PDA

View Full Version : Turbonator SMEC codebase



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ShelGame
03-13-2008, 10:19 PM
Turbonator/SMEC --- is custom source code for SMEC equipped cars (1988-1989 + 1990 Masi TC). This is a source code+template format – meaning that the calibration data is stored in a separate file from the actual code. If you’re new to this format, it is different from D-Cal and CHeM in that they edited the actual Chrysler binary file directly. While, with MP Tune and Turbonator, we create a completely new binary file from the source code. After compilation, MP Tune still allows the user to edit the binary directly if you choose.

This Turbonator/SMEC is based on the stock Chrysler '89 T1 code and calibrations. But, with the additional features listed. These features are unique to the Turbonator codebase.

Turbonator/SMEC Features:

1) Knock Indicator – This feature flashes the ‘Check Engine’ lamp whenever the timing is being retarded due to knock. It’s a useful feature to feedback to the driver when you should back off to save your engine.

2) Switchable boost – This allows a ‘LOW’ boost setting to be used when a switch is applied. Unfortunately, it must be one of the existing inputs to the SMEC (Cruise, A/C, P/N switch, etc.). But, these can be ‘doubled up’ – IE, you can have the cruise on/off switch work for both hi/lo boost as well as cruise. This is similar in operation to the S60 boost switch feature, though without the timing adjustment for low octane fuel.

3) Staging Limiter (2-Step) – This feature allows a lower than normal rev limit to be set. This lower limit can be enabled by a low speed cutoff (usually 2-10mph), and/or a switch (usually the brake switch for auto cars). The lower rev limit is useful for launching the car in a drag race.

4) Spark-Cut Rev Limiter – Added the ability to specify a spark-cut to be used for the rev limit instead of a fuel-cut (which is the stock operation). When used in conjunction with the staging limiter, this gives much more precise control of the RPM while staging. The fuel-cut typically has a ~500rpm swing. The spark-cut staging limiter can get down to ~200rpm.

5) Anti-lag Retard – Anti-Lag is a feature that helps spool the turbo. For this release of T-SMEC, anti-lag has been completely re-written. Previously, anti-lag retarded the timing proportionally to the difference from boost target. Now, the Anti-lag timing is a pre-set value and it only works during staging (though, it will work with either the spark-cut or fuel-cut limiters). The anti-lag/staging advance can be set anywhere from -16 to +16 degrees.

6) Shift Light – Uses the Upshift Indicator/PTU output on the SMEC for a built-in shift light. Just a basic-on/off shift light similar in function to the aftermarket tach shift lights.

7) Alky Injection – This feature is available, but not included in the standard build. Please PM me if you are interested in using it. Due to space and time limitations, I commented it out. But, it can easily be re-enabled for those that are interested.

8) Customized Boost Control – Added some custom code and an additional table to modify the WG duty Cycle as an anti-lag measure. Basically, the WGDC is set to 100% during transients to keep the WG from seeing the manifold pressure and releasing the exhaust gases early.

9) Modified Dwell Calculation - Added Dwell compensation for battery volts. This will maintain better dwell control than the stock code. Should improve ignition performance at WOT (when the alternator shuts off and battery voltage can drop).

10) 150% Pumping Efficiency Table Scale - Not working, disabled for now.

11) PTU (Lock-up) solenoid operation – Added PTU capability to the SMEC codebase. This is the exact same functionality as the stock 3.0 and later 4-cylinder turbo and TBI ECU’s.

12) Decel Fuel Cut - This will cut fuel (completely) on decel for fuel economy improvement. Currently only works on MT trans cals.

13) WB2NB - This is a feature that will allow you to feed a 0-5v WB signal directly into the SMEC thru the exsisting O2 sensor input. The code will automatically convert the signal to a NB range for use in the stock feedback machansim. The WB AFR is stored in RAM so that it can be read and logged using MP Tune. There is also a constant value that can be used to offse the entire NB signal to force the engine to run richer or leaner in feedback mode.


7/11/2014 - V19.4 Posted:
- Added an option to use the launch control 'bang-bang' style
- Updated table grouping to make things easier to find

8/24/2014 - V19.5 Posted:
- Fixed the switchable boost and launch boost settings (were not working correctly)

12/14/2014 - V19.6 Posted:
- Fixed the main rev limiter (issue cause by the staging limiter fix above).

Download links:
Turbonator SMEC Latest ZIP file (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwcPBhg2fwrIbmQwQkxMMTdkbG8/view?usp=sharing)
2.4L Base cal (based on the SRT timing curves) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwcPBhg2fwrIRV9fRHBub0RzdlE/view?usp=sharing)

mcsvt
03-14-2008, 12:19 AM
Looks good Rob, I'll let you know if I get to test it.

Thanks :thumb:

quantum
03-14-2008, 06:41 AM
Awsome! Great work. I can't wait to see your SBEC code as well.

ShelGame
03-14-2008, 07:36 AM
Oh! I also plan to add 2.2 calibration data for a future release. For now, this includes only 2.5 cal data...

moparzrule
03-14-2008, 07:54 AM
Darn, of course this gets released the same time I switch back to a 2.2 LOL. I'll wait I guess.

moparzrule
03-14-2008, 07:57 AM
I downloaded it anyway just to look at it. It made D-cal freeze up, but opens fine in chem2. ???

ShelGame
03-14-2008, 08:02 AM
Yeah, I don't know exactly what the deal is with that. The assembler does something funky to the table file when it writes it. If you open it in CHeM1 first, then save it (without making any changes) it will open fine in D-Cal. I've looked and can't see anything different before and after openeing with CHeM1, so I dunno what the deal is. It's just some sort of table file glitch caused by the assembler.

I'm going to ask Geoff to open up his assembler code, so I can try to tweak it a little.

moparzrule
03-14-2008, 08:05 AM
Hmm, I don't have Chem1, can somebody post here or PM me a zip file for that?

ShelGame
03-14-2008, 08:37 AM
Here ya go...

moparzrule
03-14-2008, 08:41 AM
It worked, thats interesting LOL. Thanks rob.

mcsvt
03-14-2008, 09:04 AM
Matt I had the same issue with D-cal, I went on the Yahoo group and downloaded the latest version as I was working with a really old one... Worked fine on that version.

Also it opened fine in Chem and Chem2, I had to go find Chem as I didn't have that one.

ShelGame
03-14-2008, 09:37 AM
I get the same crash with D-Cal 1.2 (the latest version)...

mcsvt
03-14-2008, 10:25 AM
Guess I'm just special on this one... All I did was overwrite the old D-Cal files with what was in the 1.2 zip...

wowzer
03-16-2008, 05:50 PM
couple things i noticed in the .asm file that may help the crashes. In particular the .chem table definitions:

1) CruiseControlMaxSetSpeedTimesTwo - uses .chem 6 table def which i think requires up to 8 choices to be defined.
2) CruiseControlMinSetSpeedTimesTwo - uses .chem 6 table def which i think requires up to 8 choices to be defined.

this seemed to fix the crashes for me.

Also, other defs to look at:

1) KnockRetardIncreaseRate - .chem 3 - the word INCSRT is in there twice
2) OverboostFuelShutOffEnablePointFromMap - looks like it is defined twice

Lastly, in the .tbl file provided i think address 86bc should be defined as a constant 8 bit.

ShelGame
03-17-2008, 09:07 AM
couple things i noticed in the .asm file that may help the crashes. In particular the .chem table definitions:

1) CruiseControlMaxSetSpeedTimesTwo - uses .chem 6 table def which i think requires up to 8 choices to be defined.
2) CruiseControlMinSetSpeedTimesTwo - uses .chem 6 table def which i think requires up to 8 choices to be defined.

this seemed to fix the crashes for me.

Also, other defs to look at:

1) KnockRetardIncreaseRate - .chem 3 - the word INCSRT is in there twice
2) OverboostFuelShutOffEnablePointFromMap - looks like it is defined twice

Lastly, in the .tbl file provided i think address 86bc should be defined as a constant 8 bit.


Thanks! Yep, that fixes the D-Cal crashing. I'll incorporate these changes into v12.

wowzer
03-17-2008, 03:53 PM
actually 86bc should be changed to chem type 3 in the .asm file under
REVLMT_MapLimpinAndThrAbove25PercentLower1850. sorry.

Stratman
03-18-2008, 01:10 PM
I am rusty with this stuff already! Please, explain how to use the assembler batch file to create an output.

ShelGame
03-18-2008, 01:27 PM
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.

Stratman
03-18-2008, 02:11 PM
Thanks Rob,
I remember having this problem years ago. I forgot to include the ChemAsmSMEC and Ezlink files in the folder.
It works now, but it gives me this:
?ASxxxx-Error-<q> in line 2367 of Turbonator_SMEC_v11.asm
<q> missing or improper operators, terminators, or delimiters

1966 dart wagon
03-18-2008, 02:41 PM
awesome coding i'll have to try and look into it and read more about all these tuning things on the tm's. how exactly does antilag work, it pulls timming at 16degrees vac. when full throttle, how exactly does this build boost when your not moving, cause from my understanding you need to have a 'load' on the engine to build boost, yet ive seen hondas and some dsms do it :confused:

ShelGame
03-18-2008, 02:53 PM
It builds boost by allowing the fuel to burn in the manifold rather than the combustion chamber.

It pulls up to 16deg of timing based on the delta to boost target; if you're in vac, the boost target is set to 0 normally, so you'd get no anti-lag.

wowzer
03-18-2008, 03:18 PM
Thanks Rob,
I remember having this problem years ago. I forgot to include the ChemAsmSMEC and Ezlink files in the folder.
It works now, but it gives me this:
?ASxxxx-Error-<q> in line 2367 of Turbonator_SMEC_v11.asm
<q> missing or improper operators, terminators, or delimiters

do a search in the .asm file for this label:
HIGHM2_ColdLoadFromCoolantTemp2

on point 5 there is an extra comma after the last data byte (0x00):
.byte 0xc7, 0x00, ; point 5

try deleting the comma and rerunning.

Stratman
03-18-2008, 03:42 PM
That was it. Problem fixed. Thanks.
This happened when changing the MTX bit in the assembly file which makes sense due to the comma being under the "if MTX" lines.

Stratman
03-18-2008, 04:07 PM
Would there be a problem to change the flags in D-Cal and tune it with zChem2? I looks like it should work ok to me.

Stratman
03-18-2008, 05:42 PM
Someone needs to post some video of the anti lag in action on the TD cars.

ShelGame
03-18-2008, 07:45 PM
Would there be a problem to change the flags in D-Cal and tune it with zChem2? I looks like it should work ok to me.

Yes, that will work fine...

1966 dart wagon
03-19-2008, 11:52 AM
Someone needs to post some video of the anti lag in action on the TD cars.

agreed :amen::hail::thumb:

Stratman
03-29-2008, 01:26 AM
It looks like I actually got the LM_V6 to work correctly after changing the MTX option. Since I got the new Daytona I tried to create the SMEC MTX v11 cal tonight. No matter what I did it would continuously crash D-Cal even after trying to fix all the known problem stated in this thread. I tried to save in CHEM1 which worked for the LM code but not the SMEC MTX I assembled. Any thoughts?

wowzer
03-31-2008, 12:54 PM
hmm - after making the changes posted in 14,16 and 22 it worked for me with d-cal. i also flipped the switch for mtx and recompiled and d-cal read it in ok, then flipped the switch for 3 bar, recompiled and d-cal read it in ok. does it work when you flip those two switches to the other settings? also in post 14 did you modify all 4 items mentioned or just the first 2? i fixed all 4. ????

have you modified the smec .asm in other ways?

Stratman
03-31-2008, 02:31 PM
Holy crap! I have been running on D-Cal 1.14. Using D-cal 1.20 worked.

Stratman
04-01-2008, 06:11 PM
Nice. It works! Boost will hit 10 psi with the 3500 rev limiter on a stock T2 turbo. While playing around I think I smelled the cat burning.:D
Rob, does the "Park/Neutral" switch in the cal work with the manual trans with the clutch engaged? My clutch switch isn't working right now so I couldn't check. If it works that way I'll fix it.

ShelGame
04-01-2008, 08:11 PM
Hmm, I'm not sure. You'll need to check a wiring diagram to see if the clutch switch goes into the same input on the 60-way as the P/N switch.

Stratman
04-01-2008, 08:48 PM
I believe it's the same. Seems that would be the way to do it. Too bad there is something wrong with mine to try it.

ShelGame
04-15-2008, 10:29 AM
I'm getting v12 ready to go. It will have a 2.2 build option with all of the values converted from the '89T2 cal (well, some fudged using the VNT cal since it's about as closely related).

Any other requests/suggestions/comments before I release v12?

Any specific requests for added functionality?

ShelGame
04-21-2008, 04:14 PM
OK, v12 is now posted. Look at the 1st post for the download.

I added a 2.2 build option and calibration values from the 2.2 T2 cal (plus a little from the VNT where applicable). And, I fixed an error I had in the anti-lag that would lookup the wrong value.

MopàrBCN
04-24-2008, 03:01 PM
Hi, being quite new to this type of work I have started playing around with ladybug60 and finally had the balls to use a socketed smec logicboard I bought a while a go from a user here and burnt my first chip. Amazingly it worked at the first go.

Now I have studied your v12 basecal and have built a T2 version of it.

From what I understand your initial code was based on ladybug, am I right? Now I am quite keen on using your version after all for the features of switchable boost and the staging mod, which seems amazingly thought through.

After I scaled your cal for my +40 injectors using chem2 I compared my ladybug built with the built of your cal.

Obviously there are things which I am far off from understanding.
However, one thing I noticed - and maybe there is an easy way to explain this:

Apart from the obvious differences in options I noticed that the FullThrottleWastegateDutyCycle_C8is100Percent_From Map graph was completely oposite in your cal to the same one in ladybug60. Grafically speaking it is like a mirror image.

The same extreme I noticed with FanTurnsOnWhenBatteryTempAboveThis (yours -151.48 and mine at 57) and FanTurnsOnWhenMapAboveBaroPlusThis (yours at 43.93psi mine at 3.x)

The fan schedule thing I think I even understand so far, as you have set the battery temp so low that it has no other option to turn on so my guess was you did not want to depend on the boost for the schedule (for the fact that you have 2 boost settings) - well that was my interpretation.

My comments are after all an intent to learn something. I am far away from being able to put constructive comments! But it would really interest me to understand how to explain those differences.

Hope you don't mind me asking, after all I really apreciate your work!!!!

ShelGame
04-24-2008, 03:26 PM
Hi, being quite new to this type of work I have started playing around with ladybug60 and finally had the balls to use a socketed smec logicboard I bought a while a go from a user here and burnt my first chip. Amazingly it worked at the first go.

Now I have studied your v12 basecal and have built a T2 version of it.

From what I understand your initial code was based on ladybug, am I right? Now I am quite keen on using your version after all for the features of switchable boost and the staging mod, which seems amazingly thought through.

No, this was originally based on the '89 2.5 T1 code. Ladybug was based on the '89 T2, which was an evolution of the original '87 code. There are a lot of essential differences in the code and how it works. There are many similarities as well, however.


After I scaled your cal for my +40 injectors using chem2 I compared my ladybug built with the built of your cal.

Obviously there are things which I am far off from understanding.
However, one thing I noticed - and maybe there is an easy way to explain this:

Apart from the obvious differences in options I noticed that the FullThrottleWastegateDutyCycle_C8is100Percent_From Map graph was completely oposite in your cal to the same one in ladybug60. Grafically speaking it is like a mirror image.

That's because the boost control in the '89 T1 is different from the T2. The T1 is a 'bleed' control while the T2 is a 'signal' control. The effect is the duty cycle is reversed at the solenoid, and so the tables look like mirror images of each other. I'm thinking I'll add in the T2 style boost control as an option for a later version. VNT boost control is even theoretically possible.


The same extreme I noticed with FanTurnsOnWhenBatteryTempAboveThis (yours -151.48 and mine at 57) and FanTurnsOnWhenMapAboveBaroPlusThis (yours at 43.93psi mine at 3.x)

The fan schedule thing I think I even understand so far, as you have set the battery temp so low that it has no other option to turn on so my guess was you did not want to depend on the boost for the schedule (for the fact that you have 2 boost settings) - well that was my interpretation.

Not sure there. Though, again, the code is different. So, comparing values with the same name is not always an apples-to-apples comparison.

EDIT: I remember now. Those are for turning the fan on when in boost to increase the effectiveness of the I/C. If you're running an I/C, you can change those to match the T2 values. I'll do the same to the cal data for the next (v13) release. They're set that way in the 2.5 code because it (obviously) had no I/C from the factory.


My comments are after all an intent to learn something. I am far away from being able to put constructive comments! But it would really interest me to understand how to explain those differences.

Hope you don't mind me asking, after all I really apreciate your work!!!!

Not at all!

MopàrBCN
04-24-2008, 03:51 PM
Hey, THANKS for your comments! Glad I asked!

I will test your code this weekend. Saturday is circle track day...
For sure here you have a T2 Test Daytona. I'll let you know how I get on!

PS: I will have to postpone testing, since I blew my lower intercooler hose....

MopàrBCN
04-27-2008, 02:26 PM
Hi, today I had my first day with your v13 cal.

I refer to the Turbo II Build of this cal!

The changes I did:
-First of all I scaled it using Chem2 to use my +40 Injectors.

-The Fan Values were changed to those of the TII Ladybug60 Basecal and
-the same I did for the Wastegatedutycycle Values. (see comments in earlier posting)
-ConstantSparkAdvanceWhenSettingMinThrottleOpening was changed from
6º to 12º (I am honest, not sure why I did it, but I figured that I did...)

-Finally I lowerd BoostFromTime from 20PSI to 18PSI and raised the LowBoost Settings to 13PSI.

Beforehand: I think I screwed up a bit on the initial setting. Before posting this I re-checked what I have in D-Cal and figured, that I have forgotten to set any of the initial flags. So this may explain some of the problems I figured during driving.

Since I am reporting here about a Cal I should really mention my SetUp. What's good for me may not be good for someone else!!!!!

So here we go: 89 Daytona Turbo II. Hardware BONE STOCK. The only modifications are: 3 Bar Map, Wallbro 255l/h Fuelpump, +40 Injectors, 3 inch Exhaust and a Fidanza Flywheel. Throttlebody, Intake, Airbox, Intercooler, Turbo ALL STOCK!

Bearing in mind, that I had a Ladybug60 build installed until today I will naturally compare a bit to this.

1. Start Up/Cold Idle:
Perfect! The car started up right away. Here I noticed a big difference to my Ladybug build, that the car idled smooth right away. My Ladybug60 built had at cold a pretty unstable idle.

2. Warm Idle:
Here I was running into problems. Meanwhile the cold idle was perfect, once the car warmed up the idle got up to 2000 RPM and later fell to 1500RPM. This was constantly like this. I did not get any lower idle. Even after a good bit of driving.

Possible Reasons:
-I did not check any of the options available, so I suppose it ignored the charge temperature sensor.
-Maybe the fact that I changed this ConstantSparkAdvanceWhenSettingMinThrottleOpening from 6º to 12º??

Observation: When pressing the A/C Button (AC is currently disabled in the options section) when "off", IDLE was stable at 1500 when "on" it got up to 2000. The behavior itself I view correct. Just was surprised that it evaluated the switch button apart that AC was disabled.

3. Driving, Cruise/Part Throttle:
Since I forgot to set the Options I suppose it permanently set the "Low Boost" - Settings. I am not 100% sure. Reading my boost gauge I got top readings of 15-16PSI which is in turn a good bit less then what I got with Ladybug which was set at 18PSI so I suppose yes, it has the low boost settings as default.

Generally I noticed a big improvement to the Ladybug built I was using, especially when doing slow acceleration. Those were smooth and yet very responsive. My Ladybug built was very unstable when accelarating slowly, causing sporadic fuel cuts. Here I only senced one, but it was so quick that I could not check the RPM Gauge to see when it happened.

4. Full Throttle
Good!!! The car pulled away like you would expect from a spory car. It was like this impressive, and I can not wait seeing what I get when having switchable boost!!!

5. A/F
Here I want to be carefull since I do not have a Wideband Installed. The plugs are saying that it is slightly rich, (as far as you can say this after 90 miles of driving). I am using 98 Fuel, which here is widely available. The A/F Gauge I am using putting it as rich in full throttle. I am happy with this for the time being.

All in all: Besides the high idle my first impression is positive!

For your convenience I have uploaded my current edit!

Note: Here I have configured the config variables as well as that I have re-set the ConstantSparkAdvanceWhenSettingMinThrottleOpening value to 6º as it was in your initial build.

I will give this one a long distance test when I take the car up to Germany next week. This will be a total of 2500 miles with a good deal of high speed driving.

MopàrBCN
04-27-2008, 02:32 PM
Ps: Seem to not understand how the uploads work, here another try:

PPS: More observations:

1. Warm Idle:
It seems to improve. Maybe this time the AIS Learning takes more time then I experienced before. So for the time being, I withdraw the comment about the idling. Today it idled fine when in gear and the clutch pressed. However it remained high in neutral.

2. Cruising:
There is an issue cruising at round 55mph with slight throttle in 5th gear. At around 2000 RPM until rd. 2500 RPM it misses frequently. It seems to be constantly repeating this miss as to something like every 20 seconds. Can't explain this. It is noticable but at the same time it is not strong.

