test in hardware.

I see the campaign to revert some constants back to stock has begun. Is it worth the time and effort to evaluate all the MP data and convert back as close to stock as possible? (as a seperate cal for a test)

Actually, I changed everything back to stock values a long time ago. All of the MP stuff is out now.

Everything else should be fixed in this version. So, you should only need to set it up for your car.

[Aries_Turbo]

got a problem. i was taking a look at this stuff for BadAndy to guide him on some mods and i ran into this problem. whats that error for?

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11354&stc=1&d=1227725241

Brian

[ShelGame]

There's a additional comma in there I forgot to delete. It's on that line number.

[Aries_Turbo]

actually there is a comma missing on that line (Andy found it cause his "GoTo" function was working in notepad and mine wasnt) but its easier to search for this table "PTELMT_MultiplierMaxLimitFromRpm" and add the comma back in. its in the 2nd instance of this table.

Brian

[1966 dart wagon]

I just burned 14.7 of the cal, car still is having boost problems like discribed on page 15-16. 2.5 with garret, vacuum lines like so:

turbo(cc port) red orifice to waste gate, then blue orifice to middle barb on a 3 barb solenoid. The 2 other orifices on the solenoid are open, i plugged both the top for one run, got only 8psi of boost, and boost came up slow.

I plugged off the bottom orifice(isnt that the filter) and it over boosted still, in every gear, at least with my last version of turbonator i didn't get over boost in EVERY gear but now with 14.7 i have over boost in every gear, boosts to 24-25psi on a autometer guage.

Tomorrow im going to hook up the gvalve, but id like to keep it computer controlled :(

thoughts???, oh and i did have the miss at cruise, car started up right away everytime ive ran it, vs the last version it wouldn't start hot or cold at times take like 8 times to start it.

[MopàrBCN]

most likely you have to reverse the wg tables. this is at least what I had and still have to do. When I had this problem I figured that just reversing the plumbing wasn't the solution. I have posted a asm file earliere on with exactly this tables. so just copy them. This is of cause if your car is 2.2 Turbo 2!

So my solution was "Boost Control Turbonator" and reversed WG Tables

[MopàrBCN]

most likely you have to reverse the wg tables. this is at least what I had and still have to do. When I had this problem I figured that just reversing the plumbing wasn't the solution. I have posted a asm file earliere on with exactly this tables. so just copy them. This is of cause if your car is 2.2 Turbo 2!

So my solution was "Boost Control Turbonator" and reversed WG Tables

[1966 dart wagon]

most likely you have to reverse the wg tables. this is at least what I had and still have to do. When I had this problem I figured that just reversing the plumbing wasn't the solution. I have posted a asm file earliere on with exactly this tables. so just copy them. This is of cause if your car is 2.2 Turbo 2!

So my solution was "Boost Control Turbonator" and reversed WG Tables

My bad, I'm running the 2.5 motor. I believe I have 88 tI solenoid from the junkyard, can i just swap this in w/o changing anything else????, and will this solve my problems, I forgot about it till last night. On top of that, i moved my OB shutdown to 25psi instead of 21 and now it only boost too 23 psi in every gear, weird but it sure hauled alot of a$$ :lol: but before raising ob it was boosting to 24-25psi:confused:

also i noticed i didnt have the starting issues i was having with my last version of turbonator, car fired up every time right away, that was maybe 5-6 times, but we will see how it turns out.

is this an example of of what you ment when you said reverse the wg tables(just a rough example):
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2733/wgtableshe9.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/wgtableshe9.png/1/w575.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img217/wgtableshe9.png/1/)

stupid dumb test add :yuck:

[MopàrBCN]

Hi. it's the other way around! You have to reverse the y Axsis. Where your table starts at 0 it has to start at 100 (not 128!) and so on. You'll have to do this to the 3 WG DC Tables!

Hold on, and I will paste them as soon as I am at home!

[MopàrBCN]

PS: If your current WG setup is T2 I would just remap the tables and you'll be fine! Otherwise I think it is not only the solenoid you'd have to wap (I would even think the Solenoid could stay as is) but the way their vacuum is rooted. I never acutally made sense out of the T1 System...

[badandy]

also i noticed i didnt have the starting issues i was having with my last version of turbonator, car fired up every time right away, that was maybe 5-6 times, but we will see how it turns out.

I'm not sure if this is the same problem or not...but if my car had been sitting for awhile it would crank and crank but never start on the first try. I got to thinking that with my TU fuel rail and remote mount regulator I had quite a bit more volume to fill up in the injector prime. I looked at another calibration (for the 89 TII 2.2I think) and the injector prime pulse width was increased dramatically. I just copied that table into D-Cal and it seems to have fixed my increased cranking problem and the car will start on the first try.

[Aries_Turbo]

was the 89 t2 cal scaled for bigger injectors or stock? thats one of the tables that is scaled for larger injectors.

Brian

[MopàrBCN]

Ok, here as promised the reversed Turbonator 2.2 T2 3-Bar WG Tables: (to be pasted in the section where it says 3-bar and Option WG_Turbonator:

; FullThrottleWastegateDutyCycleAdjustment_FromBoost Target (DCWBST)
.byte 0x06
.byte 0x2c, 0xc8, 0xf7, 0x5c
.byte 0x3a, 0x4f, 0xfe, 0x50
.byte 0x57, 0x1e, 0xfe, 0xf8
.byte 0x74, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
.byte 0x84, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
.byte 0x94, 0x00

; FullThrottleWastegateDutyCycleAdjustment_FromRpm (DCWADJ)
.byte 0x07
.byte 0x3e, 0xc0, 0x03, 0xf0
.byte 0x4e, 0xff, 0x00, 0x00
.byte 0x6d, 0xff, 0xff, 0xbe
.byte 0x8c, 0xf7, 0xff, 0x30
.byte 0x9c, 0xea, 0xff, 0x85
.byte 0xb9, 0xdc, 0xff, 0x80
.byte 0xcb, 0xd3

; FullThrottleWastegateDutyCycle_C8is100Percent_From Map (DCWOT)
.byte 0x05
.byte 0x2b, 0x85, 0xfe, 0xab
.byte 0x2e, 0x81, 0xfc, 0x93
.byte 0x35, 0x69, 0xfe, 0xb7
.byte 0x3c, 0x60, 0xfe, 0x80
.byte 0x40, 0x5a

[badandy]

was the 89 t2 cal scaled for bigger injectors or stock? thats one of the tables that is scaled for larger injectors.

Brian
I think +20's but the table didn't scale when we worked on the cal?

[Aries_Turbo]

it did scale when we scaled the injectors. it just scales down too much for your larger fuel rail.

if the stock values were much higher than your cal, then it was scaled.

Brian

[badandy]

it did scale when we scaled the injectors. it just scales down too much for your larger fuel rail.

if the stock values were much higher than your cal, then it was scaled.

Brian

Gotcha, that makes sense.

....anyway, for those of you with larger fuel rails and especially with remote mounted fuel pressure regulators:

If you have starting problems (first turn of the key you crank and crank but never fire) you will need to scale up the "KeyOnprimePW" table in D-Cal to fill up the extra volume of the rail/lines...this should solve your problems.

[badandy]

Question about the staging limiter:

A.) Do you have to floor it for it to work?

B.) If you do not pick any of the "StagingLImiterEnableSwitch" option flags will it still function?

[ShelGame]

Question about the staging limiter:

A.) Do you have to floor it for it to work?

No, it will work at any throttle angle.



B.) If you do not pick any of the "StagingLImiterEnableSwitch" option flags will it still function?

Yes, but it will trigger off of speed only. Be carefull doing that, as the staging limiter could turn on while coming to a stop if you downshift or something.

[badandy]

No, it will work at any throttle angle.



Yes, but it will trigger off of speed only. Be carefull doing that, as the staging limiter could turn on while coming to a stop if you downshift or something.

Very strange...

I tried it just a minute ago and it didn't work...come to think of it I have never been able to get any staging limiter to work with any cal I've tried. I will lower the RPMs and try it again but that shouldn't have had anything to do with it.

It's kinda hard to test this stuff in highly populated areas:o

[cordes]

Very strange...

I tried it just a minute ago and it didn't work...come to think of it I have never been able to get any staging limiter to work with any cal I've tried. I will lower the RPMs and try it again but that shouldn't have had anything to do with it.

It's kinda hard to test this stuff in highly populated areas:o

Take the car for a spin around the block and try it again in the driveway. If the cal hasn't seen a speed sensor value it might not work from what I have read. If it still doesn't work try cleaning the connection for the SDS. If your SDS is on the way out the operation could be hit or miss. The staging mod is an easy way to check the condition of your SDS though.

[badandy]

Take the car for a spin around the block and try it again in the driveway. If the cal hasn't seen a speed sensor value it might not work from what I have read. If it still doesn't work try cleaning the connection for the SDS. If your SDS is on the way out the operation could be hit or miss. The staging mod is an easy way to check the condition of your SDS though.

I'll give it a better look later today after work (if you ccan call surfing TM work....hehe).

[badandy]

I got the staging limiter working. Apparently it's not on by default...you have to select a switch. I chose the A/C switch as my car has the rare owner uninstalled A/C delete option:D With the switch on the staging limiter won't work...with it off it will:confused: I tried to select the staging limiter switch polarity and that didn't help either....oh well, I'm just glad it's working.

[ShelGame]

Yeah, there's a polarity swap in there just for that reason. The A/C switch is a normally on switch, most of the others are normally off.

[badandy]

Yeah, there's a polarity swap in there just for that reason. The A/C switch is a normally on switch, most of the others are normally off.
Yeah, I tried that but it didn't work?

[MopàrBCN]

actually there is a comma missing on that line (Andy found it cause his "GoTo" function was working in notepad and mine wasnt) but its easier to search for this table "PTELMT_MultiplierMaxLimitFromRpm" and add the comma back in. its in the 2nd instance of this table.

Brian

Question: Has anyone applied this fix yet with v147 and tested it in respect of the "miss" issue???

Unfortunately my car still is out of service (and might be for a while actually)... Just keen on news....

[badandy]

Question: Has anyone applied this fix yet with v147 and tested it in respect of the "miss" issue???

Unfortunately my car still is out of service (and might be for a while actually)... Just keen on news....
Yes, I have and it did not fix that issue.

[ShelGame]

Can everyone who has the misfire issue tell me what your cal setup is?

Displ - 2.2 or 2.5
MAP - 2- or 3-bar
Injectors - scaled for ??

Turbonator Features enabled - ?? (CE Flash, Switchboost, 2-Step, etc.)

Thanks!

EDIT: Oh yeah, and if you run Anti-Lag, can you tell me how/if it works? How do you notice the difference? I found a problem with how I added in the retard value...

[1966 dart wagon]

I have the missfire issue, im running ver. 14.7, Ive been running the turbonator so long that i hardly notice it any more.

2.5
3bar map
40+ injectors
CEL light mod, staging limiter(2 step), antilag, switchable boost enabled though the ac switch, although when i press the ac switch nothing happens, im always at high boost setting. Keep the updates comming Rob your getting close:thumb:

[MopàrBCN]

This is mine:

Last Tested: v146 with those Two Mods you posted....

2.2
3bar
+40
MTX
Options:
CEL mod, Staging Limiter on Cruise On/Off (polarity switched), Anti Lag
A/C and Charge Air Temp Sensor Enabled

No Switchable Boost set

[ShelGame]

I have the missfire issue, im running ver. 14.7, Ive been running the turbonator so long that i hardly notice it any more.

2.5
3bar map
40+ injectors
CEL light mod, staging limiter(2 step), antilag, switchable boost enabled though the ac switch, although when i press the ac switch nothing happens, im always at high boost setting. Keep the updates comming Rob your getting close:thumb:

Auto or Manual?

[badandy]

14.7 w/

2.2
3 bar
52's
MTX
(above scaled in .asm file)
CE Flash for knock
Staging Limiter through A/C switch (reverse polarity would not work A/C switch off only way it works...maybe due to A/C disabled?)
Antilag (seems to work compared to last cal I had...boost is much sooner but not sure by how much)
MTX
Air Charge Temp enabled

[1966 dart wagon]

Auto or Manual?

manual trans, and I assmebled it too (used .asm file)

air charge temp sensor is enabled too

[badandy]

Can everyone who has the misfire issue tell me what your cal setup is?

Displ - 2.2 or 2.5
MAP - 2- or 3-bar
Injectors - scaled for ??

Turbonator Features enabled - ?? (CE Flash, Switchboost, 2-Step, etc.)

Thanks!

EDIT: Oh yeah, and if you run Anti-Lag, can you tell me how/if it works? How do you notice the difference? I found a problem with how I added in the retard value...
Has this problem been fixed or are you waiting for the next revision?