3. Cruise Control:
The Cruise Control Does not work

4. MPG Info:
It seems that the trigger impulse for the MPG Info did not get scaled to the +40% injectors. 38 MPG would be great but...

5. CODES
I think those are normal but just for the record: I get this famous 62 (and have counted right!) followed by a 53.

QUESTION:

Yesterday I felt I was in Low Boost Mode. However, today doing some short Full Throttle Accelerations I got up to 18PSI of boost. Always!

Is the high boost automatically triggered when in full throttle? Or could it be that your cal defaults to high boost with no options set?

Anyway, before doing more with a setup I already know that I have not set it up right I will change chips today.

ShelGame
04-28-2008, 07:58 AM
If you built it for ATX instaed of for MTX, then it would cause the idle issues exactly like you described. I would check that.

By default, swithable boost is not turned on. You have to do it with the cal after you build it. Then, you have to select a switch for the boost (using BSTSWS_HighBoostSwitchSelect). Otherwise, you only get high boost again.

Code 62 - it shouldn't be setting this. By default, this option is turned off. I'll look into it...

moparzrule
04-28-2008, 08:20 AM
Rob. if you remember I was getting code 62 with the cal you sent me too awhile ago for my G headed 2.5l...Not sure why, I burned my own cal then with the 89mtxT1 base cal and did not have the code 62.

MopàrBCN
04-28-2008, 10:04 AM
Hi, the "Auto Trans Bit" was and is checked OFF.

Just for your reference above I attach Screenshots of the all the Options Settings as I have them from now on: If you have a comment on them let me know!

Code 62: If I remember this well, the Code 62 is normally set when in DRB Test Mode! Could there be a byte set, which would normally be set by the DRBII ??

Once more, I really apreciate the work you have put into this, and I am quite happy to contribute in testing it!!

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9537/op1ul5.jpg
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3213/op2rm5.jpg
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/4295/op3ov7.jpg
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/6189/op4zu3.jpg

MopàrBCN
04-28-2008, 10:46 AM
OK, I have changed chips and went for a quick round around the block.

1. High Boost/ Low Boost:

I think I was right about the Boosting defaulting to high boost. If I put the switch to on, it switches on LowBoost, and if I Switch it Off, it puts High boost. So I guess, having no option selected initially, it was defaulting to High Boost.

2. IDLE, is too early - only did unos 6miles so it still needs.

It seems to be fun!

Codes remain the same: 53,62

ShelGame
04-28-2008, 11:23 AM
Hi, the "Auto Trans Bit" was and is checked OFF.

Just for your reference above I attach Screenshots of the all the Options Settings as I have them from now on: If you have a comment on them let me know!

Code 62: If I remember this well, the Code 62 is normally set when in DRB Test Mode! Could there be a byte set, which would normally be set by the DRBII ??

Once more, I really apreciate the work you have put into this, and I am quite happy to contribute in testing it!!

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9537/op1ul5.jpg
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3213/op2rm5.jpg
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/4295/op3ov7.jpg
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/6189/op4zu3.jpg

I can't see the screenshots now (work computer blocks image hosting sites). So, maybe this is what you did. If so, sorry.

But, you need to set the assembler options for manual trans, not just the cal option flag. This is because there are many tables/constants that have different calibration values depending on whether MTX or ATX. I think I uploaded the assembler to build a 2.5 ATX 3-bar.

MopàrBCN
04-28-2008, 12:36 PM
Hi,

I had changed this to be like this, so apart from that I am not really an assembler guy, I feel I did it right, unless 0=True and 1=False.

After building the code I then scaled for my injectors. So I left the injector settings as they were.

; ************************************************** *********************
; TRANS TYPE
; ************************************************** *********************
;
; Set the calibration values for ATX or MTX with this assembler switch.
;
MTX == 1
ATX == 0
;
; One or the other of the trans values MUST be set. Not none, Not both. One.
;
;

and finally:

; ************************************************** *********************
; ENGINE DISPLACEMENT
; ************************************************** *********************
;
; Set the calibration values for ATX or MTX with this assembler switch.
;
Dspl_22 == 1
Dspl_25 == 0
;
; One or the other of the displacement values MUST be set. Not none,
; Not both. One.
;

Comparing the resulting cal to standard 2.2 T2 Cals shows that the main tables seem to be matching up exactly. The only difference was the fan schedule thing and the Wastegatedutycycle. But this you already explained.

Let's wait until I have done some milage with the current build to see if that resolves the idle issue. I feel the IDLE issue could calm down once the SMEC has learned its settings. With the first build I did with your cal it eventually got better!

The general feeling of this cal is GOOD! Way better then I felt with my Ladybug Build.

ShelGame
04-28-2008, 01:03 PM
Yep, that's correct.

It could be that I missed some table for fuel scaling (you did the scaling in Chem2, right?). I'll look into that.

I still have not found the cause for code 62, though it is related to the EMR, which should ony run on the Minivans. :confused:



Hi,

I had changed this to be like this, so apart from that I am not really an assembler guy, I feel I did it right, unless 0=True and 1=False.

After building the code I then scaled for my injectors. So I left the injector settings as they were.

; ************************************************** *********************
; TRANS TYPE
; ************************************************** *********************
;
; Set the calibration values for ATX or MTX with this assembler switch.
;
MTX == 1
ATX == 0
;
; One or the other of the trans values MUST be set. Not none, Not both. One.
;
;

and finally:

; ************************************************** *********************
; ENGINE DISPLACEMENT
; ************************************************** *********************
;
; Set the calibration values for ATX or MTX with this assembler switch.
;
Dspl_22 == 1
Dspl_25 == 0
;
; One or the other of the displacement values MUST be set. Not none,
; Not both. One.
;

Comparing the resulting cal to standard 2.2 T2 Cals shows that the main tables seem to be matching up exactly. The only difference was the fan schedule thing and the Wastegatedutycycle. But this you already explained.

Let's wait until I have done some milage with the current build to see if that resolves the idle issue. I feel the IDLE issue could calm down once the SMEC has learned its settings. With the first build I did with your cal it eventually got better!

The general feeling of this cal is GOOD! Way better then I felt with my Ladybug Build.

MopàrBCN
04-28-2008, 04:51 PM
Yep, I scaled with chem 2 and set the bit flags with d-cal.

Listen, this cal really rocks!! It is great fun driving the car. The idle issue is changing. There are moments when it starts idling well. Then you drive off and break at another traffic light and it idles high again. The more I drive it the better it gets, it seems. So don't start pulling your code apart as yet.

There is really nothing serious to complain about.

The only thing I have not tested yet is the staging mode.

My conclusion:

In low boost mode I could do what I wanted. Never got lean, never got knock. It's responsive enough for city driving and goes well.

In High Boost mode is where the fun starts. Here again, everything was fine. The car pulls really strong. It is great fun! Now I have to get back to the garage and sort out some handling issues. They become apparent in this mode :-).

So, as far as I am concerned, I really apreciate your work. If I can help you in any way, let me know!

MopàrBCN
04-29-2008, 03:01 AM
Hi, quick question:

In your code you mention the program "injscale" but it seems to be not included in your batch file.

I wanted to test scaling injectors with this, as opposed to do it with chem 2.

I thought it may be included in your compileprogramm ChemAsmSMEC.exe so I changed the scaling in your .asm code file and rebuild the code. But it seems to have ignored it.

PS: I GOT RID OF CODE 62 !

Don't ask me how. Essentially, all I did was rebuilding the base cal with ChemAsmSMEC.exe. I did modified the "New Injector" value for my +40's - which did not scale the tables thow.
Also this time I only changed values with CHEM 2. Even the Options. Since I had a cal to compare to with the options already set I used the Slider In Chem 2 to change those. The only thing I did in D-Cal was to verify the Option Checkboxes.

However, now I am not getting code 62. The only remaining one is 53, which I know I can live with.

On the Idle of cause I am back to square 1. So testing starts again :eyebrows:

Ah, one thing, but this is not important: Once you try to view the properties in chem 2, the program would hang and close.

Changes I have done in this cal is basically:

1. Resetting the main fuel tables to what they were initially (I had leaned them out a bit, but experienced knock in high boost).
2. Scaled the FuelMonitorConversionfactor to 0210 (like this it's far more accurate)
3. Lowered AllowableBoostFromTime to 17.5 PSI (since I experienced Knock in High boost)
4. Matched Fan Schedules (to increase IC Efficiency) and Wastegatedutycycle to those in Ladybug60 (as you did mention, that Turbonator uses the Turbo 1 Boost Control)

Once I have done some more testing (only took it for a quick ride right now) I will post the changes.

ShelGame
04-29-2008, 06:30 AM
4. Matched Fan Schedules (to increase IC Efficiency) and Wastegatedutycycle to those in Ladybug60 (as you did mention, that Turbonator uses the Turbo 1 Boost Control)


I'm not sure that will work with the WG tables. The control code is completely different - it's not as simple as reversing the table and the solenoid. It may work that way, but I doubt the tuning is exactly the same as the T2.

MopàrBCN
04-29-2008, 01:16 PM
I'm not sure that will work with the WG tables. The control code is completely different - it's not as simple as reversing the table and the solenoid. It may work that way, but I doubt the tuning is exactly the same as the T2.

Hi, ok, not sure what to say now:

One thing for sure: The fans seem to turn on when needed, and it feels cooler then when original! I can not answer if they do as they would have done with ladybug60.

On the Wastegate: How would I note that it is not working right?

The boost comes in steady and as I need it. Where you may have a good point is, that in Lowboost sometimes it boosts way higher then expected - but not high enough to get worried. (right now set at 12.6PSI in Lowboost but gives me up to 15PSI as by my boost gauge)

The only time I got issues was in Highboost mode doing a until red line accelaration in third. When reaching 6000 RPM it got lean and as well as that it has triggered your "knock" light for a second. I immediately let of the throttle in this moment. I got about 19PSI from my gauge. (BoostFromTime was set at 18PSI but I think I am using a GM 3-Bar Map as oposed to the S60). But I thought I could explain this because I had leaned out the Full Throttle Fuel Table. Now I have reversed this.

Would you feel that it is safer, not to use your cal in a TII as yet?

PS: The matching of the Fan Schedules and Wastegatedutycycle curve I have done since my first test, just to let you know. Meanwhile I have put in the 3rd chip.

ShelGame
04-29-2008, 01:21 PM
In your code you mention the program "injscale" but it seems to be not included in your batch file.

I wanted to test scaling injectors with this, as opposed to do it with chem 2.

I thought it may be included in your compileprogramm ChemAsmSMEC.exe so I changed the scaling in your .asm code file and rebuild the code. But it seems to have ignored it.

Yeah, that's a leftover from Ladybug/Blueberry. I don't think this program really works so well. I think I have a copy and I could include it. but, the functionality is now built-in to CHeM2, so I didn't include it.


On the Wastegate: How would I note that it is not working right?

The boost comes in steady and as I need it. Where you may have a good point is, that in Lowboost sometimes it boosts way higher then expected - but not high enough to get worried. (right now set at 12.6PSI in Lowboost but gives me up to 15PSI as by my boost gauge)

snip...


Would you feel that it is safer, not to use your cal in a TII as yet?

Well, if it seems to be working OK, then I guess it may be fine. My intention was to use the T1 style WG plumbing with this cal. Someday, I may add the T2 style WG control, but it's not a priority. T1 WG should be safer anyway (WG Solenoid failure = only 7psi boost; on T2 WG failure = uncontrolled boost!).

MopàrBCN
04-30-2008, 05:49 AM
Hi,

Today I went to a circuit in my area and gave it a go. Also I went to a chip tuner, who is in my local club and we put the car on a dyno.

First of all, your code and calibration is awsome. I think (this is not my opinion but the opinion of the tuner) this code in a T1 car rocks!

However, you are right, there are things to optimize for a T2 car.

But before I go into this, let's see where it is awsome even for a T2 car:

This cal in high boost mode and Staging function enabled is Top Notch!!! So anyone looking for a quick option to get good results in the 1/4 mile, your cal is the business even for a T2 car. The antilag works the business, the staging limiter works to the point and the fueling is perfect (at least for my car)!!!

Now, where are the drawbacks for a T2 car:

Those come into play in Low Boost mode and in both modes when driving normally, i.e. part throttle cruising, city traffic etc....

1.: You are absolutely right, with the wastegate funcionality. This is functioning like the lottery with what I did to it. (NOTE, I DID NOT USE HIS CALIBRATION BUT CHANGED HIS DUTYCYCLEMAPS TO WHAT I FELT WERE T2 VALUES). So in lowboost, using those settings, the cal is not as recomendable for a T2 car. You will be hitting overboost ever so often, sometimes doing nothing but accelerating a tiny bit. The only remedy for me was putting the Overboost cut out high, so that you would not notice.

Here I am absolute rooky, so yes I will try to study your code (I am IT Guy - but 0 experience with assembler) but doubt that I will be able to resolve it soon. But motivation is there!!!

PS: I have never tested the code with the Wastegatedutysettings as they come per default in this cal!

2. The idle issue does not get resolved without putting hands on it. Yes, it does get better after ca. 100 miles of driving. But the problem remains.

I will explain:

a. If you start the car (hot or cold) with no throttle pressed it idles fine (rd. 900-1000 rpm). If you leave it idling without any throttle action it stays stable. However, it idles very rich!

b. If you only tip the gas once up from then it goes up to 1500 and always stays there.

c. If you are driving and coming to a stop and leave the car in gear with the clutch depressed it idles fine (this gets better the more you drive). HOWEVER, the moment you put the car in neutral gear the idle goes up.

d. The idle between shifts gets better with time. So this is actually fine.

I won't comment on fueling in general because this is something everybody has in its own hands. The main fueling tables once set right for your car will give a constant A/F (constant meaning always within it's limits) over the hole bandwidth.

However, when on the dyno, the guy made a comment to me and asked if the cal has shift points set for automatic transmission. He said to me that he suspected this because the fueling and sparc changes at certain RPM Ranges. He promised to do me a report which once I have it I will translate it into English, and let you have it.

-This may explain why y experience this funny behavior doing rd. 55 mph at 2000 rpm

Maybe - but I am way from being qualified to comment on this - your code ignores the disabling of the AutoTrans at certain points.

So, this means for me, that I will keep a chip with the cal set to highboost and with the staging limiter once I go racing, but for day to day driving I will go back to the drawing board. I hope I can help you resolving the issues, because overall this is a great thought through program. This is the first time I envy T1 ATX guys.....

ShelGame
04-30-2008, 07:41 AM
Hi,

Today I went to a circuit in my area and gave it a go. Also I went to a chip tuner, who is in my local club and we put the car on a dyno.

First of all, your code and calibration is awsome. I think (this is not my opinion but the opinion of the tuner) this code in a T1 car rocks!

However, you are right, there are things to optimize for a T2 car.

But before I go into this, let's see where it is awsome even for a T2 car:

This cal in high boost mode and Staging function enabled is Top Notch!!! So anyone looking for a quick option to get good results in the 1/4 mile, your cal is the business even for a T2 car. The antilag works the business, the staging limiter works to the point and the fueling is perfect (at least for my car)!!!

Now, where are the drawbacks for a T2 car:

Those come into play in Low Boost mode and in both modes when driving normally, i.e. part throttle cruising, city traffic etc....

1.: You are absolutely right, with the wastegate funcionality. This is functioning like the lottery with what I did to it. (NOTE, I DID NOT USE HIS CALIBRATION BUT CHANGED HIS DUTYCYCLEMAPS TO WHAT I FELT WERE T2 VALUES). So in lowboost, using those settings, the cal is not as recomendable for a T2 car. You will be hitting overboost ever so often, sometimes doing nothing but accelerating a tiny bit. The only remedy for me was putting the Overboost cut out high, so that you would not notice.

Here I am absolute rooky, so yes I will try to study your code (I am IT Guy - but 0 experience with assembler) but doubt that I will be able to resolve it soon. But motivation is there!!!

PS: I have never tested the code with the Wastegatedutysettings as they come per default in this cal!

2. The idle issue does not get resolved without putting hands on it. Yes, it does get better after ca. 100 miles of driving. But the problem remains.

I will explain:

a. If you start the car (hot or cold) with no throttle pressed it idles fine (rd. 900-1000 rpm). If you leave it idling without any throttle action it stays stable. However, it idles very rich!

b. If you only tip the gas once up from then it goes up to 1500 and always stays there.

c. If you are driving and coming to a stop and leave the car in gear with the clutch depressed it idles fine (this gets better the more you drive). HOWEVER, the moment you put the car in neutral gear the idle goes up.

d. The idle between shifts gets better with time. So this is actually fine.

I won't comment on fueling in general because this is something everybody has in its own hands. The main fueling tables once set right for your car will give a constant A/F (constant meaning always within it's limits) over the hole bandwidth.

However, when on the dyno, the guy made a comment to me and asked if the cal has shift points set for automatic transmission. He said to me that he suspected this because the fueling and sparc changes at certain RPM Ranges. He promised to do me a report which once I have it I will translate it into English, and let you have it.

-This may explain why y experience this funny behavior doing rd. 55 mph at 2000 rpm

Maybe - but I am way from being qualified to comment on this - your code ignores the disabling of the AutoTrans at certain points.

So, this means for me, that I will keep a chip with the cal set to highboost and with the staging limiter once I go racing, but for day to day driving I will go back to the drawing board. I hope I can help you resolving the issues, because overall this is a great thought through program. This is the first time I envy T1 ATX guys.....


I think I may know what the idle issue is. Can you try something for me? In the CONFIG constant, set bit 1 (labelled as 'Debug', currently). I have set this to 0, but in the stock cals, it is set to 1. It is only used in the TPS enrichment. I'm not sure yet the intended function, but it changes when the code looks at TPS for transient fuel vs. when it looks at MAP for transient fuel. It may or may not have an effect on the idle issues.

Also, try setting 'SSTEMP_TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive' to the ATX value (0x58). In the MP MTX cal, this is FE, but in the MP ATX and all stock cals, it is 0x58. It is the temperature that the ECU switches to spark scatter to control idle. So, at 0xFE, it basically will never use spark scatter to control idle.

The same for 'SSIPRD_ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed' - use the ATX value of 0x0033 instead of the MTX value of 0xfe33. This would also inhibit using spark scatter to control idle.

I think these 2 changes were made to the MP cal for road racing use. You can see it would be an advantage to have the idle stay high when shifting gears thru a corner.

MopàrBCN
04-30-2008, 07:49 AM
Hi, will do this!!! Let you know later on !

MopàrBCN
04-30-2008, 08:07 AM
Here a quick one, while I am at it:

1. 'SSTEMP_TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive' and 'SSIPRD_ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed' I do set within the source code, correct? And then I build again.

2. The DEBUG option I will set to 1 using D-Cal

Question: Will I leave the Wastegatedutycycle Settings as you have defined them??? As oposed to try to match them with the T2 curve?

THX!

ShelGame
04-30-2008, 08:39 AM
Here a quick one, while I am at it:

1. 'SSTEMP_TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive' and 'SSIPRD_ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed' I do set within the source code, correct? And then I build again.

2. The DEBUG option I will set to 1 using D-Cal

Question: Will I leave the Wastegatedutycycle Settings as you have defined them??? As oposed to try to match them with the T2 curve?

THX!

You can change those value in D-Cal, too. You don't have to re-assemble.

The WG, you can do with what you want. If you change it to the values as I put them, you'll need to change your WG plumbing, too.

MopàrBCN
04-30-2008, 09:53 AM
Hi,

done it!

At a first glance I still have hi idle but not as high as before!. I will now check my vacuum tubing to see if there is a coincidence. I must say, that until I started testing, it was idling fine, but you never know.

What has improved noticable is the first start. It sounds now as it was when stock. Smooth and no dark exhaust gases.

When coming back after a 10 mile testround, the idle was at around 1200rpm. But wait until this evening, because I have some more driving to do. So I will watch this.

It seems, I actually got rid of the knock in high boost. This is the good news. Also this time it seems the wastegate is operating properly in low boost mode! It stops boosting right at 12PSI.

Ah, and again I am getting Code 62...... So, not sure what I did last time when I definately got rid of it....BUT THIS IS MY VIEW HAS NO PRIO!!!

I am still having fun with it!! Though, I am starting to feel like wanting a flashable logicboard. You wouldn't have one for sale??

Stratman
04-30-2008, 11:58 AM
Hi Rob,

Just some input from another's testing on an 89 T2 specs w/ manual trans. I have been trying this code off and on all this week and have had the same issues as MopàrBCN. Step on the throttle, let off, VERY slow to idle back down and takes a long time to make it from 1500 to 1000 RPM. Stays very rich at idle, even pulling the PE down dramatically will make it lean for a second then back up to steady rich with no luck making it Stoich. After staring at it for a while I notice it acts like a glich as the A/F will quickly dropped leaner for a a matter of milliseconds then instantly back to rich. I have very little time to mess with it this week, but I figure it would be good to post what I have already found. Boost control is not controled by the ecu on my Daytona so I have no input on boost schedules.