[ShelGame]

Has this problem been fixed or are you waiting for the next revision?

The anti-lag problem will be fixed (actually, already fixed, just not released) in version 14.8. But, I want to also do something that will possibly fix this misfire issue, too.

[1966 dart wagon]

i forgot to add that antilag for me works great, no problems here :thumb:

[ShelGame]

i forgot to add that antilag for me works great, no problems here :thumb:

You can actually tell a difference? How is it noticeable?

To be honest, I don't think it does anything in 14.7 or earlier. My math was wrong the way I added in (subtracted, actually) the Anti-Lag retard.

Actually, now that I think about it, that might actually be the misfire issue. I need to do some checking on what happens in the 6811 when you subract 0 from a negative number. It may turn into a positive number - which would be a problem if it does.

[moparzrule]

I did not care for the anti-lag feature at all, but it did work. IMO I'd rather have advanced to the max timing than pulling timing. The advanced timing will accelerate the car faster which brings the RPM's up faster which spools the turbo faster. With the anti-lag the car seemed doggish but it did spool the turbo to way more boost at a lower RPM...but with the advanced timing I would still be gone by that time.

[ShelGame]

I'm now almost positive that the misfire was caused by the anti-lag math. The way I did the math, could cause an overflow when the Anti-Lag value was 0 (it's a binary math issue that I did not realize).

I still don't see any possible way for anti-lag to have done anything else, though. It's odd that you noticed a difference at all. Though, I guess it would have done something when used with the staging limiter. I'm going to go ahead and post v14.8 with the code fix in it. But, I'm still scratching my head a little bit...

[ShelGame]

Anyone try v14.8 yet? Any feedback?

[moparzrule]

My car is down right now or I would have tried it...

[MopàrBCN]

I promise I will, - but same problem as with moparzrule....car is down....

[badandy]

I don't want to jinx myself but I'm up and running and am going to try this hopefully this evening.

Does anyone know what's up with Moparchem.com? I need Chem2 as I have a new work computer and left it on my old one. Can someone direct me to a link for the file or place it here in this one?

[moparzrule]

D-cal FTW!

[badandy]

D-cal FTW!
LOL...calm down there Matt. I do everything in D-Cal actually...but I need to add a point to my full throttle timing graph and with Chem it's a snap...then I save it and go back to D-Cal and wooolah!

[moparzrule]

Whats your email, I can email it to you I have it saved on my computer as a ZIP file.

[Aries_Turbo]

http://www.squirrelpf.com/bucar/ecu%20stuff/D-Cal_120.zip
http://www.squirrelpf.com/bucar/ecu%20stuff/Chem2.zip

[badandy]

Anyone try v14.8 yet? Any feedback?

Loaded 14.8 today...missfire still present.

Not that I know what I'm talking about but...

I remember you saying that antilag only functions when at full throttle...so if your math was indeed incorrect thereby causing an issue...wouldn't that issue also be at full throttle?...because the missfire I experience seems to be at part throttle and or tip in.

[ShelGame]

Well, anti-lag was only calculated at WOT or when staging. Otherwise the value was set to 0. But the math was always done regardless what the value was. Maybe I should add a check for WOT where the math is done...

[MopàrBCN]

Ok, just to keep the focus:

1. The miss - and this seems to be confirmed by all that have it - ONLY occurs at part throttle
2. It ONLY occurs when the car is warmed up.

Another maybe important observation, which may explain why I felt many times that it got better only to figure out later that it is still there:

I am convinced that the miss ONLY occurs after the ECU has finished it's learning procedure. I actually NEVER EVER got the miss right away after a chip swap. In fact, when I tested the last fix before version 147 I went for a longer drive devided into two legs: The first 30km I did not have a single issue. Would I have had a notebook with WIFI I would have posted full of emotions that the issue is fixed. Then I parked the car to visit a friend and on the way back I had it again and since then always.

Now, you mentioned that in your opinion it could not have got any better. I disagree. In version 12 for example it was so evident that it came continously every x seconds. It got better in the sense, that now various conditions have to be met for it to occur. In version 12 it was sufficient to be in part throttle for it to be present all the time.
In version 13 there were releases where the miss was less frequent but when it occured it was so strong that it was not only noticable but for me reason enough to go back to Ladybug.

Since version 14 you have been on the right track with getting it to a degree that yes, it disturbs but I have only once got back to Ladybug and this was to reassure me that the miss had nothing to do with my hardware.

If my new theory - that one with the learning procedure - is right, could it be, that there is a memory area you use, which originally is reserved for the values learned during this process and cause an overlap once the ECU has learned? This is one recent thought I had.

If not, the only thing I can come up with is that it must occur in the moment when the ECU notes a change from the TPS. The TPS in my opinion has to have quite some authority to decide when the driving habbit changes.

Now, the miss comes on once the car is warmed up, when in low RPM and under Load - preferably in a high gear.

I NEVER had it during a defined accelaration - I.E. going a gear down and give it throttle - as in accelerating with high RPM, no matter if that is with full or part throttle.
I only get the miss, if the RPM is on it's low limit for this gear.

I am sure you are very close. Pity that I can't test 148 right now.

[ShelGame]

You know, there was an issue I had with a cal once. It would run rich at idle. It had to do with the cam/head he ran, plus the 3-bar scaling of the O2 ramps. Basically, it caused him to be on the cruise ramp when he was idling. I wonder if something similar is happening here.

How much vac do you guys get while cruising?

[moparzrule]

Cruising on the highway I'd say ~10'' vacuum.

[ShelGame]

Cruising on the highway I'd say ~10'' vacuum.

OK, that's probably not it then. The O2 cell boundary is at ~18in vac. So, that's really only for idle.

[ShelGame]

OK, how about everyone's T-Stat temperature - or at least your typical warm running temperature?

[moparzrule]

180 t-stat

[ShelGame]

Well, I don't know if/how much of the misfire they cause - but if nothing else there are a couple of tables in the transient fuel calculations that should be changed when you change the t-stat temp. I'll note them in the next release.

I wish Geoff would release his assembler. There are a couple of changes I'd like to make. Being able to scale for some thing other than injectors is one of them. Though, I guess I could just make 3 different values and use the assembler switches.

[moparzrule]

Yeah I have those tables changed in the regular cal I run (2.2/T2/MTX/+40/3bar/stage/CEL), but I left the turbonator as is. Never had a miss in the other cal though even before I changed the tables.