ShelGame
04-30-2008, 01:11 PM
Hi Rob,

Just some input from another's testing on an 89 T2 specs w/ manual trans. I have been trying this code off and on all this week and have had the same issues as MopàrBCN. Step on the throttle, let off, VERY slow to idle back down and takes a long time to make it from 1500 to 1000 RPM. Stays very rich at idle, even pulling the PE down dramatically will make it lean for a second then back up to steady rich with no luck making it Stoich. After staring at it for a while I notice it acts like a glich as the A/F will quickly dropped leaner for a a matter of milliseconds then instantly back to rich. I have very little time to mess with it this week, but I figure it would be good to post what I have already found. Boost control is not controled by the ecu on my Daytona so I have no input on boost schedules.

Try the fixes noted above. I'm 99% sure that's the idle speed issue and at least part of the idle richness.

MopàrBCN
04-30-2008, 03:17 PM
HEY MAN. your FIX DID IT !!! It took about 100km but now it's steady idling at 900!!!!!!!!!!

Stratman
04-30-2008, 05:19 PM
The same for 'SSIPRD_ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed' - use the ATX value of 0x0033 instead of the MTX value of 0xfe33. This would also inhibit using spark scatter to control idle.

When I looked at that constant in this code it showed to be 0001 before I changed it.

MopàrBCN
04-30-2008, 06:17 PM
Hi,

This is how mine looks now. I changed it in code and the previous values were as stated. Then I have rebuild the hole lot and done the Wastegate Adjustments, Fueling etc. in D-Cal/Chem 2...

SSTEMP_TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive:
.chem 3 n TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive in_desc 0 65535 in Coolant_Temp -200 260 Degrees SSTEMP Temperature_above_which_spark_scatter_is_active
chem2 byte SSTEMP use "Coolant Temp" -200 260 Degrees "Temperature above which Spark Scatter is active"
.if ATX
.byte 0x58
.endif

.if MTX
.byte 0x58
.endif

SSIPRD_ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed:
.chem 4 n ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed in_desc 0 65535 in Y 0 255 out SSIPRD Spark_Scatter
chem2 word SSIPRD "Spark Scatter inhibited below this speed."
.if ATX
.word 0x0033
.endif

.if MTX
.word 0x0033
.endif

ShelGame
05-01-2008, 11:48 AM
Hi,

This is how mine looks now. I changed it in code and the previous values were as stated. Then I have rebuild the hole lot and done the Wastegate Adjustments, Fueling etc. in D-Cal/Chem 2...

SSTEMP_TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive:
.chem 3 n TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive in_desc 0 65535 in Coolant_Temp -200 260 Degrees SSTEMP Temperature_above_which_spark_scatter_is_active
chem2 byte SSTEMP use "Coolant Temp" -200 260 Degrees "Temperature above which Spark Scatter is active"
.if ATX
.byte 0x58
.endif

.if MTX
.byte 0x58
.endif

SSIPRD_ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed:
.chem 4 n ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed in_desc 0 65535 in Y 0 255 out SSIPRD Spark_Scatter
chem2 word SSIPRD "Spark Scatter inhibited below this speed."
.if ATX
.word 0x0033
.endif

.if MTX
.word 0x0033
.endif

Actually, because of the way I sent it up to do the 2.2/2.5, those constants are defined in 2 places each. So, you really need to change all of them. For Turbonator v13, I simply removed the ATX/MTX build swithces so that it will always build the same value regardless. I'll put a note in the .tbl and .calx files on how to change it for road-race duty.

On that note - any requests for v13? I have some ideas, but I'd love to hear more.

MopàrBCN
05-01-2008, 01:38 PM
There is one thing:

would it be possible to engage Highboost and Staging mode with one Switch, i.E. A/C Switch. That way one could use the cruise control. The only thing right now, that I really miss is the Cruise Control, which in Turbonator does not seem to work, at least once asigned as a boost switch (and I have not tried another option).

Also one thing that would be really cool would be a Turbo II Switch which would utilize the T2 Wastegatecontrol and Fancontrol. But at this point I must admit I am very happy the way it works!

Monday I will start the long distance test when I go to Germany with the car. This is going to be fun.

ShelGame
05-01-2008, 01:43 PM
There is one thing:

would it be possible to engage Highboost and Staging mode with one Switch, i.E. A/C Switch. That way one could use the cruise control. The only thing right now, that I really miss is the Cruise Control, which in Turbonator does not seem to work, at least once asigned as a boost switch (and I have not tried another option).

Also one thing that would be really cool would be a Turbo II Switch which would utilize the T2 Wastegatecontrol and Fancontrol. But at this point I must admit I am very happy the way it works!

Monday I will start the long distance test when I go to Germany with the car. This is going to be fun.

Yes, you can use the same switch for staging mode and switchable boost right now. Just select the same switch for each option.

Also, I realized that the 2.2 cal data I copied is from the MP T2 cal. So, the closed loop O2 control is set to bias it toward the rich side. I may change that to use the stock O2 kicks.

starman
05-02-2008, 11:06 AM
......

2. Warm Idle:
Here I was running into problems. Meanwhile the cold idle was perfect, once the car warmed up the idle got up to 2000 RPM and later fell to 1500RPM. This was constantly like this. I did not get any lower idle. Even after a good bit of driving.

......



Try the fixes noted above. I'm 99% sure that's the idle speed issue and at least part of the idle richness.

I have the same symptoms, but in your SBEC cal, any chances this can be corrected in the same way? :confused2:

ShelGame
05-02-2008, 12:57 PM
I have the same symptoms, but in your SBEC cal, any chances this can be corrected in the same way? :confused2:

No, not likely to be the same issue...

MopàrBCN
05-02-2008, 01:07 PM
@starman, ¿que tal?, I think it is important to point out that Idle after a chip swap may need more then 100km of driving to stabalize!!

On Turbonator Issue, once I applied the fix, it only showed to work after more then a 100km of driving!

This info just in case that you recently swapped cals.

starman
05-02-2008, 01:52 PM
Yes, indeed after 80 to 100 kms the idle come to normal after swapping cals. Thanks ;)

MopàrBCN
05-05-2008, 04:23 PM
Rob, I have one more comment:

In my current edit of Turbonator, I have assigned the Cruisecontrol on/off switch for switching between Highboost (on) and Lowboost (off). So far that is functioning great.

The Staging mode I have assigned to the A/C Switch. Now, here it is behaving oposite. With AC OFF the Staing mode is on and with A/C ON the staging mode is off.

Now, I have set up another chip for my trip. Within this I assigned the AC Switch for Highboost and Staging mode. Having realized the way the staging mode is switched, I have set the flag for switching boost polarity to get Highboost, when I want staging. I have not had a chance to test this yet, but I assume, now with the AC Switch off I am getting staging and Highboost. This would mean to drive normally with lowboost I would have to switch the AC Switch ON. BUT, this in turn switches the Ventilator permanently ON, a behavior I would rather like, when in High boost.

Tu cut a long story short, I am not sure, if this is a problem with the AC Switch or with the way the stagin mode is set in the program.

If the stagin mode is per default on, I would turn it off by default, since this is an option you would want to explicitely select as a user.

If in turn it is a problem of the way the AC Switch is interpreted, then I would correct this, because assigning highboost and staging to the AC Switch "ON" has the added benefit, that the ventilator comes on once you select the Switch, which in Highboost and during stagin I see as a benefit!

This only as input from my observations. It is only an opinion! The cal meanwhile works really great!

ShelGame
05-05-2008, 06:34 PM
Rob, I have one more comment:

In my current edit of Turbonator, I have assigned the Cruisecontrol on/off switch for switching between Highboost (on) and Lowboost (off). So far that is functioning great.

The Staging mode I have assigned to the A/C Switch. Now, here it is behaving oposite. With AC OFF the Staing mode is on and with A/C ON the staging mode is off.

Now, I have set up another chip for my trip. Within this I assigned the AC Switch for Highboost and Staging mode. Having realized the way the staging mode is switched, I have set the flag for switching boost polarity to get Highboost, when I want staging. I have not had a chance to test this yet, but I assume, now with the AC Switch off I am getting staging and Highboost. This would mean to drive normally with lowboost I would have to switch the AC Switch ON. BUT, this in turn switches the Ventilator permanently ON, a behavior I would rather like, when in High boost.

Tu cut a long story short, I am not sure, if this is a problem with the AC Switch or with the way the stagin mode is set in the program.

If the stagin mode is per default on, I would turn it off by default, since this is an option you would want to explicitely select as a user.

If in turn it is a problem of the way the AC Switch is interpreted, then I would correct this, because assigning highboost and staging to the AC Switch "ON" has the added benefit, that the ventilator comes on once you select the Switch, which in Highboost and during stagin I see as a benefit!

This only as input from my observations. It is only an opinion! The cal meanwhile works really great!

That's why I put the polarity option in there. The A/C switch isn't actualy directly connected to the SMEC. That input on the SMEC is from the A/C clutch, which is actived indirectly from the A/C switch on the dash. And - for whatever reason - has opposite polarity to the other switches. I don't know that I'd recommend using that one, actually. Unless you've removed the A/C compressor and directly wire that input to a switch.

MopàrBCN
05-05-2008, 06:57 PM
Just to understand you right:

If I set the Boostswitchpolarity, this affects all switchable modes or only the boost modes? If it switches all modes then I actually would be fine!

I have taken your point on the AC Switch! In my case I have the AC installed but no belt connected (It jumped off and I did not put it back on). So obviously the clutch sends it signal to the SMEC. But you are right, the more serious into racing folks won't even have their AC equipment installed, which would make the switch useless, although I find the idea interesting wiring a switch, that the smec interprets as clutch engagement!

Another one: Your code would permit cruise control, wouldn't it? It did not work, while I had the boostswitching assigned to it. Today, since I assigned all to the AC Switch, I did not have a chance to test it...

ShelGame
05-05-2008, 08:57 PM
Just to understand you right:

If I set the Boostswitchpolarity, this affects all switchable modes or only the boost modes? If it switches all modes then I actually would be fine!

I have taken your point on the AC Switch! In my case I have the AC installed but no belt connected (It jumped off and I did not put it back on). So obviously the clutch sends it signal to the SMEC. But you are right, the more serious into racing folks won't even have their AC equipment installed, which would make the switch useless, although I find the idea interesting wiring a switch, that the smec interprets as clutch engagement!

Another one: Your code would permit cruise control, wouldn't it? It did not work, while I had the boostswitching assigned to it. Today, since I assigned all to the AC Switch, I did not have a chance to test it...

NO, actually, the polarity only affects the boost switch. I can add a polarity toggle for the staging limiter to, though.

It's just an input to the SMEC. The SMEC interprets it as whatever you tell it to interpret it as. The A/C can be disabled by a flag, then use the A/C Clutch input as whatever you want.

Cruise should work fine. I didn't modify that from the stock code.

MopàrBCN
05-12-2008, 10:25 AM
Hi, got back today from my 3000 Mile durability Test :-)

- Since most of the problems got sorted out beforehand there is not a lot left to say:

I really only had 2 issues which I am not 100 per cent sure how to tackle those:

1. At high speeds, using 98 Fuel -> above 100mph and more then 10PSI It leaned out and the CEL came on. One possibility I account for is that I am still using the stock fuelrail. When limiting boost to 10psi (mechanically) I could go all the way up to redline (130mph) with no issues, but having said this, I couldn't go any faster either.
Not sure how to tackle this: An easy fix would be to put more fuel up from 10psi. I definetely will go and put on the TU Fuelrail and finally the AFPR.

2. Boost: Now I know that the Wastegate routines come from a T1 car. So this problem propably does not have a fix for a T2 car.
-- In Lowboost: Until 3500 rpm it limits boost to 6psi (besides that I have set it much higher). Then it goes way up to 13psi which seems as I have put it. However sometimes it shoots up to 20psi. It seems to do it without prediction.
-- In Highboost: The lower rpm limitation seems not to excist. So it boosts in all RPM Ranges as high as it can. However, here I experienced the leaning out and Knock.

EDIT: I guess everybody is clear on that, but just in case: One thing you sure can't do anymore is using the DRBII for diagnosing issues. I have tested this as well and as expected you won't be able neither to read codes nor to invoke test routines. The cal, as I have it put in, identifies my car as a 3.0 Liter Turbo IV :lol:

My conclusion:

Overall drivability is PERFECT. I got a very decent gas milage and at lower speeds (<100mph) did not have any problem at all.

However: (THIS IS ONLY VALID FOR TURBO 2 CARS !!!) The impossibility to predictabally program the boost schedules for a T2 car is a serious drawback. I did not note this as a problem while doing my day to day driving, but on my last trip, spending a lot of my time on Motorways where the average speed is at lets say between 80mph (France) or much higher (Germany) overtaking a car becomes a challange for the drastic boost changes. If you go past the 4000 rpm mark it becomes stable. However you never know if you then get 13psi or if it will take you up to 20psi.

Stratman
05-12-2008, 10:37 AM
I wouldn't think the fuel rail would be an issue at only 10 psi in the upper RPMs. What injectors are you running?
I've pushed 30 psi at 350 HP 430 FT Torque through the stock T2 rail, but that was the limit on this engine.

MopàrBCN
05-12-2008, 02:21 PM
Hi,
just to clarify my issues: The leaning out began at 10psi! Until this point I was fine!

I use +40% MP Injectors and a 3 Bar Map Sensor. Also I use a Wallbro 255l/hr Fuelpump. So at that level I should be alright. The fuelfilter is new as well. The Cal was built with the options set for 3 bar Map. The injector scaling was done in Chem 2. I am certain to have done that right.

I assume that the base cals Volumetric Efficiency Values are based on a stock setup. But even if not it should have caused that I rather run rich then lean, having nothing ported at all in my hardware, other then the larger exhaust.

What I am not sure about is Make/Model of my MAP Sensor. I know that the Scaling for the 3 Bar Map is based on the MP S60 3 bar Map Sensor. I got mine from FWDPerformance. It could well be a GM Sensor. But I do not know this.

There are 2 things I am not clear on Chem 2 when doing the fuel calculations:

1. SCALING: When calculating fuel you are asked to give parameters for the Injector Flowrate (I am clear on that) and then the Fuel Quality etc. What I am not clear on are the parameters for Intake Temperature. I used the preset there. Also I used the preset on Max RPM (6500). Should I have scaled for a higher Intake Temperature? or More RPM?

2. Fueling graphs: After doing the fuel calculations and scaling for injectors Chem 2 produces a green guide graph. Basically what I have done is to move my fueling graphs near that guide line. On the lower RPM/PSI Scale this seems to work great since I have absolutely no issues. As well as this I compared fueling in "ready made" 3 bar +40 cals and it seems that those are not exactly the same but in the same range. Ok, my idea is clear, I will redo my fueling to go richer up from 10 psi.

Question: Am I right in saying that the 3 factors which influence knock in boost are Fuel, Timing and finally the boost itself?

I do not think I am over the top on boost. In fact I just re-checked everything and I have limited Max Boost to 17 PSI having overboost cutout set at 20psi (which I have never ever hit).

Timing I have never ever touched. It is as it came in the base cal.

The reason I am asking all this is, that I am trying to find out where to look at first. If it is my programming, than I know where to start and thus need to confirm that I know enough to do it right.
If it is my setup then I need to learn to set it up right.

ShelGame
05-21-2008, 02:52 PM
Has anyone tried T-SMEC with a scan tool? Did it work OK?

I'm trying to ready a new (final?) release of MiniDash, and it now will not communicate with my SMEC. I don't think it's T-SMEC (MiniDash doesn't talk to my old stock-based cal, either) but I thought I'd ask.

Dunno what I broke in MiniDash - I've only been working on graphics stuff. I upgraded to a new version of the HB++ IDE, I wonder if that broke it.

MopàrBCN
05-21-2008, 03:10 PM
I have tried it with an original Chrysler DRB II

The result is:

DRB II identifies Turbonator SMEC as 3.0 Turbo IV (I wish Chrysler would have ever done such a configuration :D)

Subsequently you can't use it to do any kind of analysis. Everything you try fails.

ShelGame
05-21-2008, 03:48 PM
Really?! Very strange. Maybe the DRBII is old? What cartridge are you using?

What exactly does it do when you try to read parameters?

MopàrBCN
05-21-2008, 04:13 PM
Hi, this is the original scan tool Chrysler used in his dealerships to diagnose our cars. So, no cartridges.

This is a scan tool a friend of mine has and he bought it of a chrysler dealer who gave up his business.

Our intention was to make some basic code checks but we did not even get there.

Once we connected it to the Scantool Port the Scantool started with diagnosing what model we are using and it came up, as said earlier, with 3.0 Turbo IV (which now turns out to be my nick name among the small german community).

Everything we did up from then failed. Trying to engage the fuelpump resulted in an error. Reading codes resulted in an error. Engaging solenoids, failed. Then we gave up.

When we hooked up the tool to a stock 91 T1 Daytona everything worked great.

As said, this is the scan tool chrysler uses. I have not tried any aftermarked scan tool but will soon when a friend of mine brings a AutoXRay along with a Chrysler Cartridge.

ShelGame
05-22-2008, 07:21 AM
Hi, this is the original scan tool Chrysler used in his dealerships to diagnose our cars. So, no cartridges.

This is a scan tool a friend of mine has and he bought it of a chrysler dealer who gave up his business.

Our intention was to make some basic code checks but we did not even get there.

Once we connected it to the Scantool Port the Scantool started with diagnosing what model we are using and it came up, as said earlier, with 3.0 Turbo IV (which now turns out to be my nick name among the small german community).

Everything we did up from then failed. Trying to engage the fuelpump resulted in an error. Reading codes resulted in an error. Engaging solenoids, failed. Then we gave up.

When we hooked up the tool to a stock 91 T1 Daytona everything worked great.

As said, this is the scan tool chrysler uses. I have not tried any aftermarked scan tool but will soon when a friend of mine brings a AutoXRay along with a Chrysler Cartridge.


I have a DRBII also - it's been a while since I pulled it out, but I'm sure mine has cartridges for the different model ranges and model years.

If you want, try changing the first 4 bytes of the bin file (it's the P/N). If you have it setup as a 2.2 Manual, then it should have this code as built - 45 32 A1 31

Maybe change it to one of these and see if the DRBII likes it better:

52 35 B1 51
52 35 A1 05
52 35 A1 39

The 4532- was the Mopar Performance number. Maybe it doesn't recognize this number correctly (though, I don't know why that would be). The other 3 are production P/N's. It shouldn't matter as far as the DRBII is concerned, they all use the same memory map and DRB routines.

MopàrBCN
05-23-2008, 12:45 PM
Hi, I have guarded your post. I won't be able to retest it with DRB II until my next trip to good old Germany which is going to take place end of june!
What is interesting me more at present is to see how it reacts with EZ Link / Auto X Ray and tools like this.
If all goes well, and I receive my new turbo early next week (:hail:) then I will take my car to a car show next weekend, where I will have a chance to test it with at least 2 more diagnostic tools, which friends will bring along. So I'll keep you posted!

tryingbe
05-30-2008, 12:32 AM
Car spec

89 TII Daytona Shelby originally 2.2L now running a 2.5L long block, 2 piece intake manifold, slightly ported stock exhaust manifold, 86lbs injectors, TII Garrett turbo, 2.5 inch swingvalve, 3 inch downpipe with exhaust cut out, A555, 782 grooved head...etc

Change these before I complied the ASM file.

MTX == 1

SSIPRD_ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed = MTX value of 0x0033

SSTEMP_TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive = MTX value (0x58)

Used the MoparChem to adjust for the 2.5L and 83 injectors. Didn't change anything else much. Using G-valve and set to 10psi

Fuel is almost perfect, just a little rich. :clap:
Is it default that the knock trigger the CEL to on? Because I didn't see CEL flash at all.
There is a miss during constant cruising speed, every 10-15 seconds or so, which I didn't have before with Ladybug.

Other wise, I don't notice anything else...



On that note - any requests for v13? I have some ideas, but I'd love to hear more.

The cal totally messed up the 12 button navigator gas mileage scale, it's 2 to 2 1/2 time it should be.

MopàrBCN
05-30-2008, 03:13 AM
"The cal totally messed up the 12 button navigator gas mileage scale, it's 2 to 2 1/2 time it should be...."

This is easy to solve in Chem 2: Just edit the properties of the variable "FuelMonitorConversionFactor" so that the Checkbox "Scale with Injectors" is checked and do the scaling again. It then works near to perfect! (When I started using Turbonator it was defaulted to false and hence I got a fuelmilage displayed which was way too goog to be true! Now it shows me a slightly higher consumtion then I really have which for me is great because I now feel that I can rely on the traveller without having bad surprises)

The misses you are referring to I had as well (at rd. 50-60Mph) but they disappeared.

The CheckEngine Feature for Knock you have to activate! IT works great!! I used DCAL for doing this (CalCustomOptionConfigFlags)

PS: Watch your BOOST. Having the T2 Wastegatecontrol it just does not work well with Turbonator (Which Rob Points out!!).
I see you are using the G Valve - I didn't and you have seen my turbo.....

ShelGame
05-30-2008, 07:22 AM
Car spec

89 TII Daytona Shelby originally 2.2L now running a 2.5L long block, 2 piece intake manifold, slightly ported stock exhaust manifold, 86lbs injectors, TII Garrett turbo, 2.5 inch swingvalve, 3 inch downpipe with exhaust cut out, A555, 782 grooved head...etc

Change these before I complied the ASM file.

MTX == 1

SSIPRD_ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed = MTX value of 0x0033

SSTEMP_TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive = MTX value (0x58)

Used the MoparChem to adjust for the 2.5L and 83 injectors. Didn't change anything else much. Using G-valve and set to 10psi

You shouldn't have to use CheM to change it to 2.5L. You can build it as a 2.5L (shoudl be the default, actually).


Fuel is almost perfect, just a little rich. :clap:

The richness might be due to the injector latency. I do not scale the 'FuelBatteryOffset' (latency) table by default because the latency does not scale. But, for the 83lb injectors, it is probably much smaller than for the 'stock' Chrysler injectors. Maybe try scaling the 'FuelbatteryOffset' table by hand to %50 or so and see if that helps. Really, the best thing to do is measure the actual latency for those injectors, but that's actually pretty difficult to do.


Is it default that the knock trigger the CEL to on? Because I didn't see CEL flash at all.

No, it is not on by default. You have to turn on that option. You can turn it on most easily using D-Cal. Look for the cal options constant near the top of the list, and check the box for 'FlashCE'.


The cal totally messed up the 12 button navigator gas mileage scale, it's 2 to 2 1/2 time it should be.

I thought I had set this one up to be scaled with injectors, but maybe I missed it. I'll look into it for v13.

tryingbe
05-30-2008, 08:26 AM
Oh, I could never get the idle below 1400 rpm.



PS: Watch your BOOST. Having the T2 Wastegatecontrol it just does not work well with Turbonator (Which Rob Points out!!).
I see you are using the G Valve - I didn't and you have seen my turbo.....

Oh yes. Still need higher quality pictures...

risen
05-30-2008, 06:00 PM
Oh, I could never get the idle below 1400 rpm.



Did you try that debug switch mentioned up above in the thread? Not sure that it matters, but maybe give it a shot.

tryingbe
05-31-2008, 06:06 PM
Yes, I did.

The idle went down after 40 miles of driving. But new problems.

There is a fuel cut at over 15psi, I'm using 3 bar map.
The miss at curing speed won't go away.
Every time I restart the car hot, the car will run about half a second then dies. It'll restart immediately just fine.
If the restart is 15 minutes or later, car will run horrible for about 5-10 seconds and then will starts to idle fine.


I think I'm going back to ladybug, better to idle a little bit rich then try to short thru the codes and fix the above problems. It didn't work out for me.

ShelGame
06-03-2008, 11:31 AM
Yes, I did.

The idle went down after 40 miles of driving. But new problems.

There is a fuel cut at over 15psi, I'm using 3 bar map.
The miss at curing speed won't go away.
Every time I restart the car hot, the car will run about half a second then dies. It'll restart immediately just fine.
If the restart is 15 minutes or later, car will run horrible for about 5-10 seconds and then will starts to idle fine.


I think I'm going back to ladybug, better to idle a little bit rich then try to short thru the codes and fix the above problems. It didn't work out for me.

All of the constants are stock. So, if you didn't raise overboost, it's still set to stock (~14psi).

83lb injectors are HUGE!!! I imagine the latency needs to be adjusted for them - at the minimum. Are they rated 83lbs at 55psi or 43psi fuel pressure? What fuel pressure are you running?

lametec
06-03-2008, 11:57 AM
I had the same miss during cruise too, so I doubt that's related to your injectors. I use +40's on '89 electronics. 2.2 TII.

I think the miss was only present when I used a precompiled binary of Turbonator v12. I had previously compiled from the source, and it didn't have the miss.

tryingbe
06-03-2008, 10:02 PM
All of the constants are stock. So, if you didn't raise overboost, it's still set to stock (~14psi).

83lb injectors are HUGE!!! I imagine the latency needs to be adjusted for them - at the minimum. Are they rated 83lbs at 55psi or 43psi fuel pressure? What fuel pressure are you running?

Yes, 83lbs injectors are huge, I say 83lbs for, but they're acutally 86lbs.
http://www.racetronix.com/17113742FM.html
I'm using stock 4 bar fuel pressure regulator.

I don't have any issue with these injectors with ladybug 60 cal at startup nor any missing at cruise. You have my V1.9 calibration so you can look at that.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26048

ShelGame
06-04-2008, 07:13 AM
Yes, 83lbs injectors are huge, I say 83lbs for, but they're acutally 86lbs.
http://www.racetronix.com/17113742FM.html
I'm using stock 4 bar fuel pressure regulator.

I don't have any issue with these injectors with ladybug 60 cal at startup nor any missing at cruise. You have my V1.9 calibration so you can look at that.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26048

OK, so at 55psi fuel pressure (4-bar) they probably do flow about 83lbs.

I've looked at it, and other than the fuelling being originally for a 2.2 and then scaled, I don't see anything glaring. I guess it works for you OK, but I would've started with the 2.5 stock tables and then scaled for injectors, etc. Otherwise it's too hard to figure out where any issues are coming from in the cal.

Here's another question - I didn't look yet - did you change the auto cal constants (these control the O2 feed back at part throttle) to the 2.5 values? They would also probably need to be changed for the big injectors...

tryingbe
06-04-2008, 08:58 AM
Here's another question - I didn't look yet - did you change the auto cal constants (these control the O2 feed back at part throttle) to the 2.5 values? They would also probably need to be changed for the big injectors...

No, didn't change the auto cal, but I don't think that's the matter because I'm getting knocks CE at WOT, not part throttle?

ShelGame
06-04-2008, 09:15 AM
Where in the RPM range? I just noticed you're also using the 2.2 knock threshold - it's different from the 2.5 and more sensitive in the lower RPM area and very high RPM area. But, it's also less sensitive in the mid-to-upper RPM. So, it depends on where you're getting knock, I guess - but that could be it.

tryingbe
06-04-2008, 03:23 PM
Where in the RPM range? I just noticed you're also using the 2.2 knock threshold - it's different from the 2.5 and more sensitive in the lower RPM area and very high RPM area. But, it's also less sensitive in the mid-to-upper RPM. So, it depends on where you're getting knock, I guess - but that could be it.

I'm getting CE light on knocks when RPM is over 3000RPM while over 10 psi at WOT.

No CE light on part throttle over 3000rpm and over 10psi.

ShelGame
06-04-2008, 03:44 PM
I'm getting CE light on knocks when RPM is over 3000RPM while over 10 psi at WOT.

No CE light on part throttle over 3000rpm and over 10psi.

How do you get 10psi boost at part throttle?

It's odd that you'd get knock at WOT, but not P/T especially since there's more fuel and slightly less spark at WOT...

Stratman
06-04-2008, 03:50 PM
I'm getting CE light on knocks when RPM is over 3000RPM while over 10 psi at WOT.

No CE light on part throttle over 3000rpm and over 10psi.

Does it not help if you lower the timing in the Full throtle timing map?? I'm having very bad efficiency issues with my newly bought Daytona which I believe is the cause of having to run the timing so low on pump gas. What is your target boost level? Turbo?

tryingbe
06-04-2008, 10:37 PM
How do you get 10psi boost at part throttle?

It's odd that you'd get knock at WOT, but not P/T especially since there's more fuel and slightly less spark at WOT...

G-valve is at 13psi...

I don't want to clogged up this thread with my problems.

You can see my car's spec here
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26048

Stratman
06-07-2008, 11:39 PM
Hey Rob,
I was playing around with the the anti-lag code on my 89 Daytona 2 months ago in the parking space at work (never lauched it, just played with it), but since the ecu would not hold stoich very well on the 2.2 I put my previous code back in until I had time to mess with it. Today was the day....I've got the stage limiter set to 3900, builds 10 psi boost, and gets violent as helll when I let off the clutch! It works really well on the car!
O2 swing is slow with this this code on the 2.2. I need to go through the constants to see what I need to change to correct this.
I'm not sure if the V12 code fixes the following issue, but here's what I've experienced with the V11 code I threw back in today. I have the stage limiter set to activate with the Cruise Resume (Momentary). After using it once it doesn't seem to work again until I kill the engine and start it up again. Any knowledge on this?
Thanks for the fun..:thumb:

MopàrBCN
06-08-2008, 08:20 PM
@Rob, another question to Turbonator SMEC. You have a variable "ConstantSparkAdvanceWhenSettingMinThrottleOpening" and it is set to 6º meanwhile in Ladybug that would be set to 12º. I am just trying to understand what the effect of this would be and why it is half the advance in your cal as compared to LB.

PS: Googling it I saw that you did comment on this on Page 2 but can't find this post....

ShelGame
06-09-2008, 06:57 AM
@Rob, another question to Turbonator SMEC. You have a variable "ConstantSparkAdvanceWhenSettingMinThrottleOpening" and it is set to 6º meanwhile in Ladybug that would be set to 12º. I am just trying to understand what the effect of this would be and why it is half the advance in your cal as compared to LB.

PS: Googling it I saw that you did comment on this on Page 2 but can't find this post....

Not sure - that's the stock setting. Mabe I've labelled that one wrong? - I'll look into it.

EDIT: One of use just has the scale set wrong. The raw hex value is the same between LB and T-SMEC (0x0c).

ShelGame
06-10-2008, 11:48 AM
PS: Watch your BOOST. Having the T2 Wastegatecontrol it just does not work well with Turbonator (Which Rob Points out!!).
I see you are using the G Valve - I didn't and you have seen my turbo.....

OK, I've been looking at the T3 (Lotus) boost control trying to get a better understanding in general of all the different types that Chrysler used. I think the T1 boost control routine can be use to control the T2 style WG - with one change: The solenoid needs to be plumbed normally closed instead of normally open. And, the WG DC tables will still need some tuning. I did write a routine to use the T2 style WG with a normally closed WG solenoid, but I'm not sure it's necessary.

shmiggz
06-13-2008, 08:48 PM
Could I use this cal and adjust it to +20 injectors? Also, I am running a stock garret turbo off of a t2 engine, what would I have to adjust to account for this? I have a 89 daytona that currently has a 2.5l 5spd running on 2.2 electronics. Thanks.

ShelGame
06-13-2008, 09:57 PM
Sure. USe CheM2 to adjust for the injectors automatically.

Not much would need to be changed for the Garret, really. Probably just some tuning of the 2 wastegate duty cycle tables.

shmiggz
06-14-2008, 12:01 PM
ok cool, is it okay to use a grainger valve with this cal?

ShelGame
06-14-2008, 02:19 PM
ok cool, is it okay to use a grainger valve with this cal?

Of course... :thumb:

TopDollar69
06-21-2008, 09:04 PM
Rob,

Can you explain running this batch file to set the mtx bit. I guess I still have alot to learn about this stuff. I do know what a batch file is, but I dont have any clue where to find it. Also, what program are you using for your assemblies, chem? I can't seem to get this function to do anything in chem, and I dont have any idea what it does. Any info will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Ben Huebner

ShelGame
06-21-2008, 09:57 PM
Rob,

Can you explain running this batch file to set the mtx bit. I guess I still have alot to learn about this stuff. I do know what a batch file is, but I dont have any clue where to find it. Also, what program are you using for your assemblies, chem? I can't seem to get this function to do anything in chem, and I dont have any idea what it does. Any info will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Ben Huebner

What do you mean? The MTX flag in the cal, or the MTX switch in the assembler?

The MTX switch in the assembler sets ALL of the constants/tables/rtc. to the MTX value. Simply setting it in the cal only tells a couple of functions to do something a little differently due to the trans type. If you want a full MTX setup, you'll want to assemble it that way.

To do that, you'll need to open the .asm file in a text editor and scroll down to where the trans switches are (near the top) and set the MTX == 0 to MTX == 1 (and ATX == 1 needs to go to ATX == 0).

Then, you'll need the SMEC specific assembler that Geoff created (should come with CHeM2, I think). Copy it into the same folder as your source, and then run the batch file. You'll get a bunch of Turbonator_SMEC_V13.xxx files. These are your files with the build switches you setup.

GLHNSLHT2
06-21-2008, 10:36 PM
Rob any updates on the smec stuff you just got from Jason? :)

ShelGame
06-21-2008, 11:10 PM
Haven't really had a chance to go over it yet. I need to figure out the pricing, and see how many I can order/build...

1966 dart wagon
06-22-2008, 01:39 AM
Where in the RPM range? I just noticed you're also using the 2.2 knock threshold - it's different from the 2.5 and more sensitive in the lower RPM area and very high RPM area. But, it's also less sensitive in the mid-to-upper RPM. So, it depends on where you're getting knock, I guess - but that could be it.

by this statement, do you mean if you had a 2.2 car and installed a 2.5, yet using the 2.2 knock sensor it would be different? or that the computer is calibrated to detect different amounts of knock as be more severe in one engine verses the other. Im trying to track down some knock im getting for a 2.5 mtx cel mod cal and trying to see why it comes on only once and a while and how bad it is, i do not have a scanner though so its hard to know how bad it actually is

ShelGame
06-22-2008, 01:37 PM
by this statement, do you mean if you had a 2.2 car and installed a 2.5, yet using the 2.2 knock sensor it would be different? or that the computer is calibrated to detect different amounts of knock as be more severe in one engine verses the other. Im trying to track down some knock im getting for a 2.5 mtx cel mod cal and trying to see why it comes on only once and a while and how bad it is, i do not have a scanner though so its hard to know how bad it actually is


Same sensor. The sensor is really just a piezo micrphone. It output a voltage relative the the amount of sound it measures. The computer is calibrated as to what voltage output from the sensor is read as actual knock. The 2.2 and 2.5 are different.

1966 dart wagon
06-22-2008, 01:51 PM
Same sensor. The sensor is really just a piezo micrphone. It output a voltage relative the the amount of sound it measures. The computer is calibrated as to what voltage output from the sensor is read as actual knock. The 2.2 and 2.5 are different.

thanks for clearing that up, i really liked that MoparBCN was nice enough to do a great review and help you with out with the fine tuning:thumb: still want to install this into my car, just waiting for all the bugs to get fixed, since im pretty new and not quite sure on adjusting the graphs in dcal and such.

Thanks:clap:

MopàrBCN
06-23-2008, 02:19 AM
Talking about reviewing, I have to recap on the Boostcontrol issue!

As some of you might know from other threads, I had blown my turbo quite badly.
There was a moment I was considering that part of this problem was me using Turbonator.

I WAS WRONG ON THIS ASSUMPTION!

After every thing was taken apart it turned out that one of the principal reasons for it to blow was a jamming Wastegate Puck inside the Swingvalve.

With this, any type of Boostcontrol just could not have worked!!! Not even a G-Valve.

Basically the jamming occured or when wide open or when closed. It needed Exceptional Force to then move in either direction. This explaines why at times I just had no boost or it went all the way up to 20psi. It rarely overboosted because I had Overboost set to 21PSI and usually 18-20 psi were sufficient to eventually open the puck.

There was a chain of other reasons for the turbo to blow eventually all to do with failures in the hardware around the turbo.

I need to stress this now.

I even think, besides Rob claims it can't work (which is wise, everybody should do this at his own risk!!!!), that it would have worked well otherwise.
I say this because there were moments where it stayed perfectly within it's bounds in both boost modes (high and low).

All I did was aligning the FullThrottleWastegateDutyCycle_C8is100Percent_From Map Graph to match with the corresponding T2 Graph in Ladybug60 (they are inverse).

I will retest everything when my rebuilt is ready which might be this week!

ShelGame
06-23-2008, 07:21 AM
Talking about reviewing, I have to recap on the Boostcontrol issue!

As some of you might know from other threads, I had blown my turbo quite badly.
There was a moment I was considering that part of this problem was me using Turbonator.

I WAS WRONG ON THIS ASSUMPTION!

After every thing was taken apart it turned out that one of the principal reasons for it to blow was a jamming Wastegate Puck inside the Swingvalve.

With this, any type of Boostcontrol just could not have worked!!! Not even a G-Valve.

Basically the jamming occured or when wide open or when closed. It needed Exceptional Force to then move in either direction. This explaines why at times I just had no boost or it went all the way up to 20psi. It rarely overboosted because I had Overboost set to 21PSI and usually 18-20 psi were sufficient to eventually open the puck.

There was a chain of other reasons for the turbo to blow eventually all to do with failures in the hardware around the turbo.

I need to stress this now.

I even think, besides Rob claims it can't work (which is wise, everybody should do this at his own risk!!!!), that it would have worked well otherwise.
I say this because there were moments where it stayed perfectly within it's bounds in both boost modes (high and low).

All I did was aligning the FullThrottleWastegateDutyCycle_C8is100Percent_From Map Graph to match with the corresponding T2 Graph in Ladybug60 (they are inverse).

I will retest everything when my rebuilt is ready which might be this week!


Actually, I've looked at the different types of boost control now. I think it will work as-is - BUT - It needs to be plumbed like the T3 system, instead of the T2. They are similar, but the T3 is a normally open type system. That is, the WG can sees manifold pressure when the solenoid is not powered. The solenoid is then set to 100% duty cycle most of the time by the software. It works exactly the same as the T2, but it is still a fail-safe system in that you still have WG can boost control if/when the solenoid fails. You will want to copy the WG tables from the T3 instead of the T1 or T2. And, I'm sure they will need some tuning.

The reason you can't simply copy the T2 tables is becasue the adaptives will be working the opposite direction. It might work, but on long pulls you will find your boost falling off rather than holding steady (I suspect).

I wrote a new boost control routine so that regular T2 style boost control can be used. It will be in the next release of T-SMEC. I also wrote a routine similar to the T3 boost control that I have tried. My results were mixed. When plumbed like the T1 system, it works excellent. But, when plumbed like the T3, the boost is slow to rise. I don't understand this, actually. I think it must be plumbing related since the WG Duty cycle is set to 100% (in this case, the WG can should see no MAP signal). Anyway, it needs more work, and the T2 needs to be tested. Once I get at least the T2 system working, I will post v13.

MopàrBCN
06-23-2008, 02:29 PM
Hi, now that you are at it, I have another quick one for you:

I as well as some more users have had the knock issue up from 10 PSI around 3500 RPM after all in part throttle. Now, I have partly solved this issue in retarding the timing advance each 2º more at at 14PSI (AdvanceWarmFullThrottle_FromMap) and at 10PSI (AdvanceWarmPartThrottle_FromMap). This did entirely solve my full throttle issue, but looking at my logs I still saw some knock (though less!) at part throttle. And always up from the mentioned range.

This happened to me as well with Ladybug60!

Today I was looking at those cals again, and I saw this table:

EnrichAdjust_FromMap

And looking at this I noticed, that this raises strong up from -5 PSI to be at its max at around 3PSI where it stays until 10(!) PSI and drops sharply again!!

since the discription says: "Part Throttle Enrichment - Multiplier from MAP. Note: zero is 1.00", I guess that this is applied at part throttle because the timing is much more agressive in this range.

Could here be the problem that it drops at 10PSI ??? - and hence causing the knocking troubles many of us have. It is 1:1 the same in Ladybug60.

THANKS!

1966 dart wagon
06-27-2008, 12:43 AM
Hey guys i just installed this cal in my car and it is running horribly rich i'll review how i have it set up, first off 89 daytona 2.5 TII setup, now running 52lbs injectors and a 3bar. I first started by downloading the asm version(front page) of your cal rob, then i opened the 'text file' and sat the settings for manual trans 2.5, as discussed before, and saved it then opened the .bat file and new files appeard(does everything sound correct here???) then i opened the .bin file though dcal and clicked cal data, used to scale injectors right??? input 52ph, and max boost psi of 20, map type : 3bar. Then hit ok, then clicked the proper boxes for what i wanted, 2 step, antilag, ac enabled, enabled charge temp sensor though configurations flags table. Now i installed it in my car, which i had set to 60(w/o line disconnected from afpr) turned it down to stock 55psi and still was increadably rich, burned my eyes adjusting it. Thoughts on this, i am running a delphi map sensor, shouldnt matter delco/delphi right? i had the injectors cleaned, but the schools machine couldnt flow test them at 52pph, to high i was told, outflowed the machine :eyebrows: Anyways my zeitronix is reading 10:1 afr at idle :confused: any thoughts here,i tried to coever everything i did for a review, any thoughts guys, should i turn the fp down more, i would hate to lean it out???

Thanks, and great cal and reviews guys :thumb:

MopàrBCN
06-27-2008, 02:50 AM
Hi, did you adjust your fuel tables after scaling for injectors? I noted that especially the No Throttle Table is scaled quite rich when scaled by injectors. (At this point have an eye on the part throttle and full throttle tables as well...)

ShelGame
06-27-2008, 07:21 AM
Hey guys i just installed this cal in my car and it is running horribly rich i'll review how i have it set up, first off 89 daytona 2.5 TII setup, now running 52lbs injectors and a 3bar. I first started by downloading the asm version(front page) of your cal rob, then i opened the 'text file' and sat the settings for manual trans 2.5, as discussed before, and saved it then opened the .bat file and new files appeard(does everything sound correct here???) then i opened the .bin file though dcal and clicked cal data, used to scale injectors right???