[1966 dart wagon]

I also am running the 180 degree thermostat, along with a hole drilled in it as noted on garys site

[ShelGame]

Yeah I have those tables changed in the regular cal I run (2.2/T2/MTX/+40/3bar/stage/CEL), but I left the turbonator as is. Never had a miss in the other cal though even before I changed the tables.

That's why I don't think it's it. But, it should be a driveability improvment - slight.

[ShelGame]

manual trans, and I assmebled it too (used .asm file)

air charge temp sensor is enabled too

Just to double check - you assembled the cal as a 2.5, right? In the assembler? I just want to make sure because eveyone else running it and reporting the misfire is running it as a 2.2 - and there are some definite improvements I could make in the 2.2 part throttle enrichment tables. Still don't know that that's the problem, but I just want to make sure yours is using the 2.5 cal values.

[TopDollar69]

I was also having the miss with the 2.5L build.

[MopàrBCN]

On the thermostat: I as well use the 180º but never ever had an issue with any other cal, neither stock nor ladybug. I don't think that especially is an issue. Looking at Loadenrichment in my view makes sense.

I am positive that with the last changes you put in drivability as such had improved. I did note changes on load enrichment tables and frankly I noted it on my A/F Gauge ... and as well as this-(this is my view now)... I felt the miss issue improving as well.

[1966 dart wagon]

I am running the 2.5

[whywoody]

I am running the 14.7 version with my 2.5ltr hybrid van,and also have the miss at light throttle cruise (1900rpm-2300rpm range).
I have been leaning off the cold start area of the build,and had a no start this morning due to trimming too much back.I simply un plugged the coolant temp sensor and it fired up,but of course the CEL was on now,no big deal I thought as it will be gone next time I start it.I didn't have to wait this long,as the very first 'miss fire' cleared the CEL...don't know if that helps you find the fault,but it seemed like I had turned the key off,then on again.

[jpcturbo]

Actually, I changed everything back to stock values a long time ago. All of the MP stuff is out now.

Everything else should be fixed in this version. So, you should only need to set it up for your car.

Turbonator's 2.2 timing curve looks like the MP Stage II curve. That would explain why with anti-lag turned on, would boost as fast a the stock 89 2.2. :eyebrows:

14.7: 2.2, MTX, 33pph, all features untouched (disabled). I did forget to enable the charge temp sensor. Autometer says the van runs 190-200F.

[ShelGame]

I am running the 14.7 version with my 2.5ltr hybrid van,and also have the miss at light throttle cruise (1900rpm-2300rpm range).
I have been leaning off the cold start area of the build,and had a no start this morning due to trimming too much back.I simply un plugged the coolant temp sensor and it fired up,but of course the CEL was on now,no big deal I thought as it will be gone next time I start it.I didn't have to wait this long,as the very first 'miss fire' cleared the CEL...don't know if that helps you find the fault,but it seemed like I had turned the key off,then on again.

OK, does it happen during cruise? Or with slight throttle changes?

[ShelGame]

OK, it seems like the misfire is not calibration related, since it happens on both 2.2 and 2.5 the same. And, it's not related to the new code.

So, I want to try and figure out what conditions can induce the misfire. So, if you can, tell me what exactly happens when you get the misfire. Specifically, I want to know what throttle change or MAP change cause it.

If you run 14.7 or 14.8, please answer these. If you still run an earlier version, please don't. There were multiple issues causing the misfire and I don't want to confuse the ones that have already been fixed.

Does the misfire happen under these conditions (yes or no):
1) Idle

2) Constant throttle, level ground, cruise
3) Decreasing throttle, level ground, cruise
4) Increasing throttle, level ground, cruise

5) Constant throttle, uphill (such as a hill on the highway, etc.)
6) Decreasing throttle, uphill
7) Increasing throttle, uphill

8) Constant throttle, downhill
9) Decreasing throttle, downhill
10) Increasing throttle, downhill

[moparzrule]

I tried the 14.7....

1) Idle - no

2) Constant throttle, level ground, cruise- yes
3) Decreasing throttle, level ground, cruise -no
4) Increasing throttle, level ground, cruise -yes but less than at constant throttle

5) Constant throttle, uphill (such as a hill on the highway, etc.) -yes
6) Decreasing throttle, uphill -no
7) Increasing throttle, uphill - yes but less than at constant throttle

8) Constant throttle, downhill- Been awhile but I want to say no
9) Decreasing throttle, downhill- no
10) Increasing throttle, downhill- Again want to say no but can't remember


In general it seemed to misfire with light to medium throttle but with heavy load it got worse(as in going uphill), never happened at WOT.

[MopàrBCN]

14.7

1) Idle - NO

2) Constant throttle, level ground, cruise - NO
3) Decreasing throttle, level ground, cruise - NO
4) Increasing throttle, level ground, cruise - YES but rarely

5) Constant throttle, uphill (such as a hill on the highway, etc.) YES
6) Decreasing throttle, uphill NO
7) Increasing throttle, uphill YES and notably at low RPM

8) Constant throttle, downhill NO
9) Decreasing throttle, downhill NO
10) Increasing throttle, downhill Not sure

[badandy]

When you say "constant throttle" you do mean not accellerating or decellerating correct?

Does the misfire happen under these conditions (yes or no):
1) Idle - no

2) Constant throttle, level ground, cruise - no
3) Decreasing throttle, level ground, cruise - no
4) Increasing throttle, level ground, cruise - yes

5) Constant throttle, uphill (such as a hill on the highway, etc.) - don't know as I'm usually increasing throttle for uphill
6) Decreasing throttle, uphill - no
7) Increasing throttle, uphill - yes

8) Constant throttle, downhill - no
9) Decreasing throttle, downhill - no
10) Increasing throttle, downhill - yes but not as noticeable.

[ShelGame]

OK, thanks guys. How about timing? Does it happen right at tip-in? Or is there a delay? Like, you increase thottle, and there is a small delay, then misfire. Or, does it misfire the instant you increase throttle?

[moparzrule]

Sounds like we all pretty much have the same results.

If I recall, it's NOT an instant misfire, there is a slight delay.

[MopàrBCN]

Yep, there is a slight delay. An then it is like it would have a fuel cut for a split moment. So no bang or anything like this. It is like it chokes for a second and then it continues going normaly.

[zin]

Just thought I'd interject with a question/suggestion. Would data-logging help at all? I'm merely an observer at this point, but seems like if someone or multiple someones could log the event it might shed some light, assuming that the info logged wouldn't be erroneous.