Nope, in D-Cal, that is for information purposes only. D-Cal doesn't automatically scale for injectors. You'd have to do it all manually. If you open it in CHeM2, there is a function to scale for injectors. FWIW, for v13 I've added the injectro scale function to the batch file (so it will scale for injectors when you assemble it).


input 52ph, and max boost psi of 20, map type : 3bar. Then hit ok, then clicked the proper boxes for what i wanted, 2 step, antilag, ac enabled, enabled charge temp sensor though configurations flags table. Now i installed it in my car, which i had set to 60(w/o line disconnected from afpr) turned it down to stock 55psi and still was increadably rich, burned my eyes adjusting it. Thoughts on this, i am running a delphi map sensor, shouldnt matter delco/delphi right? i had the injectors cleaned, but the schools machine couldnt flow test them at 52pph, to high i was told, outflowed the machine :eyebrows: Anyways my zeitronix is reading 10:1 afr at idle :confused: any thoughts here,i tried to coever everything i did for a review, any thoughts guys, should i turn the fp down more, i would hate to lean it out???

Thanks, and great cal and reviews guys :thumb:

Yeah, it's rich beacuse all of the fuel tables are still set for stock injectors. Load it up in CHeM2 and run the scale for injectors function; it should clean right up.

1966 dart wagon
06-27-2008, 08:56 AM
thanks rob, but for some reason i cant use chem 2. When i open it, and go file, open, nothing happens, and if i go into fueling input engine, rpms, injectors,map sensor, hit scale nothing happens. it just leave me at the main window, and i get NO error message:confused: I opened chem 1.9 and i cannot load the same file that was created from the .bat file in the asm folder from my orginal download, so do i just open the .bin folder load the turbonator with mtx scale it
then i hit ok, but if i bring the fueling menu back up its still set for a 2.2, 42pph, 3bar, even if i save it right after, so do i just look at the table it produces and 'eye ball' that into dcal/chem fuel table. BTW which table lists Full thorttle, part and idle,(fuelpartthrottle, fuelfullthrottle)is fuelbaseline from map idle?. I saw moparbcn had a way to convert the table for my traveler so its still accurate under fuelmonitorconversionfactor, im going to have to change it to what he did.
Anyways im not sure why i cant use chem2, and this is on 2 computers so its not just the one. Thoughts?

MopàrBCN
06-29-2008, 07:29 AM
Hi, maybe you are trying to open the .bin file in Chem2?

The way I go on about this is:

1. Download the base cal from what I want to work (let's say Turbonator SMEC v12)
2. In this .zip you find the .asm etc and if I remember it right you find as well precompiled .bin,.tbl,.inj files. DELETE THOSE and stick to the .asm and .bat files. As well as that you need the 2 .exe files.
3. Now open the .asm file in notepad or whatever is your favourit Editor.
4. Here you need now to change your basic characteristics as in displacement, 2/3 Bar Map.
5. Now execute your .bat file and the result is a bin + table etc. files.
6. One of those Files is a .calx File. THIS IS WHAT IS USED IN CHEM

You are ready to enjoy.

Now, Use Chem2 for all tricky stuff and to set Flags and Config options use DCAL. Changes in DCAL will be reflected in .calx as well as changes in .calx are reflected in the .bin file.

1966 dart wagon
06-29-2008, 01:20 PM
Hi, maybe you are trying to open the .bin file in Chem2?

The way I go on about this is:

1. Download the base cal from what I want to work (let's say Turbonator SMEC v12)
2. In this .zip you find the .asm etc and if I remember it right you find as well precompiled .bin,.tbl,.inj files. DELETE THOSE and stick to the .asm and .bat files. As well as that you need the 2 .exe files.
3. Now open the .asm file in notepad or whatever is your favourit Editor.
4. Here you need now to change your basic characteristics as in displacement, 2/3 Bar Map.
5. Now execute your .bat file and the result is a bin + table etc. files.
6. One of those Files is a .calx File. THIS IS WHAT IS USED IN CHEM

You are ready to enjoy.

Now, Use Chem2 for all tricky stuff and to set Flags and Config options use DCAL. Changes in DCAL will be reflected in .calx as well as changes in .calx are reflected in the .bin file.

Thanks :thumb: im at work now so now i have to wait :( then happy boosting:eyebrows:

now im home just to add, and i was wondering under the basic .asm notepad that i modify the cal can i change injectors in that???


; ************************************************** *********************
; FUEL INJECTORS
; ************************************************** *********************
;
; Control fuel injector scaling, performed by a post-link program, this way.
;
.if Map2Bar
.inj current 33.0
.inj new 33.0
.endif

.if Map3Bar
.inj current 33.0
.inj new 33.0 can i change this to 52.00? to scale the cal?
.endif
or do i open the .inj file that is created after i execute the .bin file and then change the new to 52.0? since for some reason neither version of chem will work for me :(

risen
06-29-2008, 11:50 PM
Thanks :thumb: im at work now so now i have to wait :( then happy boosting:eyebrows:

now im home just to add, and i was wondering under the basic .asm notepad that i modify the cal can i change injectors in that???


or do i open the .inj file that is created after i execute the .bin file and then change the new to 52.0? since for some reason neither version of chem will work for me :(

Neither is going to scale your injectors. Just set the map bar settings in the .asm file (and possibly the transmission one too). Then run the batch file to create a .bin. After that open up chem2, and go to the open menu item. Find the directory where you just ran the bat and edited the asm and open the .calx file in that same directory. Now, on the file menu there will be a selection to scale for injectors. Select that menu item, and you'll be presented with a dialog as to what your injectors are. Select the proper injectors and hit scale. Your cal is now scaled for your injectors. Save the cal from the file menu and you're done.


Edit:
I just read the last sentence. I don't think the programs to scale the injectors based upon the .inj file are readily available anymore. I'm sure someone here can scale your cal for your injectors and send it back to you. I can do it if you'd like.

1966 dart wagon
06-30-2008, 12:52 AM
Ok finally figuered out, chem2 was not working cause im running windows 98 on both computers i was trying this on. I tried it on my xp machine and it worked great, i really like the layout of chem2 having the drop down list and can put the tables in groups. So problem solved, I now have this cal running but since my car has from what i can tell as dealer/aftermarket ac which is ditched now(its a cs model no factory ac) Topdollar69 aka Ben was saying perhaps the plug to the ac clutch is not in the 'circut' making it so the ac switch isnt working properly enabling antilag and 2step. bummer but besides that the cal works great, still rich though the rpm range though in the mid to high 10s, should i just adjust fp for this which is already at 45psi, but my idle is dead on 14.7.

The cal works great rob,:thumb: i really like that i can scale it for all different fuels, does this change timing and such if i decided to go for e85?

ShelGame
06-30-2008, 07:22 AM
Ok finally figuered out, chem2 was not working cause im running windows 98 on both computers i was trying this on. I tried it on my xp machine and it worked great, i really like the layout of chem2 having the drop down list and can put the tables in groups. So problem solved, I now have this cal running but since my car has from what i can tell as dealer/aftermarket ac which is ditched now(its a cs model no factory ac) Topdollar69 aka Ben was saying perhaps the plug to the ac clutch is not in the 'circut' making it so the ac switch isnt working properly enabling antilag and 2step. bummer but besides that the cal works great, still rich though the rpm range though in the mid to high 10s, should i just adjust fp for this which is already at 45psi, but my idle is dead on 14.7.

The cal works great rob,:thumb: i really like that i can scale it for all different fuels, does this change timing and such if i decided to go for e85?

Yeah, the 'A/C switch' in the cals is actually the A/C Clutch input to the SMEC. It's not directly connected to the A/C switch on the dash. If you're removed the A/C comp, then you won't get a clutch input even when the switch is turned on.

The 'scale for injectors' function doesn't do anythign to the timing. So, if you go E85, you'll have to tune the tming yourself.

lametec
06-30-2008, 08:46 AM
If you twist the two wires to the low pressure switch of the A/C system together you'll get the A/C switch functionality back.

1966 dart wagon
07-01-2008, 01:18 PM
If you twist the two wires to the low pressure switch of the A/C system together you'll get the A/C switch functionality back.

i looked up the wiring diagram for my car and i cannot find the wires to do this? Does anyone have a picture of the plug, or can tell me where the plug is located

risen
07-01-2008, 02:11 PM
i looked up the wiring diagram for my car and i cannot find the wires to do this? Does anyone have a picture of the plug, or can tell me where the plug is located

I believe it's back on the firewall by where the ac lines run into the car.

lametec
07-01-2008, 04:04 PM
Yep. Find the H-valve (rectangular aluminum block) on the firewall. This is where the A/C lines go into the car. On the engine side of that block you'll see a sensor with a plug attached to it. Short the two wires in this plug.

MopàrBCN
07-02-2008, 06:43 PM
Quick one: Do you have a rough idea when you might post v13?? Just curious...

ShelGame
07-03-2008, 07:46 AM
Quick one: Do you have a rough idea when you might post v13?? Just curious...


Needs a little more testing...

MopàrBCN
07-04-2008, 08:35 PM
Great, looking forward to it.

One more thing. Today I dedicated to cal testing. I gave it a go again with Turbonator as well, even though I was playing around with Ladybug.

The Cruise Control definetly does not work with Turbonator on my T2 Daytona. I noticed it before but blamed it on my car. But with Ladybug the cruise control works. With Turbonator it does not work no matter what you do. I had the boost switch assigned and later took it off but still no functioning.

I don't give it a great importance but just wanted to let you know.

TopDollar69
07-05-2008, 11:18 AM
Rob,

What do the option flags do in D cal? It seems some of them like the injector ones for example don't change anything. I could be totally off base, but I was curious if they change some other things?

Thanks,

Ben Huebner

ShelGame
07-05-2008, 03:15 PM
Rob,

What do the option flags do in D cal? It seems some of them like the injector ones for example don't change anything. I could be totally off base, but I was curious if they change some other things?

Thanks,

Ben Huebner

There aren't any option flags for injectors. That wouldn't work anyway, there's not enough memory for all the tables for that.

The option flags are for what they are labelled for. I guess I don't understand the question...

TopDollar69
07-05-2008, 04:23 PM
Sorry, I guess I didnt even know what i was posting about. After going through it again, it appears as if my mind was making things up on me.

1966 dart wagon
07-09-2008, 11:02 PM
I am also running this on my car, no problems, idles great, drives great, wot runs awesome :thumb: but i do have a few questions:

1) To work the antilag do i just stop and rev up my motor (wot) and it should 'antilag' im having problems figuring out my ac switch is the '2 step' linked to the antilag?

2) i found two wires under my engine bay that were cut believed to be the low pressure switch i connected them and still no 2 step(but the problem could be there. I have an aftermarket ac so its not on the hvalve. According to ondemand5, the wires should be dark green/orange stripe and brown and i connected them.

3) i was going to hookup my wastegate tI style, do i just run the turbo port - wastegate and T that into the vacume lines off the intake?

im running a gvalve so i have no imput for the switchable boost at this time, car runs great though, i also believe my injectors flow more then '40%+" since i have my fp set to 45psi, a perfect 14.7 at idle, but still in the high 10s at around 20psi, i have the factory boost guage so im unsure on that, should i burn the fp down more to compinsate for the richness at wot, will that effect the idle? or will the o2 sensor figure that out.

great cal rob, cant wait for more

TopDollar69
07-12-2008, 01:53 PM
Jack,
I would think it's ok to turn the fuel pressure down some more as long as the AFR is still good. It seems most of the +40s out there are actually somewhat larger than 52pph. From what I have read, alot of the injectors are more like +50. I would try taking the fuel pressure down to 45 PSI static. I would install a new set of plugs and check them after a few runs to make sure you are not running lean on one cylinder or another. I will probably end up coming to Sioux Falls on Wednesday, I can bring my scanner and we can watch the knock on all four cylinders. I would like to burn a version of turbonator for my LeBaron, Let me know if your going to be around.

Ben

TopDollar69
07-12-2008, 03:26 PM
MoparBCN, can you tell me what all the table names are for sure that effect the radiator fan schedule.

Thanks,

Ben Huebner

1966 dart wagon
07-12-2008, 08:25 PM
MoparBCN, can you tell me what all the table names are for sure that effect the radiator fan schedule.

Thanks,

Ben Huebner

I would also like to know this also, my car seems to run just a lil warmer then it did with the regular cal i had, Thanks also :thumb:

ShelGame
07-13-2008, 08:28 AM
They're all labelled as "FanTurnsOn..." in D-Cal. I can't remember if I added the .calx definitions for CHeM2 or not.

The only one that is not really self explanatory is the "FanTurnsOnWhenMapAboveBaroPlusThis". This one turns the fan on at a preset boost level to improve the airflow thru an intercooler. It's set to FF in the 2.5 T1 cals because they do not have an I/C...

There's also a pair of constants that set the speed split between the moving/non-moving fan constants. But, you wouldn't normally change those.

EDIT: actually the last 2 fan constants in my D-Cal table file are the speed splits. They're not coolant temps at all. I'll fix that table entry for v13.

Bubba
07-13-2008, 09:48 AM
Any plans for a 90/91 SBEC version of this cal?

ShelGame
07-13-2008, 10:59 AM
Any plans for a 90/91 SBEC version of this cal?

Yep, and a T3 version :). T-SBEC is about 75% done. Just need time to get back to it.

TopDollar69
07-13-2008, 01:03 PM
When matching up the fan constants in D-cal, should I be matching the hex value in the upper RH corner, or the numerical value in the bottom? Just to clarify, I'm matching this against the Ladybug60 cal. Another thing I was wondering about, is there anyway to view the whole table name in D-cal? It seems like if title is too long to fit in the box, you can't scroll over, or make the box larger.

Thanks,

Ben Huebner

ShelGame
07-13-2008, 02:29 PM
When matching up the fan constants in D-cal, should I be matching the hex value in the upper RH corner, or the numerical value in the bottom? Just to clarify, I'm matching this against the Ladybug60 cal. Another thing I was wondering about, is there anyway to view the whole table name in D-cal? It seems like if title is too long to fit in the box, you can't scroll over, or make the box larger.

Thanks,

Ben Huebner

Either. They should both match really. They might be off a hair due to differences in rounding between CHeM and D-Cal. If you want to be 100% correct, match the hex value.

Double click to display the table properties in D-Cal. That will show you the full table name...

TopDollar69
07-13-2008, 02:55 PM
Thanks for showing me how to get to the table info. Sorry for all the stupid questions, I really appreciate all your help Rob. The tables were all screwed up in the Ladybug60 bin. The scale was from 0 to 256, so I changed them all to match your turbonator names and values, then matched them up. I was way off on some of the values.

Thanks,

Ben Huebner

PS, Rob you are my hero for opening this up for everyone and being so helpful.

Joe_Van_Duno
07-13-2008, 05:35 PM
Hey guys, I'm having some trouble getting the turbonator cal to run my van. I've made some small changes to the cal while trying to get the van going but I didn't change anything to major (at least I don't think so). The problem I'm having is that I can't boost past 14 psi with this cal. I hit 14 and it's like the van hits a boost wall. The boost gauge bounces a little, and the car is breaking up.

To make sure it wasn't my van, I put a ladybug cal that I was playing with before I was told not to run that cal, and with a ladybug cal I can run close to 20 psi and I make loads of power, I was just getting some knock in the upper rpms when making expressway pulls. Running 110 octane got rid of the knock, but I still had some issues running ladybug, so i figured I'd go back to trying this cal. I'll attach both the turbonator cal, and my most recent cal that worked ok in my van.

Quick run down on van:
89 2.5 bored 40 over forged pistons
automatic
t3/t4 50 trim
powerstroke intercooler
+1mm valves
FWD S4 cam
head clean up
+40 injectors that flow WAY to much
walbro 255HP pump
AFPR set to 55 pounds with 0 vacuum.
want to run nitrous approx 100 shot once I can get a clean pass on engine.

When running the ladybug cal, my wideband reads 10.0 in 1st gear then 10.7 to 11.2 in 2nd or 3rd at WOT
Turbonator drops to 10.0 but then breaks up.

I'm sorry I've only included the bin and calx files. I use chem 2 to change the program, and I don't know how to creat a tbl file with a calx file.

TopDollar69
07-13-2008, 05:48 PM
What are you using for boost control, G valve or Computer controled?

TopDollar69
07-13-2008, 05:54 PM
It looks like you assembled it correctly for 3 bar map. Also it's scaled correctly for 55 pph injectors.

Joe_Van_Duno
07-13-2008, 05:58 PM
I'm using a g-valve.

ShelGame
07-13-2008, 10:23 PM
MY inclination is to think you're taking out WAY to much timing when in boost. I mean, you're 6 degrees retarded from stock at 11 psi (-11.0 vs. -5.0 for stock). And you take out even more at boost higher than that. The computer defaults to 0 deg if the result of the total calculation is less than 0, so I think you're simply ending up with 0 advance in boost.

The LB60 is based on the T2 code that has a lot more timing from RPM added in, so with that cal, you may be ending up with ~5-10 total advance when in boost (still too low, I think) which works OK.

I think you should be ~20 deg total timing when in boost. Especially at only 14 psi. By 20 psi, maybe only 16 deg.

1966 dart wagon
07-14-2008, 08:56 PM
2. Scaled the FuelMonitorConversionfactor to 0210 (like this it's far more accurate)
.

how exactly did you do this, i go into dcal select the table "fuelmonitorconversionfactor" and it only has a scale of 0-255 on the main screen table. That is the last thing i need to do to have this cal perfected :D

that is the correct table to make my traveler read the correct milage with 40+s right?

TopDollar69
07-14-2008, 08:58 PM
Jack, he might mean 210.

1966 dart wagon
07-14-2008, 11:02 PM
Jack, he might mean 210.

I wasn't sure if that was correct or not, figured id get it verified. Anyways, i ran my new cal me and Ben were working on last night to have the TII fan cycles. To do this i started from scratch, edited the assembler, then launched the bat file to receive the .bin/calx and all the other ones. I scaled it chem2 in that cal for 2.5 max rpms 6k, 52pph, 3bar map. I checked the appropriate boxes in dcal then installed this cal in my car, first off it idled high around 1500rpms, verified by the zeitronix also, it also ran pretty rich in the 11's at idle. Next was take off started cruising and it ran a prefect 14.7, then would have a 'hickup' and go up to 15's then to the 11s and slowly very slowly crawl back up into the 14s. Next I went for a 3rd gear pull, car pulled good, also unlike last time when id go wot it would drop instantly to the 10s/11s unlike last time it would go more 12 then to 10s if that makes sense. Then while wot it would go up to 11.5 then SPIKE UP TO 21 id get a cel(knock) and it would act as if my cutout was still on. So a couple bumps but I'll get em figured out. I went back into chem2 and rechecked my cal noticed under fueling it was set for 103oct gas:confused: hm i know i set it to 'sumer gas' anyways i set it to sumer gas, then hit scale and it would change to 103...weird, anyways i just went typical gas now and it wouldn't change i checked it 3 times, after hitting scale and brought the 'fueling scale' back up to see if it changed anyways ran again SAME PROBLEM....hmmm

tomorrow im going to take my original turbonator cal i was running earlier today, and do the fan cycles for tII on that and try that

ok so 1 step ahead 2 back :lol:

ShelGame
07-18-2008, 09:35 PM
Has anyone had problems with T-SMEC relating to vehicle speed? Specifically, does cruise work? I think someone posted that it didn't work, but I can't recall who/when/what build. If someone could hook up T-SMEC to a scan tool and see what the speed reading is while driving, that would be great. For example, I always get 24mph. BUt, I had a similar problem with a modified stock cal last year. So, I don't know if it's something with my car or the T-SMEC code.

MopàrBCN
07-19-2008, 04:59 AM
Hi, in my case Cruise Control didn't work! That was on a 89 T2 Daytona! It does with LB60 so it should be related to the cals.

jpcturbo
07-24-2008, 03:00 PM
I installed T-SMEC v12 on my Minivan last weekend, and unfortuantely had to take it off, for now. The engine is nothing special, stock '89 common block 2.2L, slightly opened exhaust and air-box delete; SMEC hooked to an Ostrich. Engine is hooked to a A520.

The progression of events happend just like what's described in the pages of this thread. Once I set the ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed, TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive and Debug Config flag, idle quickly settled down. Ani-lag works and so did the rev-limiter. Van felt good, almost more refined, sounded more stock at low rpm operation. Sorry, I don't have cruise on the van.

The problem that led me to remove the cal is an intermittent cut out. It feels much, almost exactly, like a bad HEP. In about 1/2 mile of driving, you should feel one "bump". (No CE Light) It happens a little more with part throttle and not as often at or near WOT. Once I re-flashed the T-SMEC it started, once I re-flashed the old LB60-Stock cal, it goes away. I have swapped TPS (old one was intermittent) and HEP, no difference. Tests point to software, but I have a hard time believing the cal can do that. I almost hope it's a hardware problem 'cause this cal is pretty cool.

I tried to datalog, SMECLog, but I had a ground problem. Fixed now but I didn't have time to test rightaway. I noticed the T-SMEC serial com code is, oh, just a little different. Any perfered protocol to communicate with it? Will the good-old 0x12, switch to high baud, 0xf2 for sync and send addresses like for LB60?

Thanks Rob!

Jeff Chojnacki

lametec
07-24-2008, 03:30 PM
It's not a hardware problem. I had the same miss/cutout/bump when I tried the cal.