Mike

[ShelGame]

Yes, it would! But, there aren't many that can datalog our ECU's. I can, but my car has been put up for the winter. Even if I hadn't, slicks+snow = :(.

FWIW, I had the miss, too, everytime I tested T-SMEC. I had it at both P/T and WOT, though. But, I'm sure I fixed the WOT issue in v14.0.

[moparzrule]

Yeah I never had any WOT issues, but I tried version 14.6 and 14.7 I think.

[badandy]

Exactly what parameters would be beneficial for you to see? I can datalog rpm, a/f, lamda, throttle position, egt, boost, and 1 more user input from my zeitronix.

Do you think it's timing or fuel that's the hiccup?

[ShelGame]

I would really need to datalog some memory locations in the SMEC. Right now, I want to make sure the MAP and TPS averaging is working right.

I'd also want to see fuel PW and Ignition Advance, to see where the miss is coming from (though, I'm 99% sure it's fuel).

[quantum]

I would really need to datalog some memory locations in the SMEC. Right now, I want to make sure the MAP and TPS averaging is working right.

I'd also want to see fuel PW and Ignition Advance, to see where the miss is coming from (though, I'm 99% sure it's fuel).

Supposedly the lastest firmware on the Ostrich allows memory mapping and logging. I haven't messed with it at all though so I don't know much about it. If you want I'll look into it. My car is still "on the road" so I can drive it if there is a nice dry winter day here in PA (though my battery died a week ago so I need to buy a new one before I can take it out).

[ShelGame]

Yeah, if you get the chance it would be great.

[ShelGame]

What Ireally need to figure out is - does the miss occur with increasing MAP or decreasing MAP? It sounds like it's likely decreasing MAP (that would be why there's a delay between tip-in and the miss). When you tip-in, the MAP at first increases as the throttle allows more air in. But, depending on how much throttle you give it, MAP could then decrease back to cruising vacuum. Or, if you give it more throttle, it will increase further (as you get into boost).

But, I've poured over the transient code many times, and it's identical to stock - even the calibration data. I'm not sure what else to look for...

[Aries_Turbo]

i used to have a slight miss back a few years ago on a old RP LM cal similar to that. the issue was that the PEFTBL was still a 2.2L one and I was running a 2.5L motor. It was too lean there and would pop when transitioning towards boost.

Brian

[MopàrBCN]

Hi, I took the car out for a test drive today (v148). The miss has not disappeared, so far no news.

But I would like to stress a theory I mentioned earlier on:

In my case, once I put in a new chip and go for a drive I don't have the miss no matter if the car is hot or cold for at least 30 miles. Once the idle has stabalizes (which for me is once the learning procedure of the SMEC is finished) the miss comes back. And up from then it stays.

Today I had exactly this situation. Put in the chip went for a drive with no issues at all. Then after round 15 miles of highway cruising I come to a stop. The idle still is round 1000 rpm. Go on driving another 15 miles and then for the first time I note the miss. I went to a stop right a way, and bingo - idle is now at 850 rpm. Drive the car back home and leave it for some minutes. Start up, idle now is stable, the car still warm, go on the highway and have the miss occuring ocasionally.

Now I disconect battery, put in a new chip and start the car. Idle now is again at round 1100 Rpm - I go for a drive and NO ISSUE at all. This time idle stabalises earlier, after 15 miles I am at my traffic light, idle initially is at 1000 and then drops for the first time to 850. Up from then I can note the miss.

My question: How and where does the SMEC store it's learned values? And could it be, that those values interfere with something hard addressed in your code?

[ShelGame]

Hi, I took the car out for a test drive today (v148). The miss has not disappeared, so far no news.

But I would like to stress a theory I mentioned earlier on:

In my case, once I put in a new chip and go for a drive I don't have the miss no matter if the car is hot or cold for at least 30 miles. Once the idle has stabalizes (which for me is once the learning procedure of the SMEC is finished) the miss comes back. And up from then it stays.

Today I had exactly this situation. Put in the chip went for a drive with no issues at all. Then after round 15 miles of highway cruising I come to a stop. The idle still is round 1000 rpm. Go on driving another 15 miles and then for the first time I note the miss. I went to a stop right a way, and bingo - idle is now at 850 rpm. Drive the car back home and leave it for some minutes. Start up, idle now is stable, the car still warm, go on the highway and have the miss occuring ocasionally.

Now I disconect battery, put in a new chip and start the car. Idle now is again at round 1100 Rpm - I go for a drive and NO ISSUE at all. This time idle stabalises earlier, after 15 miles I am at my traffic light, idle initially is at 1000 and then drops for the first time to 850. Up from then I can note the miss.

My question: How and where does the SMEC store it's learned values? And could it be, that those values interfere with something hard addressed in your code?

It can't be interfering with any new code. The learned values are stored in ram. It's just battery backed when the engine is off.

It can't be calibration-related because it happens on both 2.2 and 2.5 the same. It must be in the code somewhere - I just haven't found it yet. From the sound of it, it must be in the spark scatter idle control routine. But, I swear I've been through that code a thousand times and it's line-for-line identical with factory code.

[MopàrBCN]

Hi, ok, made some more testing. This time focussing on one of your earlier questions if the miss occurs with increasing or decreasing map.

This is an intersting one. Last night I used a highway with a slight rise over a longer distance, so ideal for provoking the miss.

I can NOT confirm that the miss happens with decreasing map. However, it doesn't happen with rising map either.

Focussing on Map there is exactly one situation in which I allways was able to provoke the miss and this is having a STEADY map vacuum with slightly increasing load. If I manage to drive like this, it can even happen that the miss occurs various times in a short periode of time. But this is an exception. In normal driving you have it once and that's it.

Now, you never have the miss once the Map is steadyly increasing or decreasing.

Although the miss can happen at any point in vacuum once the condition exists, it most frequently happens between -10" to 0". But I had it as well at -20" at one point.

To sum it up: Driving at a steady Map with a slightly increasing load is the key to 100% provoke the miss.

Hope that helps!

[Aries_Turbo]

so maybe a load enrichment issue?

Brian

[MopàrBCN]

Yep this is what I have on my short list as well, and it brings back an idea that I had a long time ago but never dared to try it since I was not sure about the impact those changes could have. The loadenrichment tables are totally different from the corresponding ladybug ones. I will apply those just to see if it has an effect. Yep, that is what I will try now.

I figured out that Rob had made some changes recently to those tables resulting in a notable improvement.

[moparzrule]

So have we determined that the miss is a lean pop? Or what?

[MopàrBCN]

I can't tell it right now, all I can say is that I just made changes to those items: (some of them significant...)

-> AESLOP
-> AETIME
-> DCELTM
-> DECHYS
-> DECTRG
-> DTRG2
-> HIGHMP
-> HMPMUL
-> LOTIME
-> LOTRPM
-> OCTAE
-> POSFUL
-> PWADD
-> RUNLMT

I'll let you guys know by tomorrow if it has brought me closer to the solution!

[ShelGame]

I can't tell it right now, all I can say is that I just made changes to those items: (some of them significant...)

-> AESLOP
-> AETIME



Can you try something specific for me? Try scaling the above 2 tables by 2/3 (66%). These 2 are the MAP averaging time constants. I did not scale them in any of my modified cals, but perhaps they should be. Since the MAP change will be less (on a bit level) relative to the original code. I'm not sure that 2/3 is really the right scaling, but try it if you have time.

[MopàrBCN]

Hi Rob, yep did that. I am close to test! I will send you all code later on. In my version tracker I have ascii based only the changed table names. This is why I only pasted the names. For the rest my programm creates charts which always are a pain to post here.

But be assured, that I will get you all the values and results!

For the time being I changed:

AESLOP NEW
DeltaMAPEnrichment_FromTemp (AESLOP)
.byte 0x02
.byte 0x58, 0x56, 0xff, 0x8a
.byte 0xcd, 0x20

AESLOP OLD
DeltaMAPEnrichment_FromTemp (AESLOP)
.byte 0x02
.byte 0xa6, 0x06, 0x00, 0x5c
.byte 0xcd, 0x14

AETIME NEW
EnrichmentTime_FromTemp (AETIME)
.byte 0x01
.byte 0xff, 0x14
AETIME OLD
EnrichmentTime_FromTemp (AETIME)
.byte 0x01
.byte 0xff, 0x38

[ShelGame]

Hi Rob, yep did that. I am close to test! I will send you all code later on. In my version tracker I have ascii based only the changed table names. This is why I only pasted the names. For the rest my programm creates charts which always are a pain to post here.

But be assured, that I will get you all the values and results!

For the time being I changed:

AESLOP NEW
DeltaMAPEnrichment_FromTemp (AESLOP)
.byte 0x02
.byte 0x58, 0x56, 0xff, 0x8a
.byte 0xcd, 0x20

AESLOP OLD
DeltaMAPEnrichment_FromTemp (AESLOP)
.byte 0x02
.byte 0xa6, 0x06, 0x00, 0x5c
.byte 0xcd, 0x14

AETIME NEW
EnrichmentTime_FromTemp (AETIME)
.byte 0x01
.byte 0xff, 0x14
AETIME OLD
EnrichmentTime_FromTemp (AETIME)
.byte 0x01
.byte 0xff, 0x38

Also, I should mention that some table names are not correct when compared to LadyBug60. I have fixed those for v14.9. But, even still, some of the names I don't think are correct with respect to the actual function of the table. In particular, the 2 tables I mentioned are the time constants for the MAP averageing function (time-based filter). There are also 2 similar tables for the TPS averaging function (actually, they are the same function, but use different time constants). The table names don't really describe what the table is in some cases.

[MopàrBCN]

Hi, well, it did not solve the problem anyways... It was worth a try though.

Now I will try doing your other idea:


Can you try something specific for me? Try scaling the above 2 tables by 2/3 (66%). These 2 are the MAP averaging time constants. I did not scale them in any of my modified cals, but perhaps they should be. Since the MAP change will be less (on a bit level) relative to the original code. I'm not sure that 2/3 is really the right scaling, but try it if you have time.

We'll get there!!

[ShelGame]

Hi, well, it did not solve the problem anyways... It was worth a try though.

Now I will try doing your other idea:



We'll get there!!

Actually, I just looked at the S60 code compared to LB60, and I think the table I labelled as "AETIME_EnrichmentTime_FromTemp" in v148 MUST be scaled by 2/3. In LB60, this value is 0x48 (and is NOT scaled with MAP). But, in the S60 code, this same value is 0x28 - which is slightly less than 2/3 of 0x48. This is the decreasing MAP time constant (used in the MAP filter code). I'm not sure about the increasing MAP time constant. It is the same from S60 to stock T2 code.

The real question is (assuming this is the problem) - why is this not a problem in 'converted' cals?

[MopàrBCN]

Hi, well on the "real question", I think all of us are doing guesswork right now. I think the load enrichment thing is an option but not necesarily the solution.

Problem is - unlike the miss in earlier versions - I do not have a notable A/F reading change in the moment of the miss. For me it feels like the fuel is cut for a split moment. But nothing reacts. Not one gauge, not a single light. It just stops for a split second and then carries on. It is more audible then notable in the sense that it goes that quick that you only roughly note that you had it. And it all does this in one particular situation only.

Well this is not entirely true, today during testing I had this miss in another situation as well:

I was getting off the highway and was down in second to give it a good deal of throttle. The revs would have been low enough to use first gear. While it was accelerating I had the miss again. Now I did not mention this earlier on because I am not sure if that is result of the changes I made for this test. I nearly think that particular one does not count because I did not have it since version 13 I think. So this is just for the record.

There are two facts:

1. It was way worse in earlier versions and
2. I am positive we have only one issue left. I feel positive about this because I can provoke the miss and as a rule of thumb it only occurs in that situation.

Now I will do that scaling and we take it from there!

[MopàrBCN]

Rob, quick one, hope you read...
Do I have to scale AESLOP2 as well??

[MopàrBCN]

Ok, done it anyway. Should we perhaps as well look at the Partthrottle Enrichment Tables??? I came across this group. But this for me is all new territory!

[badandy]

Hi, well on the "real question", I think all of us are doing guesswork right now. I think the load enrichment thing is an option but not necesarily the solution.

Problem is - unlike the miss in earlier versions - I do not have a notable A/F reading change in the moment of the miss. For me it feels like the fuel is cut for a split moment. But nothing reacts. Not one gauge, not a single light. It just stops for a split second and then carries on. It is more audible then notable in the sense that it goes that quick that you only roughly note that you had it. And it all does this in one particular situation only.