MopàrBCN
07-24-2008, 08:02 PM
@Rob, one question:

If I would delete this lines:
*ldab Temp1 ; load b with memory contents
*cmpb SPDLMH_SpeedLimitFuelShutoff254mph ; compare b with memory contents (data is 76)
*bcc Cutout_ShutOffEngineForThisRotation ; branch if greater or equal

from this routine: Cutout_CheckRevLimitingValues:

wouldn't this disable the Speed Cut Off entirely?

I would really apreciate if you could answer me this one. I know that in the European SMECs Speed Cut Off is entirely eliminated with the T2 cars.

Just for fun when in Germany I used as well one T-SMEC build (without having made a lot of changes...) and the Cut Off was even worse (at around 190km/h).

THANKS!!

ShelGame
07-24-2008, 09:58 PM
I installed T-SMEC v12 on my Minivan last weekend, and unfortuantely had to take it off, for now. The engine is nothing special, stock '89 common block 2.2L, slightly opened exhaust and air-box delete; SMEC hooked to an Ostrich. Engine is hooked to a A520.

The progression of events happend just like what's described in the pages of this thread. Once I set the ScatterInhibitBelowThisSpeed, TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive and Debug Config flag, idle quickly settled down. Ani-lag works and so did the rev-limiter. Van felt good, almost more refined, sounded more stock at low rpm operation. Sorry, I don't have cruise on the van.

The problem that led me to remove the cal is an intermittent cut out. It feels much, almost exactly, like a bad HEP. In about 1/2 mile of driving, you should feel one "bump". (No CE Light) It happens a little more with part throttle and not as often at or near WOT. Once I re-flashed the T-SMEC it started, once I re-flashed the old LB60-Stock cal, it goes away. I have swapped TPS (old one was intermittent) and HEP, no difference. Tests point to software, but I have a hard time believing the cal can do that. I almost hope it's a hardware problem 'cause this cal is pretty cool.

I tried to datalog, SMECLog, but I had a ground problem. Fixed now but I didn't have time to test rightaway. I noticed the T-SMEC serial com code is, oh, just a little different. Any perfered protocol to communicate with it? Will the good-old 0x12, switch to high baud, 0xf2 for sync and send addresses like for LB60?

Thanks Rob!

Jeff Chojnacki

T-SMEC has both the original DRB-II coms as well as the 'hi-speed' serial logger. You can choose which one to use in the 'options' flags.

The 'hiccup' - I've had it to. But only very intermittently. And it only seems to happen at part throttle. I've raced the cal a few times and it never does it at WOT. I think I know what caused it (and I fixed it for v13). But, I'm going to test it tomorrow night. If it works, v13 will be posted soon.

ShelGame
07-24-2008, 10:01 PM
@Rob, one question:

If I would delete this lines:
*ldab Temp1 ; load b with memory contents
*cmpb SPDLMH_SpeedLimitFuelShutoff254mph ; compare b with memory contents (data is 76)
*bcc Cutout_ShutOffEngineForThisRotation ; branch if greater or equal

from this routine: Cutout_CheckRevLimitingValues:

wouldn't this disable the Speed Cut Off entirely?

I would really apreciate if you could answer me this one. I know that in the European SMECs Speed Cut Off is entirely eliminated with the T2 cars.

Just for fun when in Germany I used as well one T-SMEC build (without having made a lot of changes...) and the Cut Off was even worse (at around 190km/h).

THANKS!!

Mmmm, I'd have to look at the surrounding code. But, you can effectively remove the speed limiter by setting the SPDLMH and SPDLML values to FF (which is 255 mph, I don't think anyone is going to be getting a TM up to that speed - even on the autobahn). This is what the MP T2 cals have done to them, and I assume the Euro cals as well.

Hmm, it would be nice to check out a Euro cal. Did they have a Euro spec SMEC cal for the turbo engines? T1 and T2?

MopàrBCN
07-25-2008, 03:28 AM
Mmmm, I'd have to look at the surrounding code. But, you can effectively remove the speed limiter by setting the SPDLMH and SPDLML values to FF (which is 255 mph, I don't think anyone is going to be getting a TM up to that speed - even on the autobahn).

:D:D:DDont forget that I have all new vacuum lines!!!:D



Hmm, it would be nice to check out a Euro cal. Did they have a Euro spec SMEC cal for the turbo engines? T1 and T2?

As far as I know "yes" but the only difference being that the speed limiter was removed. Not so much because it was too low but because it is really dangerous. If you are doing 190km/h and have a car following you and all of a suddon the fuel cuts it a) gives a scare to the driver and b) breaks the car abruptly. And I think it was for that reason. The first European cars I recall having a speed limiter were those 850 BMW. But there cut is really smooth.

The T2 cars are usually registered with a Vmax of 215 km/h and the T1 cars 205 km/h.

I can get you my Euro T2 cal soon, because I will have to dare to socket it. (My current board is starting to wear out a bit...)

jpcturbo
07-25-2008, 02:02 PM
T-SMEC has both the original DRB-II coms as well as the 'hi-speed' serial logger. You can choose which one to use in the 'options' flags.
I hope SMEClog works with T-SMEC, but I'd like to add DRB-II featues and support both modes. Do we have any more documentation on the DRB-II coms somewhere? (other than in the asm) Walking through the Serial code always gives me a headache for some reason.


I think I know what caused it (and I fixed it for v13). But, I'm going to test it tomorrow night. If it works, v13 will be posted soon.

That's wonderfull! I am real curious what you think may be causing the problem!

ShelGame
07-26-2008, 08:24 AM
I hope SMEClog works with T-SMEC, but I'd like to add DRB-II featues and support both modes. Do we have any more documentation on the DRB-II coms somewhere? (other than in the asm) Walking through the Serial code always gives me a headache for some reason.

I have a document posted somewhere that maps out all of the DRB-II commands in the SMEC/SBEC. I'll repost it here in another thread. along with the flowcharts.



That's wonderfull! I am real curious what you think may be causing the problem!

Well, I thought it was a phantom constant that I had missed. There's a pair of bytes - $55 AA that appear after the Huntsville tester buytes. These same 2 values are used to initialize counters or something in the startup code. I couldn't find anywhere in the code that referenced this memory location, But I thought it was probably significant that these same 2 bytes were EVERY 6811 codebase - except mine. So, I added them back in, and no dice. Still no speed update past 24mph. I ran my 'old' cal that was not based on T-SMEC and the speed updates fine. So, I gotta look elsewhere for the problem...

ShelGame
07-28-2008, 10:03 AM
OK, finally fixed the speed update issue, and v13 is now posted. The other major fixes/changes are listed on the 1st post, so I won't re-hash them here...

MopàrBCN
07-28-2008, 12:43 PM
This sounds like great news to me!! I think by tomorrow I should have my fist chip ready to go in!!

Quick one: The 3rd Option for Boost Control, this I understand as a "hybrid" Boost control, so it is compatible with the T2 Style Wastegate System? Just to know how I should build. I am currently using the option Turbonator...

And another one: I see the ramp values (Primary Kickcell) are now the ones used in Ladybug... Aren't those way too rich?????

And another one:
I have build the .asm with the "Turbonator Boost Control".
In dcal under Optionsflag I see an unchecked option "WG Control T2". Do I check this anyway?
Also, what does "TransFuelTPS" mean, which in my case was checked by default?

ShelGame
07-28-2008, 01:11 PM
This sounds like great news to me!! I think by tomorrow I should have my fist chip ready to go in!!

Quick one: The 3rd Option for Boost Control, this I understand as a "hybrid" Boost control, so it is compatible with the T2 Style Wastegate System? Just to know how I should build. I am currently using the option Turbonator...

And another one: I see the ramp values (Primary Kickcell) are now the ones used in Ladybug... Aren't those way too rich?????

And another one:
I have build the .asm with the "Turbonator Boost Control".
In dcal under Optionsflag I see an unchecked option "WG Control T2". Do I check this anyway?
Also, what does "TransFuelTPS" mean, which in my case was checked by default?

I don't know what the purpose of the TransFuel flag is/was for. But, basically, it changes to TPS-based transient fuel earlier (low MAP value) than with it unchecked. Again, I have no idea what the factory used that for. But, all of the stock and MP cals have it checked. I unchecked it originally by mistake (I thought it was some sort of debug thing).

The Turbonator WG control is the T1 WG control, but with some anti-lag features. It's very similar to the T3 WG control in that respect.

I really don't understand the hang-up on the T2 control. It doesn't have a fail-safe. If you simply reverse the plumbing (so that the WGA always sees boost), and then set the WG DC to 100% - what's the difference? The only difference is that it fails to a safe-mode.

MopàrBCN
07-28-2008, 01:39 PM
Hi, there is no problem. I am just slow when instead of bits and bytes real pipes and plumbing gets involved:nod:

I don't understand how I have to change my plumbing.

Right now I have vacuum/boost going to the WG Solenoid and from there one line to my WG Can. This I even understand logically, since once the SMEC sees boost going over the top it sends a signal to the Solenoid and thus releases it to the WG Can which is pushed open. This is how I understand T2 WG Control.

Now you say my WG Can should always see boost. This is what I don't understand. If I do it will be easy for my to change this!

I am not married at all to T2 Style WG Control. It's just the only one I understand right now....

ShelGame
07-28-2008, 02:14 PM
Hi, there is no problem. I am just slow when instead of bits and bytes real pipes and plumbing gets involved:nod:

I don't understand how I have to change my plumbing.

Right now I have vacuum/boost going to the WG Solenoid and from there one line to my WG Can. This I even understand logically, since once the SMEC sees boost going over the top it sends a signal to the Solenoid and thus releases it to the WG Can which is pushed open. This is how I understand T2 WG Control.

Now you say my WG Can should always see boost. This is what I don't understand. If I do it will be easy for my to change this!

I am not married at all to T2 Style WG Control. It's just the only one I understand right now....

The T2 setup is 'normally closed' - that is, the port on the solenoid that is normally closed goes to the manifold (usually the bottom port on the 3-bard solenoids); the middle goes to the WGA; and the top port goes to atmosphere. So, the WGA normally sees atmosphere. When the computer powers the solenoid, the open port switches to the bottom so that the WGA sees manifold pressue.

The T1 setup is 'noamlly open'. You need to change you plumbing so that the WGA normally sees manifold pressure, and then sees atmosphere when powered. It really depends on exactly which solenoids you have in your car, but you should only need to swap the top and bottom ports. The middle should always go the WGA.

You may have to blow thru the ports to figure out which port is open when powered/off.

MopàrBCN
07-28-2008, 02:25 PM
Ok, understood what you suggest I do. BUT: If the WG Can normally sees Pressure/Vacuum instead of now Atmosphere, it would mean it would open the gate if there is sufficient pressure (6PSI...). This is what I don't understand! How would it be controlled that it only opens once it should do so?

Forgett it, I think I got you. The solenoid now switches to atmosphere once boost is low and is released once boost is high. If the solenoid fails it always sees boost and opens at 6psi so this is what you would call fail save. Did I get it now??

ShelGame
07-28-2008, 03:06 PM
Ok, understood what you suggest I do. BUT: If the WG Can normally sees Pressure/Vacuum instead of now Atmosphere, it would mean it would open the gate if there is sufficient pressure (6PSI...). This is what I don't understand! How would it be controlled that it only opens once it should do so?

Forgett it, I think I got you. The solenoid now switches to atmosphere once boost is low and is released once boost is high. If the solenoid fails it always sees boost and opens at 6psi so this is what you would call fail save. Did I get it now??


Yes! Basically, they work exactly the same. The only difference is the WG DC for the T2 starts at 100% and decreases to give more boost. The T1 starts at 0% DC and increases to increase boost.

MopàrBCN
07-28-2008, 03:23 PM
All will be fine, eventually even I understand things...:D

So, the last one was on the KickCell Values.

On my previous Turbonator12 build I had the PrimaryKickCell0 at 0500 whereby now you have it set at 1A04. This is actually the way Ladybug60 used to be when it caused the rich idle. Changing Ladybug to match the previous Value (0500) etc.... solved the rich idle issue in my case.

Is there a reason that you are now using those Ramp Values?? I won't touch them until I have tried the built. Just curious!

ShelGame
07-28-2008, 03:40 PM
All will be fine, eventually even I understand things...:D

So, the last one was on the KickCell Values.

On my previous Turbonator12 build I had the PrimaryKickCell0 at 0500 whereby now you have it set at 1A04. This is actually the way Ladybug60 used to be when it caused the rich idle. Changing Ladybug to match the previous Value (0500) etc.... solved the rich idle issue in my case.

Is there a reason that you are now using those Ramp Values?? I won't touch them until I have tried the built. Just curious!

Ahh, jeez, I can't remember. They probably just came from the MP T2 stuff. I thought I had changed all that back to stock...

MopàrBCN
07-28-2008, 03:58 PM
Don't worry, I'll post them up for you. Give me a minute or 10...


---> Done it. I changed the Ramps (Primary/Secundary) as I got them off you once into the 2.2 Sections. All others I have left alone.

Hope I could help...

MopàrBCN
07-30-2008, 04:16 PM
Well here we go, first impression:

Now, this is tested on a T2 Daytona with 3 Bar Map, +40 Injectors and a 46 Trim T3/T4 Hybrid.

Upfront, this is definetly the best cal around. With it's base settings and my fueling taken over from Ladybug I must say it feels way more responsive then my LB equivalent.

The good news: Cruise Works, which did not work in TB12 NOW WORKS!

However, it turns out, that Boost Control keeps a mystery to me.

I swapped the plumbing and only got 2 results, Check Engine OR Boost until 6psi. Returning it to how a T2 car is plumbed, it cut's boost at 10psi, an that is what I would have expected. So keep it as it is and select Turbonator Boost Control, if your car is T2.

Problems I had with the switchable boost.

I configured my cal to be switchable boost and Staging limiter. Highboost I did set to 20 PSI and Lowboost I left at the stock setting. I put the Staging Limiter and Highboost on the same switch (Cruise Control On/Off) and meanwhile I could test the Staging Limiter coming on and off = it worked, Boost did not change = it did not work. It always stayed low.
Now, that could have to do with my programming, which I will check over again, or it has to do, that there is an issue. I think there might be an issue.

==> I think it had to do with my programming, since I just realised that I did not set the switches equal! So I'll try again!

Definetly there is still one issue which did bug me already in TB12 and this is that famous miss at cruising around 55 MPH. This miss - besides it does not come as frequent as it used to be, is still there. It won't stop me using TB13 but it is that little imperfection.

Otherwise I more or less copied the settings I had for Pumping Efficiency and Fuel from LB60 and got exact the same EGTs and A/F Readings.

One important thing on idle: I tried the initial idle programming in TB13 and the idle is pig rich. So if your car is a T2 car, use the .asm I posted in my previous post to build your TB Cal. I have corrected the ramps there. With this idle is smooth and less rich.

Other then this, THANK YOU ROB. I think it can not be apreciated sufficiently what you are doing for this community!!!

ONE MORE THING: If you get around to it, set the FuelMonitorConversion so that it will be automatically scaled with injectors. If you know this, it does not cause a problem (I anyway have come up with my ideal value which I set manually) but if you have done everything and forget this .....

MopàrBCN
07-31-2008, 07:53 PM
More Tests:

1. Boost Control - The Turbonator Boost Control option does not work for a T2 Car. I thought it did because I got 10 PSI but looking at the Duty Cycle it is clear why that is. So today I canged Low and Highboost to 20 PSI and did not get more then the famous 10

In theory it should be sufficient to swap around the Vacuum Line which feeds the solenoid with vac/boost. In a T2 car the WG per default is fed with atmosfere. Once the boost target is reached the solenoid is engaged and let's boost pass to the WG which in turns opens. In turn the T1/T3 Boost control works the other way around , if I understand it right.

So, unswitched it would see Vac/Boost.

To get this you would have to put the vac/boost line to the atmosfere side. In theory then the Solenoid is engaged, sees atmosphere until the boost goal is reached and the solenoid is switched off - thus pressure runs to the WG.

That's the theory. But it doesn't work. If you plumb it like this the pressure is always passed to the WG so at 6 PSI you are done.

The only thing I could imagine is that the polarity of the WG Electrical Conector has to be swapped as well, which I won't try as yet.

Maybe, someone who has done this yet could comment on this.

However, tomorrow I will try the T2 Boost Control Switch in Turbonator.

Question:

The Boost Control Options can be set in the .asm (which makes sense to me). But there is as well a Config Option in the .bin (via D-Cal to set).

Would it be sufficient to set the Config Option in D-Cal or should I build the cal from the .asm again????

2. The Miss in Slight Throttle

Apparently this miss not only happens in Cruise but as well during slight throttle accelaration at any possible moment.

It is like this:

a) you press slight throttle
b) It stumbles a moment during which the car has no power
c) It turns Pig Rich for a second
d) It recovers to normal

The whole thing happens in about a second until it has stabalized again.

It is reproducable besides that it does not happen as frequently as it used to be. In TB12 it was literally rythmic- as in you could guess when it happens again. This time it happens sporadic, but it's enough to go around a block to have it happen at least once.

What could this be? I know I used to have it in earlier LB60 builds. But I can garantee that in my last LB Build I did have it solved. Just can't remember how...

If anyone is interested I carry on testing....

Tony Hanna
07-31-2008, 08:56 PM
Let me take a crack at the boost control as I understand it. I should be pretty close on the TI style as I've just got done replumbing the Sundance for computer controlled boost. Maybe not so much on the TII though because none of my information is first hand, it all comes from reading.

The way I understand it.
TII makes a loop from the boost source through the solenoid and to the wastegate. When the solenoid is unpowered, it is blocking boost and venting the wastegate can to atmosphere (boost increasing). When it is powered, it is no longer venting the wastegate can, but instead is sending boost to it (boost decreasing).

The plumbing is a little different for a TI. Instead of making a loop through the solenoid, there is simply a single line running to it.
Plumbing goes like this:
Boost source to a restrictor orifice, then from the restrictor orfice to a "T" fitting. One of the remaining legs of the "T" is connected to the wastegate can and the other goes to the solenoid.

In this setup when the solenoid is unpowered, it is blocking the line, so boost is going straight from the source through the "T" to the wastegate can (boost decreasing). When the solenoid is powered, the boost takes the path of least resistance and is vented to atmosphere through the solenoid (boost increasing).
It basically acts like a simple bleed valve type manual boost controller with the solenoid taking the place of the valve.

The TI system is a little picky about the size of the restrictor orifice and too large of a restrictor will cause a low boost condition. I'd be willing to bet that with no restrictor, you wouldn't see much over 5-7 psi.

MopàrBCN
07-31-2008, 09:04 PM
Hi, thanks for this! I admit that logically I never understood the T1 Vac diagram. But this was a straight and easy explaination. With this, for me the subject T1 Boost Control is for the time being closed, besides that I understand the benefit of it (failed solenoid = no overboost problem)

MopàrBCN
07-31-2008, 09:06 PM
@Rob quick question:

I have build Turbonator now with the T2 boost control. Do I have to set the T2 Boost Control Config Flag in D-Cal as well????

I have done it for the time been. It's for my own documentation.

Thanks!

Tony Hanna
07-31-2008, 09:49 PM
Hi, thanks for this! I admit that logically I never understood the T1 Vac diagram. But this was a straight and easy explaination. With this, for me the subject T1 Boost Control is for the time being closed, besides that I understand the benefit of it (failed solenoid = no overboost problem)

Glad I could help! The main advantages I can see of a TI style boost control is that it's failsafe, there's 1 less line to run to the solenoid, and it should be faster to react.
The disadvantage is the dependence on the right size restrictor.

There's a relationship between the size of the restrictor and the wastegate duty cycle table. For example if your target boost is too high and you're not able to reach it even with the wastegate solenoid at 100% duty cycle, then you need to switch to a smaller restrictor. Ideally you could find the right size restrictor for your target boost and adjust the table until your target boost falls at 56.50% duty cycle (stock).
I can't remember exactly how much boost it takes for restrictor size to become a problem, but I did have to use a smaller one with the Sundance @ 20 psi. I think it might have been around 16-17 psi where I started having a problem.

ShelGame
08-01-2008, 07:15 AM
@Rob quick question:

I have build Turbonator now with the T2 boost control. Do I have to set the T2 Boost Control Config Flag in D-Cal as well????

I have done it for the time been. It's for my own documentation.

Thanks!

That flag is/was for future use. I had originally planned to build all 3 WG control routines into the code and allow you to select which one with that flag. Currently, though, it is only built with whichever WG routine you choose in the .asm. So, that flag does nothing for now.

ShelGame
08-01-2008, 07:24 AM
Glad I could help! The main advantages I can see of a TI style boost control is that it's failsafe, there's 1 less line to run to the solenoid, and it should be faster to react.
The disadvantage is the dependence on the right size restrictor.

There's a relationship between the size of the restrictor and the wastegate duty cycle table. For example if your target boost is too high and you're not able to reach it even with the wastegate solenoid at 100% duty cycle, then you need to switch to a smaller restrictor. Ideally you could find the right size restrictor for your target boost and adjust the table until your target boost falls at 56.50% duty cycle (stock).
I can't remember exactly how much boost it takes for restrictor size to become a problem, but I did have to use a smaller one with the Sundance @ 20 psi. I think it might have been around 16-17 psi where I started having a problem.