Well this is not entirely true, today during testing I had this miss in another situation as well:

I was getting off the highway and was down in second to give it a good deal of throttle. The revs would have been low enough to use first gear. While it was accelerating I had the miss again. Now I did not mention this earlier on because I am not sure if that is result of the changes I made for this test. I nearly think that particular one does not count because I did not have it since version 13 I think. So this is just for the record.

There are two facts:

1. It was way worse in earlier versions and
2. I am positive we have only one issue left. I feel positive about this because I can provoke the miss and as a rule of thumb it only occurs in that situation.

Now I will do that scaling and we take it from there!
Weird...

I am definately having wideband o2 readings go lean when the stumble happens :confused: This is on a Zeitronix. If need be I could datalog these occurances.

[MopàrBCN]

Hi, there you have an advantage! I haven't got a wideband hooked up - which I should have mentioned! I think datalogging would be great!!!

[MopàrBCN]

@Rob, update:

I scaled that two tables - as you asked me to do, and tested quite extensively. Now, it did not get rid of the miss but once more it got notably better. It is not as easy now to provoke the miss.

So if @badandy really could datalog the miss and with what has been achieved by now maybe it gives a path.

I now seem to get the miss especially when accelerating from low rpm in second gear and then when passing 2000/2500 RPM. This when applying part throttle.

During cruise it now nearly does not happen any more. I had to try quite hard to get it provoked.

[whywoody]

I am still using the 14.7 version with my van,and have driven it alot lately trying to provoke the miss.What I have noticed is that the miss is most often around 2200rpm with light load and throttle,however I ahve had it as low as 1500rpm and high as 3000rpm.The miss varies alot in it's duration,sometimes it's barely noticeable while others it puts a big shake through the van.I have also had it bad enough lately where the engine shuts off,as if I turned the key back from the run position,and will not restart while rolling or cranking until I do actually turn the key off then back on....The alternator stops charging at this point also.I am going to try another cal for a while to make sure this is not being caused by something else.
I have an OTC4000e scan tool I could try and log info with if that would help?

[MopàrBCN]

Hi, I can confirm the RPM range from @whywoody. Today I was out for a while and the car had a lot of misses. It reminded me that there is a close relation between the miss happening and coolant temperature. The hotter the car gets the stronger and as well more frequent is the miss occuring.

So coolant temp is definately a factor not to be overseen!

[ShelGame]

Thanks guys, that's good info. It doesn't look like it's RPM-based. Those RPM ranges go across all adaptive cells and O2 toggles.

[ShelGame]

If someone could do some datalogging, I think that would be helpful. I'd like to know for sure if it's coming from fuel or from timing. I don't think it's timing as I had the same miss on an earlier build - I logged advance and did not see any changes when the miss occurred. Of course, with the logging rate I had (10 samples/sec), it's entirely possible I simply missed the change. Plus, it was an old build that may have been partially fixed now.

[ShelGame]

Here's something to try: unscale the 'RPMMAP_SwitchPointForDownUp_FromRpm' in the Y axis (MAP). I'm not sure that this needs to be scaled for MAP. So, as an experiment, unscale it (scale it by 150% on the Y axis). See how it runs.

This is an odd one - it actually looks like a Chrysler code error. The value from this table is compared to MAP, but the comparison does nothing. No branch or change is made because of the result. The value is also later manipulated and then compared to EPP's (distributor pulses - how is this related to MAP? - it isn't). So, it may not be a MAP table at all. Though, it very much has a similar shape (and relative position in the code) to a table by the same name in the BB60 code which definitely has MAP as the Y axis. So, I'm thinking Chrysler screwed up or something. It really makes no sense what they have done...

EDIT: It's not an error, I think. Because nearly the same code is used at least thru the '91 T1/VNT cals.

If there is anyone reading this thread that can read 6811 assy code, please look at this and tell me what this might be doing. Read my comments in the code for what I think it's doing. This is from LB60, but the T1 version is exactly the same.


HandlePartThrottleEnrichmentAndSparkScatterFuel_MM :
ldx #RPMMAP_SwitchPointForDownUp_FromRpm ; load index with value
ldaa EngineRpms ; load a with memory contents
jsr LookupTable ; call subroutine
ldab MapValue ; load b with memory contents
cba
; why bother comparing to MAP at all? I don't get it. This comparison is never used.
rora
; why rotate the lookup value? It appears below that it's simply checking for odd/even values - but why?
; if the value is ODD, then bit7 will now be set, EVEN and it's cleared
ldx #PTENR_EppPerAmountForIncreasing ; load index with value
anda #0x80 ; AND a with value -10000000-
; this clears A of all bits except 7
bmi L1398 ; branch if minus(hi bit 1)
; so, basically, if the lookup value was ODD, then branch, otherwise increment accX twice...
inx ; increment index (x=x+1)
inx ; increment index (x=x+1)
L1398: staa TemporaryVariable0 ; store a into memory
; but, accA will always contain 0x00 or 0x80 at this point
tab ; b = a
; now, accB also contains 0x00 or 0x80
eorb Counter_FallingEdgeEPP_MaxFF
bpl L1399 ; branch if plus (hi bit 0)
staa Counter_FallingEdgeEPP_MaxFF ; store a into memory
ldab Timer_OpenLoopFraction ; load b with memory contents
bra L1400 ; branch


Why does the code do the comparison to MAP? The comparison does nothing, as far as I can tell. No changes, no branch, nothing. So why bother?

Later, it appears as though the same lookup value is modified (to end up being either 0x00 or ox80 ONLY) and then compared to EPP's. Again, if it's a MAP value, why compare to EPP's? What I'm thinking is, this table is not actually a MAP comapre, it's an EPP table. And, it looks like they only use it to determine odd/even values. Though the shape of the table is very similar to the one used the '87 code - and it definitely is a MAP table.

But, if it's NOT a MAP table, then it does NOT need to be scaled for MAP.

The code here is similar from the '89 T2 up thru the '91 T1/VNT. So, I don't think it's an error on Chryslers part. I just don't understand what they are trying to do with this table (RPMMAP).

[badandy]

If someone could do some datalogging, I think that would be helpful. I'd like to know for sure if it's coming from fuel or from timing. I don't think it's timing as I had the same miss on an earlier build - I logged advance and did not see any changes when the miss occurred. Of course, with the logging rate I had (10 samples/sec), it's entirely possible I simply missed the change. Plus, it was an old build that may have been partially fixed now.

If it was from timing wouldn't the skip cause my a/f readings to go rich?...so with that logic if my a/f readings go lean (which they do) than the issue would be due to fuel.