There's also the T3 WG control style. The 'Turbonator' WG control should be able to control the WGA if it's plumbed like the T3. Which, if you look at it, is plumbed similarly to the T2 (it's a source-control rather than a bleed), but it's setup to fail-safe as well.

It looks like they're plumbed the same - but, as I explained, the T3 has the pressure source (manifold) plumbed to the normally open port, where the T2 is plumbed to the normally closed port. I tried the Turbonator WG control with the T3 plumbing with some success. I copied the T3 WG control tables, but they needed some tuning. Also, I simply used the T1 restrictor and it may not be the correct size.

So, you can use the Turbonator WG control with a T2 style setup, but it will need some tuning.

MopàrBCN
08-01-2008, 09:57 AM
Hi, I actually did exactly this!!! What happens is that the solenoid never switches resulting that the pressure is passed directly to the WG Can and thus it opens at 6PSI.

I would have guessed, that in a reverse setup what should happen is, that the solenoid engages immediately to block off any vacuum/pressure to be seen by the WG. Would it reach the boost target it would switch off the solenoid - resulting in pressure being passed to the WG.

This is how I understood the reverse Setup.

And if it is meant to be like this it does not work that way for whatever reason....

----, there is one thing that comes to mind though:

How important is that orifice in the TII/TIII Diagram going to the WG????

I just realised, that I did not plumb this at all...........

ShelGame
08-01-2008, 02:19 PM
How important is that orifice in the TII/TIII Diagram going to the WG????

I suspect it's important - otherwise Chrysler would not have put it in! But, I don't know the effect of different orifice sizes. Like I said, I used my T1 orifice and it did not work so well. Boost rise was too slow. I think it was too small. Maybe try a 0.04" (1mm) orifice (the T1 is maybe 0.5mm).

MopàrBCN
08-02-2008, 08:13 PM
The Boost Controll Issue

I finally tried Turbonator with all build Optiona. Up front, not one works for a T2 Car. But the good news is that I think I know why. The solution I think is not that difficult!

I explain:

When your T2 cars WG Solenoid is plumbed as it should you get the following Results:

1. Buildoption Turbonator Boost Control

- Boost until 10 PSI - obvious Problem WG Duty Cycle because it does boost but not as high as it could.

2. Buildoption T2 Boost Control

- Boost until 6 PSI - obvious Problem is that pressure is passed directly to WG

So, let's stick to the T2 Boost Control Build of Turbonator for the moment:

When I saw boost going only until 6 PSI I realised what you did. You obviously switched the way the solenoid is actuating and here is the ONLY obvious problem right now!

So what I did was simply putting the vac/pressure source of the solenoid on the Atmosfere side of the solenoid (oposite way it would usually be).
And bingo, Boost did go higher, BUT ONLY until 10 PSI. So that sounded familiar to me because it is what I get when I used the Boost Option "Turbonator".

But now, that I knew that you switched the Solenoid Control for the T2 Boost option it was quite easy to solve this problem. All I had to do was to match the T2 Full Throttle Wategate Duty Cycle Tables to the Turbonator Boost Control style table equivalents.

And guess what, I am getting Boost until 18 PSI which is nearly exactly to what I have set High Boost.

So until here you have two options for T2 Boost Control:

1. Leave the solenoid control as you have it in your Turbonator Boost Option AND ONLY build the WG Duty Cylce Tables T2 Style.

OR

2. Do it as you have done BUT leave the WG Duty Cycle Tables as you have them set for the Turbonator Boost Control. In this case you have to advice T2 Users that they have to swap around the Boost/Pressure Source Cable on their Solenoid. This is absolutely acceptable since it is no work at all to do. I would prefer it this way because you can then do ONE Boost Controll for all.


The road Test

Now, finally I decided to keep using the Build with the T2 Boost Control Option with all done to it what I described above and went for a long trip today to test.

Absolute positive I have to mention is the boost response in Full Throttle.

Accelarating from 0 to red line has never been so much fun! I am getting my 18 PSI already in second gear just before changing to third. I am by no means the road race type of guy but today I had fun being provocated by an M3 BMW (90th type model) leaving a pay booth on the motorway and he did not look good at all.

ABSOLUTELY positive to mention is here the way the boost builds up. It rises quite linear and steady with your RPM - Here I am short of sufficient English to explain what I like to say. But take it, that I am very happy with it.

So this makes me definately looking forward to the race events pending this year.

However, in PART THROTTLE I did not get any boost at all.

I think this is maybe part of the problem on how you have solved the T2 Boost Option.

Fact is no matter in what gear, as long as I stick to part throttle I won't get any boost higher then maybe 2 psi.

Now, this is only a guess:

I am not sure how the WG Duty Cycle is calculated at closed loop. But I would guess that it would think the solenoid is plumbed like a T2 one. I suppose you concentrated by doing boost control after all on Full Throttle.

Now, remember, to get Boost at Full Throttle I had to reverse the Full Throttle WG DC Tables to match them with your original Turbonator Style Tables. Maybe this has to be done to those as well?

The problem is, I haven't got a clue where to look. But I will try and study the .asm.

In D-Cal I found more WG Tables/Values but I couldn't make sense out of them. The only thing I noted is that they are present as well in Ladybug, with distinct values, but then again as long as I don't understand why and what they are doing I won't touch them.

Well, the other Part Throttle issue is, as mentioned before, that cruise cuality suffers a bit due to that famous miss at slight throttle.

This is this little thing which keeps Turbonator from being the perfect cal.

Other then this, I really hope to be able to help you getting this cal sorted.

Your work can not be credited sufficiently.

MopàrBCN
08-03-2008, 10:59 AM
FInally those are the options that work for a T2 Car (NOTE there is no option that works out of the box!):

OPTION 1 using WG_T2 Option

1. Copy the Wastegate DC Tables for the Turbonator Build Option into the WG_T2 sections of the .asm File and build with option WG_T2

2. Plumb the Wastegatesolenoid Pressure/Vac Line to the bottom port (Atmosphere)

OR

OPTION 2 using WG_Turbonator Option

1. Copy the Wastegate DC Tables into the Turbonator Build Section. But careful, there is a third Table which I did reverse vor this excersise. I am not sure if I should have put in the Fille Bytes instead.

2. Leave the Solenoid plumbed as it is

Using the second option is the more complete option, as it is the only one where I can get boost in Part Throttle. However it boosts round 3 PSI less then the set boost target (I saw a max of 16 psi out of 19planned). Also I noted that it will take roughly 10 minutes of driving until you get the car to boost above 5 PSI. But then boost response is good. That may have to do with the Knock Retard functionality which is part of the Turbonator Boost Control option if I understand it right, and if that is the case - GOOD!

Using the first option will give you faster spool up but as good as no boost in part throttle. I get to 1 PSI of my boost target and get boost instantly. However this is only in full throttle the case.

I would guess, controlling the WG Solenoid as done in a T2 car would solve this issue and give an alround good Boost Control using WG_T2. It would be my favourite.

Those are my findings.

I will try more things but primarily I will wait for Rob to comment on those two options.

MopàrBCN
08-03-2008, 01:43 PM
@Rob, there is a simple option you can make this work for all:

Provide ONE BOOST CONTROL ROUTINE this being the Turbonator one. This is the best of all available. I was wrong in above statement about this option not boosting as strong because I had an error in one of the Tables. Your T2 Routine needs tweaking and the Turbonator Routine works without modification for a T2 car.

THE ONLY THING necessary is, having the T2 WG DC Tables available. As well as that I rescaled the 3rd Table for WG DC this one with Boost Target to match the T2 Style and it works.

So this is what I would be doing:

Instead of heaving seperate Routines for T2 and Turbonator I would delete the T2 Routine completely and always call the Turbonator Routine.
However you need the buildoption T2. But ONLY for building the WC DC Tables. The Control Routine itself should be the Turbonator Routine because it works the business. It doesn't even require any plumbing change.

For Reference I have posted my current cal and .asm. Now be aware that anyone using it, the Turbonator Boost Option in the .asm is now set to build WC DC Tables for a T2 Car. So only use this if your car is a T2 car. This is only thought to be for reference so that Rob can have a look at what I did. Also the PE Table is slightly rich. In my cal I have downscaled it slightly.

The .asm also has my PE Values and Speed Limiter taken off. It also has the Stock T2 Ramp Values for Idle control.

The cal itself (.bin/.calx), in case anyone wants to try it has NO switchable boost. Boost is set at 19.81 PSI which results in my case at 17 PSI. The staging limiter is enabled and the Switch is the cruise on/off switch with the polarity reversed so that the staging limiter is on when cruise is off.

Also the cal has Charge Temp Sensor enabled and AC enabled. It is for 2.2 Turbo II w. MTX.

Good Luck

ShelGame
08-07-2008, 01:56 PM
I just uploaded v14. I found a major math error in the Spark Scatter Idle routine that was caused by the dis-assembler, I think. It's not something I would have changed on purpose. This was likely the cause of the rough idle problem.

Also fixed a handfull of errors in addressing in the DRB routine. So, scantools should work properly now as well.

MopàrBCN
08-07-2008, 06:04 PM
Great, I'll give it a shot tomorrow. I saw you left the Kick Cells and WG Control as it was. I will actually try it tomorrow leaving the Kick Cells as you got them.

MopàrBCN
08-08-2008, 11:03 AM
Well, what can I say, it's like DAY AND NIGHT!!! Now it's not only fast, it is ROCK AND ROLL!!! This cal really is convencing. Top Cruise, Top Speed.

Maybe the PE Table in lower RPMs is slightly rich. But hey, that's up to the tuner. Everybody has it's own preferences.

Now, the only thing you Turbo II guys got to do is this:

1. Build this cal with boost option Turbonator

2. Mirror the WG DC Tables (vs Boost Target and the Map based one). Now, this is not as easy as it may seem at a first glance. Basically, don't do 128 - the point value you are mirroring but instead do 100 - that value.

-> Example: If you are editing a point in this table which is set at 40. To scale this you do 100 - 40 => 60 is your point.

3. Mirror the WG DC Table vs RPM. Those negative points got to be positve with the same values.

All of those you find in the WastegateControl Group.

Once you have done this, you are ready to go.

I swear, this is a really good cal.

Ah, ok, you should set the PrimaryKickCell0 and 1 to the value 5 (in Dcal) and do the same to the PrimaryLimitCells0 and 1. Then idle is less rich. (There are cals posted around where you get this done the right way).

I will post up a Turbo 2 .asm later, right now I will enjoy driving a bit!!!!!!!!!

MopàrBCN
08-10-2008, 08:59 AM
Ok, some more feedback,

my initial thought, that the cruise was ok now is not correct. It got a lot better though.

BUT, once the car is fully warmed up, it happens again. It misses/cuts out for a moment and comes back. This allways happens by trying at low rpm to apply throttle.
I only have this with turbonator and it happens notably once the water temp gauge moves towards its center position. Up from then, you can provoke it to happen.

While that happens I did have a look at my a/f gauge. It follows this pattern:

1. You cruise at a steady speed until it switches into closed loop (that takes its time!!)
2. once in closed loop you give it part throttle to accelerate a bit. Immediately it switches into open loop and goes full rich. In that phase happens the "miss/cut out" during which the a/f gauge starts to blink for a small moment and switches back into open loop but considerably leaner.
3. Then it goes back into closed loop for a while until it repeats that scenario.

Now, it not only happens at cruise but it is best demonstrated in cruise.

It does it as well if you slow down, let's say in 3rd until 2000 rpm and give it a bit throttle to pick up speed again.

I tried a few things but did not get this any better.

Any ideas?

MopàrBCN
08-23-2008, 05:49 PM
My final findings after ca. 4500 km (!!) with Turbonator and occasional Ladybug60:

After trying millions of things I have come back to build Turbonator from Scratch.

The problem with cruise quality is definately to blame on the Anti-Lag feature. Disabling Antilag and the car runs like a cat.

However, the Antilag feature in turn is a critical performance parameter of Turbonator. Performance is notable less without antilag.

So what would be needed to make Turbonator Perfect:

1. T2 Boost Option which basically would be the exact code from the Turbonator Boost option but with the Turbonator Wastegate DC Tables mirrored (and assured that they don't go higher then 100 on the Y Scale)

2. Primary and Secondary Kick- and Limitcells from the old Turbonator Build for the 2.2/MTX build configuration

3. SWITCHABLE ANTILAG !!!! With Antilag enabled it is no fun to cruise however WITHOUT Antilag it is no fun to race! I personaly would value switchable antilag HIGHER then switchable boost. Boost I can control the way I drive. In fact I don't use this feature anymore. Important to have switchable to me is Staging Limiter and a real value gain would be Antilag switchable as well.

With that a Turbo 2 user would be WAY better of with Turbonator, then with any cal I experienced so far (quite a few as yet).

ShelGame
08-24-2008, 11:09 AM
My final findings after ca. 4500 km (!!) with Turbonator and occasional Ladybug60:

After trying millions of things I have come back to build Turbonator from Scratch.

The problem with cruise quality is definately to blame on the Anti-Lag feature. Disabling Antilag and the car runs like a cat.

However, the Antilag feature in turn is a critical performance parameter of Turbonator. Performance is notable less without antilag.

So what would be needed to make Turbonator Perfect:

1. T2 Boost Option which basically would be the exact code from the Turbonator Boost option but with the Turbonator Wastegate DC Tables mirrored (and assured that they don't go higher then 100 on the Y Scale)

2. Primary and Secondary Kick- and Limitcells from the old Turbonator Build for the 2.2/MTX build configuration

3. SWITCHABLE ANTILAG !!!! With Antilag enabled it is no fun to cruise however WITHOUT Antilag it is no fun to race! I personaly would value switchable antilag HIGHER then switchable boost. Boost I can control the way I drive. In fact I don't use this feature anymore. Important to have switchable to me is Staging Limiter and a real value gain would be Antilag switchable as well.

With that a Turbo 2 user would be WAY better of with Turbonator, then with any cal I experienced so far (quite a few as yet).


Hmm, good feedback. Cruise should not be affected by anti-lag since it is only active during WOT - at least it's only SUPPOSED to be active during WOT. I'll look into it...

MopàrBCN
08-24-2008, 04:57 PM
Ok, maybe I can refine the cruising issue with antilag on:

One thing I noticed:

If Antilag is switched on, the car most of the time is in open loop! I can tell this by the way the Dawes Device reacts. If it is in open loop it shows a constant light (red,yellow,green or blue) meanwhile when in closed loop it is either off or occasionaly blinks the red light.

Now let's say I would go for a longer drive at a constant speed. It eventually (after sometimes a minute!) it would switch to closed loop. However, if I slightly press the throttle it behaves if it would be at WOT. I have to get off the throttle to return it to closed loop eventually.

This is entirely different when Antilag is off! Once it is off, it behaves exactly the way I am used to it. The car warms up and while in part throttle it is in closed loop. Once I floor it it goes into open loop.

So maybe the way the TPS is interpreted differes when Antilag is ON.

Just a thought. I am lacking experience to pinpoint the problem. I tried with no avail!

quantum
08-25-2008, 03:15 PM
I decided to give the v14 a run and compled with only 2 changes to the .asm file. I changed the engine to 2.2 and the .inj from 55 to 52. I compled and uploaded it to my car (I didn't know that the antilag, ceflash, etc were suppose to be enabled through D-cal by the way). I just wanted to post and ask about a couple things I noticed. The during decel when the rpm fell off it seemed a bit rough and sometimes the idle would stick high like ladybug does (stays at ~2k during decel and at a stop for a while), is this something that evens out over time? I also noticed that heading into boost my a/f was still 13.5 at ~5 psi; is that normal? I've been running the S60 which goes pretty rich quickly after you hit 0 and I didn't want to take a chance and fry my engine. I did check and the injectors did scale correctly. Thanks for all you work Rob. Sorry if this has been answered before; there are 9 pages to search through talking about several versions so I thought I would ask.

MopàrBCN
08-25-2008, 03:39 PM
@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!

quantum
08-25-2008, 03:41 PM
@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!

Thanks I'll give it a run and let you know. :thumb:

MopàrBCN
09-05-2008, 08:35 PM
Another finding on the dreaded "Miss" Issue.

I had some success today revitalising a turbonator build with antilag on and reducing this miss in cruise considerably:

I only changed one value: TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive and set it to 0xFE (256.4º in Chem) which in Turbonator was set to 0x58 (-41.9º in Chem).

The miss still is present, but way less then before. In fact at the rate I am having the issue right now, it does not bother me a lot!

Just to share this to see if it makes sense to anyone....

ShelGame
09-06-2008, 09:18 AM
Another finding on the dreaded "Miss" Issue.

I had some success today revitalising a turbonator build with antilag on and reducing this miss in cruise considerably:

I only changed one value: TempAboveWhichSparkScatterIsActive and set it to 0xFE (256.4º in Chem) which in Turbonator was set to 0x58 (-41.9º in Chem).

The miss still is present, but way less then before. In fact at the rate I am having the issue right now, it does not bother me a lot!

Just to share this to see if it makes sense to anyone....

That shouldn't have an effect - spark scatter is an idle control strategy. It doesn't work in cruise...

TopDollar69
09-06-2008, 10:42 PM
I don't think he is talking about cruise control, rather when he is driving the car down the road at a constant speed.

MopàrBCN
09-07-2008, 05:51 AM
Exactly!

And just to go sure I tried the chip as it was before the change this morning and cruising quality was worse isntantly. The only change being this what I did. Otherwise I wouldn't have it posted!

The misses during cruising at a constant speed aren't eliminated though, it only got notably better.

The problem itself is definetly a part/slight throttle problem. it occurs whenever the engine is warmed up and either cruising at slight throttle OR accelerating slightly. It get's nearly eliminated when Antilag is off. But even then there are occasion where this problem occurs -but less frequent.

I can absolutely assure you that this problem does not occur at all when I use any ladybug build, so it is not a problem with my car (I was thinking that maybe I had a fuel pump issue).

ShelGame
09-18-2008, 07:18 AM
OK, I finaly got my car out of the garage again (first time since SDAC! :( ) and I confirmed there is a bad misfire. I get it at WOT going down the track (with anti-lag dis-abled!). Not good. So, I'll try to figure out what the cause is, fix it, and post up v15 as soon as I can. I have a few re-cals to do, so at least I have a little pressure to get it done.

I absolutely did NOT have this issue with v13. I raced that code at SDAC and never had a mis-fire like this.

EDIT: Oh yeah. I tried the 2-step for the first time while racing and have to say I didn't like it at all. Too much rpm variation (~800rpm). I'm going to think about a way to change the rev limiter to a spark cut instead of the stock fuel cut. I think that RPM will be more responsive to spark cut; that will make the limiter more accurate...

Tony Hanna
09-19-2008, 01:53 AM
I've been wondering about this for awhile, and just thought I'd bring it up.
In the v14 .asm file, you say "Since there is no ATX 2.2 factory cals, building a 2.2 ATX may need some tweaking. When applicable, I used the ATX values even for the 2.2 build, but many values are simply undefined for a 2.2 ATX build. Use at your own risk!"

The '88 TI's, including the ATX cars were 2.2. I haven't seen a .bin for one anywhere though. I may have the SMEC out of one of those cars laying around. If I can find it and make a positive ID, would it be of any use to you to help with the 2.2/ATX issues?

Tony

ShelGame
09-19-2008, 07:11 AM
I've been wondering about this for awhile, and just thought I'd bring it up.
In the v14 .asm file, you say "Since there is no ATX 2.2 factory cals, building a 2.2 ATX may need some tweaking. When applicable, I used the ATX values even for the 2.2 build, but many values are simply undefined for a 2.2 ATX build. Use at your own risk!"

The '88 TI's, including the ATX cars were 2.2. I haven't seen a .bin for one anywhere though. I may have the SMEC out of one of those cars laying around. If I can find it and make a positive ID, would it be of any use to you to help with the 2.2/ATX issues?

Tony

Yeah, it would. That's one of the .bin's I don't have either. Another good one would be the 2.2 T2 Auto cal from a Masi TC.

ShelGame
09-19-2008, 07:21 AM
If anyone is willing to do a bit of experimenting, I have a theory for the misfire.

Build 2 cals:

1) No cal options enabled. CE Flash, switchable boost, 2-step, etc. all turned off in the cal. Just a stock cal, but setup for your car (injectors, MAP, etc.). Give it a drive and note any misfires.

2) Turn on as many options as you can - except for the high-speed logger. Even the shift light one. Don't worry about hooking up a light. I just want the code to run. Actually, I want as much code as possible to run. Give it a drive and note any misfires.

My theory is that with the new code modules, the main loop cannot finish in the 11ms time period required. I don't really know if this is it, and I kind of doubt it. The new code isn't any longer than the EGR routine (actually much shorter), and I doubt any of us are using that routine. But, it's a possibility that should be looked at.

1966 dart wagon
09-21-2008, 10:45 PM
a couple questions for anyone running this:

1. How to turn up the boost cutout to not cut out at 14psi like the factory cal? and set it to cut out at say 22psi something.

2. How come other cars i hear with antilag have a big bang noise, is this cause they retard the timing more and fully 'blow up' the fuel in the exhaust? if so how can i adjust this, do i adjust "antiLagRetardfromBoostGoalDelta" since it has psi on x axis and the amount of retard on Y axis.

Great cal rob, i love the antilag and 2 step sounds freaking sweet I'll have to post a video for people one of these days. Thanks guys

zin
09-21-2008, 11:51 PM
Yeah, it would. That's one of the .bin's I don't have either. Another good one would be the 2.2 T2 Auto cal from a Masi TC.

OK, who's going to ask Alan? :D

Mike

PS Been following this thread for awhile, I'm very impressed with it (the cal) and once I'm to the point of burning my own, I plan to use it. Lucky for me that will likely be a few months, do you think that will be enough time to work out all the bugs?:lol::D Keep up the good work guys!

wowzer
09-22-2008, 02:14 PM
If anyone is willing to do a bit of experimenting, I have a theory for the misfire.

Build 2 cals:

1) No cal options enabled. CE Flash, switchable boost, 2-step, etc. all turned off in the cal. Just a stock cal, but setup for your car (injectors, MAP, etc.). Give it a drive and note any misfires.

2) Turn on as many options as you can - except for the high-speed logger. Even the shift light one. Don't worry about hooking up a light. I just want the code to run. Actually, I want as much code as possible to run. Give it a drive and note any misfires.

My theory is that with the new code modules, the main loop cannot finish in the 11ms time period required. I don't really know if this is it, and I kind of doubt it. The new code isn't any longer than the EGR routine (actually much shorter), and I doubt any of us are using that routine. But, it's a possibility that should be looked at.


rob - where does the 11ms calc come from?

ShelGame
09-22-2008, 08:23 PM
rob - where does the 11ms calc come from?

I calculated it from the value used to setup the timer/counter that controls the interrupt for the main loop. Not sure why they used 11ms (I mean, why not 10ms?), but it's pretty common with the Chrysler computers. Even up thru the T3 and Mex SBEC-2 cals, there's always an 11ms main loop (at least portions of it are 11ms).

Tony Hanna
09-22-2008, 10:04 PM
Yeah, it would. That's one of the .bin's I don't have either. Another good one would be the 2.2 T2 Auto cal from a Masi TC.

I'll look. The SMEC would have been out of my old '88 Pacifica. It went back and forth between being an auto and a 5 spd a couple times. If the auto SMEC wasn't in the car when John traded it off, then it should still be around. I just need to disassemble them and figure out which one it is.

What would I be looking for to ID it as an '88 TI?

ShelGame
09-23-2008, 07:17 AM
These are the P/N's that I KNOW are 88 T1 Auto. I'm sure there are others though.

5249117
4529122
5233242
5233894

badandy
09-23-2008, 03:02 PM
I've got my stock 88 CSX-T computer sitting on my workbench. If it would help you I could send it to you?

ShelGame
09-23-2008, 04:18 PM
I've got my stock 88 CSX-T computer sitting on my workbench. If it would help you I could send it to you?

Auto? That would be the cal to have. I could suck out the cal with D-Cal without even pulling the chip...

Tony Hanna
09-23-2008, 05:21 PM
I thought the CSX-T's were all TI/5spd.:confused2:

badandy
09-27-2008, 04:31 PM
It is indeed 5 speed. I thought I remembered you saying at one point you wanted to take a look at it because the 88 CSX-T cal was different in some way

1966 dart wagon
09-28-2008, 02:18 PM
Im running this cal right now, and it works great rob, 2 big thumbs up :thumb::thumb:

I'm running a 2.5intercooled, 40+s, stock Garrett turbo, set to 20psi, TI style computer controlled boost and e85 fuel. Now i have a couple questions, what is the best way to advance the timing to take advantage of e85, should i just move the dist. to 13-14 degrees, or should i adjust the timing tables in the cal, if so how far do you think, just a couple degrees(1-2)? I do not have an egt gauge so that might cause some issues, i do have a wideband though, zeitronix, I have the fueling dialed also.

Another question the first tim ei ran the cal on e85 my low boost setting was at 15psi, when i would press the ac button it would go to 8, no biggy since i just wanted it to be set at low boost, but now the other night it would boost all the way to 20psi.

What do you think?

MopàrBCN
09-28-2008, 02:35 PM
Hi, @Rob, I want to re-raise the "miss" issue. I did your suggestion this weekend on trying one with all switched off and one with as much as possible switched on.

It feels it gets better when all is off after all antilag. But without Antilag it's no fun as said earlier.

And I even think it is more a guess than fact that it gets better like this.

The only really hard data I can give you is this:

The miss occures always and ONLY when the car is getting hot (as in temperature in the middle of the temp scale). And then notably under slight throttle acceleration but as well when quickly changing driving habbit (cruising in 4th and suddenly accelerating without changing gear).

This is all I can say right now. Other then this the cal is perfect. I never came close to it's performance with anything else otherwise.

But even my wife notices that it has this "fault".

Bubba
10-01-2008, 06:07 AM
Patiently waiting for an SBEC version.....;)

ShelGame
10-01-2008, 09:19 AM
Patiently waiting for an SBEC version.....;)

Yeah, yeah. It's coming. :) I want to get the issues out of this code first, so I don't duplicate the errors in the SBEC and T3 versions...

Bubba
10-01-2008, 10:40 AM
No problem. Awesome work you do, Rob. I'm sure it'll be worth the wait.

Tony Hanna
10-01-2008, 11:00 AM
Rob,

FWIW, I talked to John last weekend to see if he remembered what computer was in the Daytona when he let it go. He thinks it was the 2.2/auto computer but wasn't completely sure. I still plan to check part numbers to be sure... It would be a good project for this weekend while taking a break from bodywork on the Spirit.

mcsvt
10-01-2008, 12:56 PM
Yeah, yeah. It's coming. :) I want to get the issues out of this code first, so I don't duplicate the errors in the SBEC and T3 versions...

Just so you know, I'm another interested party :) The "race" car is SBEC.

I was just given some SMECs that I need to socket for my Daytona though. So I guess that's "dual" interest. Whatever became of the flashable SMECs?

ShelGame
10-01-2008, 03:59 PM
Back burner, like everything else.

quantum
10-01-2008, 05:30 PM
Patiently waiting for an SBEC version.....;)


Just so you know, I'm another interested party :) The "race" car is SBEC.

I was just given some SMECs that I need to socket for my Daytona though. So I guess that's "dual" interest. Whatever became of the flashable SMECs?

What am I chopped liver?


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/quantum007/angrysmiley.jpg













Just kidding, I'm sure the SBEC Turbonatior will be awesome Rob. :D

mcsvt
10-01-2008, 09:47 PM
Actually already down loaded your code :p Just need to put the car together and the pieces are actually coming together for once...

ShelGame
10-02-2008, 02:07 PM
Im running this cal right now, and it works great rob, 2 big thumbs up :thumb::thumb:

I'm running a 2.5intercooled, 40+s, stock Garrett turbo, set to 20psi, TI style computer controlled boost and e85 fuel. Now i have a couple questions, what is the best way to advance the timing to take advantage of e85, should i just move the dist. to 13-14 degrees, or should i adjust the timing tables in the cal, if so how far do you think, just a couple degrees(1-2)? I do not have an egt gauge so that might cause some issues, i do have a wideband though, zeitronix, I have the fueling dialed also.

Another question the first tim ei ran the cal on e85 my low boost setting was at 15psi, when i would press the ac button it would go to 8, no biggy since i just wanted it to be set at low boost, but now the other night it would boost all the way to 20psi.

What do you think?

Dunno about the boost issue. Could be many things.

Do you have the random mis-fire issue? If not, what options do you use?

ShelGame
10-02-2008, 02:08 PM
Hi, @Rob, I want to re-raise the "miss" issue. I did your suggestion this weekend on trying one with all switched off and one with as much as possible switched on.

It feels it gets better when all is off after all antilag. But without Antilag it's no fun as said earlier.

And I even think it is more a guess than fact that it gets better like this.

The only really hard data I can give you is this:

The miss occures always and ONLY when the car is getting hot (as in temperature in the middle of the temp scale). And then notably under slight throttle acceleration but as well when quickly changing driving habbit (cruising in 4th and suddenly accelerating without changing gear).

This is all I can say right now. Other then this the cal is perfect. I never came close to it's performance with anything else otherwise.

But even my wife notices that it has this "fault".

Hmm, how about the hi-speed logger code. Do you use that? I'm guessing not...

ShelGame
10-02-2008, 03:21 PM
Ah-ha! I think I found the mis-fire issue. The flag I've been using to indicate that the car is staging is actually used by the cruise routine as some sort of status indicator. I'm not really sure what it's used for, but it is used elsewhere. So, I think what is going on is that the staging limiter is being activated by the cruise routine for a very smal portion of time - maybe only 1 or 2 crank rotations. This would also have the side-effect of turning on the anti-lag when it is 'enabled'. Which would explain why it's worse with anti-lag enabled.

So, here is a 'test' version of T-SMEC v15 (changed the bits used by the staging limiter). I will not have time to test this in the next couple of weeks. But, if someone else could build a cal using this to see if the mis-fire is fixed, then I'll move it to the front page and make it official. I only included the .asm and .bat files in the .zip. So, you'll need to copy in the ChemAsmSMEC , ezlink , injscale , and checksum32k programs from a previous .zip in order to assemble a binary.

Oh, and since I really don't like the fuel cut for the 2-step, I'm working on a spark-cut rev limiter for v15 as well.


EDIT: Removed the 'Test' version of v15 - posted v14.5 to the 1st post...

zin
10-02-2008, 04:14 PM
What am I chopped liver?


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/quantum007/angrysmiley.jpg

I thought chopped liver was supposed to be good for you!:D:D:drum:

Mike

(finally found a thin excuse to use the drum icon!)

ShelGame
10-03-2008, 03:24 PM
If it's easier to test, I think I could walk someone thru patching an exsisting cal - if you're comfortable with a hex editor...

Better yet, send me your binary - I'll patch it and send it back. Anyone?

MopàrBCN
10-04-2008, 03:07 AM
Hi, I'll be dedicating the weekend to it!

MopàrBCN
10-04-2008, 04:50 AM
Ok, off I go. Chip done, my car is waiting outside.

Quick one, just saw your reply to my comment..... No, the high speed logger I never used.

More news later!

ShelGame
10-04-2008, 07:29 AM
Ok, off I go. Chip done, my car is waiting outside.

Quick one, just saw your reply to my comment..... No, the high speed logger I never used.

More news later!

Yeah, I found the conflict after I posted that. I don't think it has anything to do with any of the added code or execution time.

Let me know if the miss is gone...

MopàrBCN
10-04-2008, 07:42 AM
Ok. seems you got it for most of the part!!!

It seems you have done it. I can cruise now without the miss and even when the car is hot it seems to have nearly disappeared.

However there is one situation where it still is present, but this could be related to my fueling as well. I have to test this better:

If you cruise at 2000 RPM in 5th gear there are moments (not always as earlier on) where you get the miss pressing the throttle slightly. But only then. It is not as easy to reproduce this then it was to reproduce the other issues. So in my judgement you are spot on. Using cruise control at this speed I did not get the miss at all.

I only tested once quickly the Staging Limiter. It seems to push harder then before. But I confess that I did not give it a lot of attention.

So, great!! I now can take my wife for a ride :-)

ShelGame
10-04-2008, 11:41 AM
OK, good. Thanks. I'll add in the spark-based rev limiter and see how it works. The full v15 should be posted soon. Maybe this weekend...

whywoody
10-04-2008, 12:13 PM
Awesome work Rob and everyone else!!
I have been using the v14 since posted,and also have slight miss at 2-2300 rpm very light throttle.I don't find it too bad,but I'm eager to see what you guy's figure out with it....my experience and knowledge with this stuff is not even close to being enough for me to figure the fault out.

MopàrBCN
10-04-2008, 12:35 PM
Hi. maybe you are interested in those suggestions for the .asm:

1. Add FuelMonitorConversionFactor to the "Basic" Group and put it into "Running Fuel" and include it to be scaled with injectors.

2. For the Turbonator Boost control Option put in an aditional "If" clause for Displacement and add the following tables to the 2.2 Engine versions:

FullThrottleWastegateDutyCycleAdjustment_FromBoost Target (DCWBST)
.byte 0x06
.byte 0x2c, 0xc8, 0xf7, 0x6e
.byte 0x3a, 0x50, 0xfe, 0x47
.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, 0xbf, 0x00, 0xff
.byte 0x4e, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff
.byte 0x6d, 0xff, 0xff, 0xb5
.byte 0x8c, 0xf6, 0xff, 0x1f
.byte 0x9c, 0xe8, 0xff, 0x7b
.byte 0xbb, 0xd8, 0xff, 0xaf
.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

Doing this you can throw away the Turbo 2 Boost Option, which anyway does not work without changing the plumbing!!! On the other hand, having a 2.2 Turbo 2 car using the Turbonator Boost option with those Tables works the business without having to change anything!!

3. Eliminate the Speed Limiter!
SpeedLimitFuelShutoff254mph (SPDLMH)
.byte 0xff

SpeedLimitFuelShutoffRestore253mph (SPDLML)
.byte 0xfe

Ahh, and if it was for me, set the injectors per default both to 33, as for example I prefer to scale injectors after the build. Like this it's up to the user, which it is right now as well, because not everybody is using 40 injectors either.

All the rest is working beautifully!!!

MopàrBCN
10-04-2008, 01:16 PM
AHH and I forgot:

-> FuelMonitorCorrection (FLWMNC)

That should be scaled as well! It is not included in the calx but with my cal manager I have it built into it. And I guess it is this one not been scaled, which makes the fuel display inaccurate. In Ladybug it is set to "0" (out of my head now) but there it would show the consumption way below it would be in reality. With its unscaled value however using the scaled value for FuelMonitorConversionFactor the fuel display would show a much higher consumption then you actually have.

ShelGame
10-06-2008, 10:29 AM
Well, I should be able to test the spark-based rev limiter tonight or tomorrow night. At least as far as the staging limiter goes. If it works as intended, I'll post v15 for public consumption :).

In theory, it should be better for staging. The stock rev limiter (and therefore, staging limiter, OB contorl, speed limiter, etc.) cuts fuel, but not spark. If you cut spark, but not fuel, you'll be burning fuel in the exhaust manifold. Should help spool the turbo off the line as well as be more responsive/accurate at controlling RPM than the fuel based limiter. I added the option to use either or both of the spark/fuel based limiters.

If it works, the next step would be to add/remove fuel when staging for an additional anti-lag measure.

Tony Hanna
10-06-2008, 07:28 PM
Well, I should be able to test the spark-based rev limiter tonight or tomorrow night. At least as far as the staging limiter goes. If it works as intended, I'll post v15 for public consumption :).

In theory, it should be better for staging. The stock rev limiter (and therefore, staging limiter, OB contorl, speed limiter, etc.) cuts fuel, but not spark. If you cut spark, but not fuel, you'll be burning fuel in the exhaust manifold. Should help spool the turbo off the line as well as be more responsive/accurate at controlling RPM than the fuel based limiter. I added the option to use either or both of the spark/fuel based limiters.

If it works, the next step would be to add/remove fuel when staging for an additional anti-lag measure.

Sounds nice! So, with the spark cut, it will keep the RPMs in a narrower range while the limiter is active right? Any possibility of a "soft touch" or similar style limiter in the future that cuts spark to alternating cylinders instead of turning them all off or on? I don't know enough to know if something like that would be possible with our ecu's, but it would be nice if it could be done.:)

ShelGame
10-06-2008, 07:44 PM
Sounds nice! So, with the spark cut, it will keep the RPMs in a narrower range while the limiter is active right? Any possibility of a "soft touch" or similar style limiter in the future that cuts spark to alternating cylinders instead of turning them all off or on? I don't know enough to know if something like that would be possible with our ecu's, but it would be nice if it could be done.:)

Well, since our cars use a distributor, you can't really control which cylinder will get cut. It will just cut the coil feed until the rpm drops, then restore the feed, etc. I really have no idea how hard or soft it will be. But, the fuel cut rev limiter can't control the rpm to within 2000rpm (at least not when loaded up on the converter while staging an auto car). Which is far from what should be possible. It certianly is no good for drag launches. I can control my right foot more accurately than that. I'm hoping to see only a ~200rpm band with the spark cut. I may have to add in some sort of ramp sensing or PID logic, though, to really get it to hold accurate rpm. Hopefully this is at least a big improvement.

Tony Hanna
10-07-2008, 01:28 AM
Well, since our cars use a distributor, you can't really control which cylinder will get cut. It will just cut the coil feed until the rpm drops, then restore the feed, etc. I really have no idea how hard or soft it will be. But, the fuel cut rev limiter can't control the rpm to within 2000rpm (at least not when loaded up on the converter while staging an auto car). Which is far from what should be possible. It certianly is no good for drag launches. I can control my right foot more accurately than that. I'm hoping to see only a ~200rpm band with the spark cut. I may have to add in some sort of ramp sensing or PID logic, though, to really get it to hold accurate rpm. Hopefully this is at least a big improvement.

I'm pretty sure the aftermarket boxes can do the alternating cylinder limiter even with a distributer type ignition. I'm not sure how they accomplish it though. If I had to guess I'd say it's timed somehow so that it cuts the power just long enough to kill 2 cylinders, and then at a different time in the next cycle so it fires those two and cuts the other two. However it works, they claim that the cylinders that don't fire on one cycle will fire on the next to eliminate plug fouling, backfires, etc... Supposedly it makes for a very smooth, very precise limiter.

Though if you're expecting a 200 rpm band from just the spark cut, it sounds like it should be precise enough to make an alternating cylinder limiter not worth bothering with.:thumb:

zin
10-07-2008, 02:09 AM
Well, since our cars use a distributor, you can't really control which cylinder will get cut.

From what I recall, a MSD doesn't cut a specific cylinder as such, it just randomly cuts on and off to keep it from being an "all or nothing" kind of limit. If the coil could be cycled on and off (PWM perhaps?), that should produce a "softish touch" limiter. What do you think?

Mike

ShelGame
10-07-2008, 06:48 AM
From what I recall, a MSD doesn't cut a specific cylinder as such, it just randomly cuts on and off to keep it from being an "all or nothing" kind of limit. If the coil could be cycled on and off (PWM perhaps?), that should produce a "softish touch" limiter. What do you think?

Mike

That's how it works - the coil get scycled on and off at specified RPM limits. But, it's also that limit-based system that's part of the problem. The engines momentum keeps the revs going up well past the setpoint. Also, I think the fuel cut probably allows a 1-2 cycle delay in cutting combustion. Where a spark cut should be immediate. I'm going to try it tonight. We'll see...

Tony Hanna
10-08-2008, 02:20 AM
That's how it works - the coil get scycled on and off at specified RPM limits. But, it's also that limit-based system that's part of the problem. The engines momentum keeps the revs going up well past the setpoint. Also, I think the fuel cut probably allows a 1-2 cycle delay in cutting combustion. Where a spark cut should be immediate. I'm going to try it tonight. We'll see...

I think what Mike was getting at is that instead of completely turning the coil off at the high setpoint and back on at the low setpoint, the MSD boxes will fire the coil at random intervals when the RPM are between the two setpoints so that instead of the limiter being either "full on" or "full off" you're actually getting cylinders firing at random intervals in the space between the setpoints. If I'm thinking right, this would act to hold the RPM in a tight range without the "surging" that's present with an all or nothing type limiter.

I'd think a setup like that would help with the momentum problem as well since it would act to maintain the set RPM by firing occasionally instead of letting it drop below the low setpoint and going immediately to all cylinders firing (which causes it to go back to full power and immediately trys to drive the RPM past the high setpoint).

ShelGame
10-08-2008, 07:20 AM
I think what Mike was getting at is that instead of completely turning the coil off at the high setpoint and back on at the low setpoint, the MSD boxes will fire the coil at random intervals when the RPM are between the two setpoints so that instead of the limiter being either "full on" or "full off" you're actually getting cylinders firing at random intervals in the space between the setpoints. If I'm thinking right, this would act to hold the RPM in a tight range without the "surging" that's present with an all or nothing type limiter.

I'd think a setup like that would help with the momentum problem as well since it would act to maintain the set RPM by firing occasionally instead of letting it drop below the low setpoint and going immediately to all cylinders firing (which causes it to go back to full power and immediately trys to drive the RPM past the high setpoint).

Well, that's certainly feasible. You'd want to detect a rising or dropping RPM, though, and only pulse the coil when the RPM is dropping. If you pulse it when it's still rising, then it would only serve to reduce the resonsiveness.

I tried it last night. All I can say is that the spark cut definitely kills the engine quickly. I couldn't get the car to start because I had the polarity wrong on the coil cut code. I fixed that but ran out of time. The car is loaded up for Indy now, so I won't get to try it out until next week sometime.

I guess I have time to work on 'softening' the limiter...

Tony Hanna
10-08-2008, 04:32 PM
I'm really interested to see what you find out.:)

zin
10-08-2008, 05:02 PM
Thanks for clarifying Tony, that's what I was trying to get at.:D

Mike

Tony Hanna
10-08-2008, 08:42 PM
Thanks for clarifying Tony, that's what I was trying to get at.:D

Mike

Cool. I hoped I was thinking right.:)

1966 dart wagon
10-09-2008, 07:08 PM
I was wondering if there would be a way to wire up a type of clutch switch that would tell the computer that the clutch is in, enabling you to have antilag/2step from a roll if you wanted? I know honda's with AEM EMS do this, i though it would be a cool thing if it was possible.