I can log the problem but you will have to d/l zeitronix datalogger to view it I do believe.

[ShelGame]

Actually, I really think now it's the table I mentioned in my previous post. It's NOT a MAP-referenced table and should not have been scaled. In fact, LB60 does NOT scale this table (eventhough the table entry shows it scaled, the table data is NOT scaled) which is probably why there is no problem with LB60.

If someone can try to reverse the scaling above and give it a try, that would be great! Should be an easy test...

[badandy]

Here's something to try: unscale the 'RPMMAP_SwitchPointForDownUp_FromRpm' in the Y axis (MAP). I'm not sure that this needs to be scaled for MAP. So, as an experiment, unscale it (scale it by 150% on the Y axis). See how it runs.

This is an odd one - it actually looks like a Chrysler code error. The value from this table is compared to MAP, but the comparison does nothing. No branch or change is made because of the result. The value is also later manipulated and then compared to EPP's (distributor pulses - how is this related to MAP? - it isn't). So, it may not be a MAP table at all. Though, it very much has a similar shape (and relative position in the code) to a table by the same name in the BB60 code which definitely has MAP as the Y axis. So, I'm thinking Chrysler screwed up or something. It really makes no sense what they have done...

EDIT: It's not an error, I think. Because nearly the same code is used at least thru the '91 T1/VNT cals.

If there is anyone reading this thread that can read 6811 assy code, please look at this and tell me what this might be doing. Read my comments in the code for what I think it's doing. This is from LB60, but the T1 version is exactly the same.


HandlePartThrottleEnrichmentAndSparkScatterFuel_MM :
ldx #RPMMAP_SwitchPointForDownUp_FromRpm ; load index with value
ldaa EngineRpms ; load a with memory contents
jsr LookupTable ; call subroutine
ldab MapValue ; load b with memory contents
cba
; why bother comparing to MAP at all? I don't get it. This comparison is never used.
rora
; why rotate the lookup value? It appears below that it's simply checking for odd/even values - but why?
; if the value is ODD, then bit7 will now be set, EVEN and it's cleared
ldx #PTENR_EppPerAmountForIncreasing ; load index with value
anda #0x80 ; AND a with value -10000000-
; this clears A of all bits except 7
bmi L1398 ; branch if minus(hi bit 1)
; so, basically, if the lookup value was ODD, then branch, otherwise increment accX twice...
inx ; increment index (x=x+1)
inx ; increment index (x=x+1)
L1398: staa TemporaryVariable0 ; store a into memory
; but, accA will always contain 0x00 or 0x80 at this point
tab ; b = a
; now, accB also contains 0x00 or 0x80
eorb Counter_FallingEdgeEPP_MaxFF
bpl L1399 ; branch if plus (hi bit 0)
staa Counter_FallingEdgeEPP_MaxFF ; store a into memory
ldab Timer_OpenLoopFraction ; load b with memory contents
bra L1400 ; branch


Why does the code do the comparison to MAP? The comparison does nothing, as far as I can tell. No changes, no branch, nothing. So why bother?

Later, it appears as though the same lookup value is modified (to end up being either 0x00 or ox80 ONLY) and then compared to EPP's. Again, if it's a MAP value, why compare to EPP's? What I'm thinking is, this table is not actually a MAP comapre, it's an EPP table. And, it looks like they only use it to determine odd/even values. Though the shape of the table is very similar to the one used the '87 code - and it definitely is a MAP table.

But, if it's NOT a MAP table, then it does NOT need to be scaled for MAP.

The code here is similar from the '89 T2 up thru the '91 T1/VNT. So, I don't think it's an error on Chryslers part. I just don't understand what they are trying to do with this table (RPMMAP).

I'm working on scaling it now and I will report back this evening...

[MopàrBCN]

It's good to have you guys back :-) HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

[badandy]

Rob,

I scaled the table as you suggested except for one thing. I was a little confused on if you meant to scale the points in vacuum...and if so down or up (- or +)? so I left those alone and only scaled the points in boost 150%. I still had the issue but it was very slight by comparison and only in vacuum from what I could tell and never in boost. I believe you are on to something with this because it was MUCH IMPROVED!

Should I scale the points in vacuum as well?...if so I would think you would scale them towards the + right?

...I hope you see this because I think this is the fix. I'm going to make some adjustments and give it another whirl. The car sure was much more pleasureable to drive...maybe placebo but it just seemed more smooth accellerating out of boost?

[ShelGame]

Yes, scale the whole table by 150%. Boost/vac has no meaning, as this is not really a MAP-related table (It's a modifier for the EPP Counter, actually). If you want, you can even change the Y scale to the default of in/out 0-255 counts to keep from getting confused. I'm updating v14.9 to reflect the actual references for the table.

Smoother accel is certainly possible, this table affects the Part throttle enrichment (in what way, I'm not 100% clear)...

[ShelGame]

It's good to have you guys back :-) HAPPY NEW YEAR!!


Yeap, amazing how things seem clearer after a few days away in the sun!

[badandy]

Okay, I better understand now that we are not neccessarily referencing it to map vacuum and boost pressure. I think I've got it where it needs to be and time for the final test run for the night :D

[ShelGame]

:bounce2:Waiting very impatiently....

[badandy]

:bounce2:Waiting very impatiently....

I had more occurances that last time and they were also more abrupt as compared to the time before? I changed the reference of the Y axis to "Factor (%%)" just now and realized I still had not scaled what you suggested. I'm going to pop it in and go for one more drive and see what we have.
I should be reporting back in about 30 to 45 min.

[ShelGame]

If you have a stock cal, just match those points. I don't have my thumbdrive loaded or I'd post it up...

[badandy]

If you have a stock cal, just match those points. I don't have my thumbdrive loaded or I'd post it up...I can load up one off here I suppose? I looked at the 89MP TII cal but couldn't find the table?

That drive was unsuccessful...although better.

[badandy]

I forgot to mention that the car also was hard to start.

[ShelGame]

I can load up one off here I suppose? I looked at the 89MP TII cal but couldn't find the table?

That drive was unsuccessful...although better.

On the '89 T2 cals I think it's called 'MapFromRPM' and it's a few tables below the A,B,C fuel tables.

[badandy]

If you have a stock cal, just match those points. I don't have my thumbdrive loaded or I'd post it up...
I found it in ladybug60 and boy is it big time different! I've copied the table and will check it out tomorrow.:nod: