PDA

View Full Version : anybody burn chips for 86 glhs lm?



roachjuice
02-11-2011, 01:13 PM
got a friend that has 86 electronics in his omni and he asked me if i can burn chips. i told him yea but only for my 87 lm lol. i think the 86 lms had and upper and lower. which is which? and do i have to burn two chips? anyone ever do this? thanks.

sdac guy
02-11-2011, 02:29 PM
The lower chip is common to all of the 86 LM's using a log intake. The GLHS may be different IIRC.

So usually, only the upper chip needs to be burned.

Barry

roachjuice
02-11-2011, 02:53 PM
The lower chip is common to all of the 86 LM's using a log intake. The GLHS may be different IIRC.

So usually, only the upper chip needs to be burned.

Barry thanks. how do you tune it? i dont think i can use the turbonator tuning stuff. i tried opening up a glhs stage 2 in chem and d cal and i get nothing.

DevoBuzz
02-11-2011, 03:06 PM
Yeah I think there are a few of here waiting for a custom cal for the 86 GLHS module. Me included. Don't think anyone does them unless you buy a LM from FWD Performance.

roachjuice
02-11-2011, 03:26 PM
Yeah I think there are a few of here waiting for a custom cal for the 86 GLHS module. Me included. Don't think anyone does them unless you buy a LM from FWD Performance.
thats what im wondering is how they do it.

1BADVAN
02-11-2011, 03:36 PM
You can adjust them using the base files and getting a hold of a template to use it in a tuning software, but from all i read it is WELL worth your money to switch the like 3 pins and add 2 to the LM connectors to switch to the "newer" style LM with the MAP in the engine bay and then it is way easier to tune with, as you only need to mess with one chip, and you will have a system that is much more widely used and has current support for you.

roachjuice
02-11-2011, 03:38 PM
You can adjust them using the base files and getting a hold of a template to use it in a tuning software, but from all i read it is WELL worth your money to switch the like 3 pins and add 2 to the LM connectors to switch to the "newer" style LM with the MAP in the engine bay and then it is way easier to tune with, as you only need to mess with one chip, and you will have a system that is much more widely used and has current support for you.
yea thats what im trying to convince him to do.

x.Gen
02-11-2011, 04:38 PM
GLHS uses the two chip setup, it is the last of the LM's that do. you can still burn a more than decent cal on his board...if he practically got given a later LM, than why not switch, but when you want to do this on the cheap it isn't necessary. everyone makes a big deal out of it - it isn't, unless you absolutely HAVE to run Turbonator (which runs later code; no need for it if he just wants a better tune). so what, you guys will socket it and you have a burner there? tell him to PM me with his car's setup and his goal. I'll set up a good .bin on the cheap for him if you want, we can get him hooked up this weekend.

vipernbox
02-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Yep... my GLHS just got converted.. Nothing to it... Swap a couple pins... and heck... It even leaves the ERG control wire and the unused fuel economy shift light wire to hook up the under hood MAP...


just need to add a ground... and you can tap into that under the hood...

roachjuice
02-11-2011, 06:08 PM
GLHS uses the two chip setup, it is the last of the LM's that do. you can still burn a more than decent cal on his board...if he practically got given a later LM, than why not switch, but when you want to do this on the cheap it isn't necessary. everyone makes a big deal out of it - it isn't, unless you absolutely HAVE to run Turbonator (which runs later code; no need for it if he just wants a better tune). so what, you guys will socket it and you have a burner there? tell him to PM me with his car's setup and his goal. I'll set up a good .bin on the cheap for him if you want, we can get him hooked up this weekend.
i can edit stuff. i just need to know what to use and how to burn it lol. i have a burner. i know how to burn chips for my 87 lm. just not the 86. he has a socketed 86 board from fwd. he just wanted to tune it himself because he didnt wanna wait.

Aries_Turbo
02-11-2011, 06:24 PM
there arent good public table files for the 86 stuff. the only one that i know of that made a 3-bar/+40 86 cal was matt wright (mw6886) and i dont know how far he got with defining everything.

as far as the logistics of burning something like 86 glhs files to the roms?

you have to burn the files into the correct location on the chip. i think the offset when using a 27sf512 chip is E000 for the 8kbit 86 files. if you are using a 27c256 chip, the offset is 6000 i think. for a 27c128 chip it would be 2000 and no offset for a 27c64 chip.

so youd take the GLHS cal files and burn one to one chip and the other to the other chip. then plug the one labled "upper" in the upper socket and the one labeled "lower" into the lower socket.

Make sense?

Brian

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

he really should swap to 87 though. much easier, one chip solution.

Brian

x.Gen
02-11-2011, 06:30 PM
i can edit stuff. i just need to know what to use and how to burn it lol.

:lol:



Brian

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

he really should swap to 87 though. much easier, one chip solution.

Brian

easier, yeah in general terms. an absolute necessity? no. depends on goals/budget/timeframe. I personally prefer working with what I have, but that's just me.

roachjuice
02-11-2011, 06:34 PM
there arent good public table files for the 86 stuff. the only one that i know of that made a 3-bar/+40 86 cal was matt wright (mw6886) and i dont know how far he got with defining everything.

as far as the logistics of burning something like 86 glhs files to the roms?

you have to burn the files into the correct location on the chip. i think the offset when using a 27sf512 chip is E000 for the 8kbit 86 files. if you are using a 27c256 chip, the offset is 6000 i think. for a 27c128 chip it would be 2000 and no offset for a 27c64 chip.

so youd take the GLHS cal files and burn one to one chip and the other to the other chip. then plug the one labled "upper" in the upper socket and the one labeled "lower" into the lower socket.

Make sense?

Brian

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

he really should swap to 87 though. much easier, one chip solution.

Brian
thats what i wanna know is how does fwd performance do it? like how do they adjust this stuff? but yea if it were up to me i would just 87 swap it. thats what i did with a 3 bar and data logger. i may just tell him to come back and see me when he has an 87 computer lol.

Aries_Turbo
02-11-2011, 10:07 PM
easier, yeah in general terms. an absolute necessity? no. depends on goals/budget/timeframe. I personally prefer working with what I have, but that's just me.

unless you have some real good disassembly skills or some documentation that i dont know of, 86 is a 2bar, stock injector setup still. there is no readily available, 3-bar, large injector cal available for 86.


thats what i wanna know is how does fwd performance do it? like how do they adjust this stuff? but yea if it were up to me i would just 87 swap it. thats what i did with a 3 bar and data logger. i may just tell him to come back and see me when he has an 87 computer lol.

fwd doesnt offer a 3bar, large injector 86 cal. they do have documentation to change the calibration data to offer what they do. as far as what they actually use to change the cals, i have no idea.

what do you use to edit your 87 stuff? youd use that with the 86 but you need a good 86 table file.

Brian

roachjuice
02-11-2011, 10:38 PM
unless you have some real good disassembly skills or some documentation that i dont know of, 86 is a 2bar, stock injector setup still. there is no readily available, 3-bar, large injector cal available for 86.



fwd doesnt offer a 3bar, large injector 86 cal. they do have documentation to change the calibration data to offer what they do. as far as what they actually use to change the cals, i have no idea.

what do you use to edit your 87 stuff? youd use that with the 86 but you need a good 86 table file.

Brian
i use d cal and zchem. i messed with mp tuner and v12 messed up on me. relays fuel pump and gauges went ape shyt. so i went back to version 8 and used dcal and worked great. i tried to open up one of the 86 lm stock codes in d cal and zchem. nothing. it brings up the ecu code. thats it lol the only things i was gonna mess with were boost and timing.

x.Gen
02-11-2011, 11:32 PM
unless you have some real good disassembly skills or some documentation that i dont know of, 86 is a 2bar, stock injector setup still. there is no readily available, 3-bar, large injector cal available for 86.


then I guess I'm one of the few left still running a GLHS module doing this. started years back with a first gen G, 2.2, and a GLHS module I bought from Gary when he still ran RP. eventually moved on to a 2.5 and an ostrich, realized T-LM wouldn't work in there after socketing the GLHS LM, decided I needed to go my own way...I'm way too cheap to buy an ostrich and a later LM after the fact. otherwise I'd have just bought/socketed a later LM and a burner, and ran T-LM like everyone else. same as most, I won't spend a dime for something I can do myself.

fact is, no matter how many guys I talk to that run an early LM, they simply want T-LM because they think it is easier. if you read back far enough, it's all out there (except for the .tbl file). some of it has been staring us all in the face for years; some of it disappeared with the early boards, but it is common sense and can be done after a little thought. anyone who has a functional understanding of cal's (like you definitely do) can figure it out - no one wants to put the effort in. that is why I won't give it away, even if I'd just be asking for a token price for a .bin.

I'm happy to be (and remain) one of the few! :D

Aries_Turbo
02-11-2011, 11:46 PM
yeah TLM v12 is messed up still. use V10.

here is a 86 stuff that ive gathered over the years.

http://www.squirrelpf.com/bucar/ecu%20stuff/glhs%20compilation.zip

i dont remember where i got the table file.

dont try using the glhs cal on a log manifold t1 car. only use it on a t2 setup. its still only for a 2 bar, 33 lb injector cal and youll have to do some wiring mods to use the glhs setup anyway as documented on www.thedodgegarage.com.

given the hassle, thats why i suggest the 87 lm cause you have to do wiring changes anyway.

Brian

roachjuice
02-11-2011, 11:56 PM
its already t2 converted. sorry i should have mentioned that.

---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

it wont let me open any of those files in zchem. says invalid. no clue. may need to convert it or something? i hate all this hush hush shyt. and btw it is easier because its readily available. if the 86 stuff was easy then alot of omni guys would be running it still. nobody wants to give up their tuning stuff and wants to flex their brain muscles or wants to make money. im not paying for shyt. :thumb:

x.Gen
02-11-2011, 11:56 PM
yeah, those earlier .tbl's get you part of the way...not if you want to max out a T2 setup though. that's surely why everyone gives up and goes with the later LM's.

Aries_Turbo
02-11-2011, 11:58 PM
fact is, no matter how many guys I talk to that run an early LM, they simply want T-LM because they think it is easier. if you read back far enough, it's all out there (except for the .tbl file). some of it has been staring us all in the face for years; some of it disappeared with the early boards, but it is common sense and can be done after a little thought. anyone who has a functional understanding of cal's (like you definitely do) can figure it out - no one wants to put the effort in. that is why I won't give it away, even if I'd just be asking for a token price for a .bin.

I'm happy to be (and remain) one of the few! :D

so are you saying that you have a 86 3-bar setup with a good documented table?

so rob is slaving away trying to make fully editable cals for various years and i worked a long time to make a reasonable 87 2.5L cal and we just basically give it away to help those further the performance, reliability, and tunability of these cars and you are hoarding yours for no good reason, helping no one?

have fun being one of the few who keeps good info to himself.

i have alot of 86 information but im not a programmer so i cant make heads or tails of alot of it.

Brian

---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 PM ----------

yeah those files are only for dcal.

brian

roachjuice
02-12-2011, 12:07 AM
so are you saying that you have a 86 3-bar setup with a good documented table?

so rob is slaving away trying to make fully editable cals for various years and i worked a long time to make a reasonable 87 2.5L cal and we just basically give it away to help those further the performance, reliability, and tunability of these cars and you are hoarding yours for no good reason, helping no one?

have fun being one of the few who keeps good info to himself.

i have alot of 86 information but im not a programmer so i cant make heads or tails of alot of it.

Brian

---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 PM ----------

yeah those files are only for dcal.

brian
ah ok. ill try it on my other computer. i dont understand why guys dont post up stuff when they claim to have good info.

Aries_Turbo
02-12-2011, 12:10 AM
i dont either. everything i learn, i share. its nothing special to hoard.

if i knew how to make a full documented 86 cal, i would have done so by now.

i dont know how to use disassemblers or code but i have a good solid grip on how the cal works from a practical angle.

Brian

roachjuice
02-12-2011, 12:26 AM
i dont either. everything i learn, i share. its nothing special to hoard.

if i knew how to make a full documented 86 cal, i would have done so by now.

i dont know how to use disassemblers or code but i have a good solid grip on how the cal works from a practical angle.

Brian same here. ah oh well. ill convince him to buy an lm from rob and ill burn him a chip. no biggie.

x.Gen
02-12-2011, 12:35 AM
LOL. not hoarding it by any means. am now running +40's and have played at 20+ psi a few times (too icy lately). had previously run +20's and 18 psi. there was a TM'r local to me I'd have been more than happy to take my laptop to, socket his board, and walk him thru it step by step for maybe $20 and some pizza. I figured out how to do a 2.5 LM cal on my own, didn't see anyone doing it publicly (yes, I saw yours. I'm on an early LM, don't forget). do I have it completely disassembled? no. I've gotten pretty far though, beyond the early stuff. I'm no programmer either. anyone wants to jump in and help me complete it - I will publicize it. let wowzer finish the disassembler, give me a leg up, and let me finish it before you break my balls. I simply don't want the blame and criticism of doing something wrong along the way when someone screws it up. seen enough bickering on the boards over the years. I mean I say I'm running a high-boost/big injector cal, and look at the responses inside of a couple of posts. nice warm fuzzy feeling.

it really makes little difference. EVERYONE goes for the late LM's, probably from people saying it is the easiest way! like I said, the info is there.

vipernbox
02-12-2011, 12:38 AM
ah ok. ill try it on my other computer. i dont understand why guys dont post up stuff when they claim to have good info.



I don't really understand that either..

. but what the heck..

I also don't understand folks that get all upset about it either.. If a guy has the knowledge, and has done the hard work... I think an expectation that all his work should be free to you simply because you want it is ridiculous... While I think the more open we are.. The more we stand to gain... It isn't right to think you are entitled...

Unless you are certain that you are giving more to the community than you are taking from it... Well... It just doesn't make much sense.. Heck.. the way I see it.. the more some of these people share about what they have done the more work they are expected to do, and keep doing, and keep supporting guys who don't have a clue how to mess with this stuff, but they know it can be done for 'free'... So they think all that information should be theirs for free...


I really don't understand that...


What I learn along the way... I will do my best to share... but seriously people... I think they should share.. I am all about that... ... but I don't think anyone should HAVE to..... or be chastised because they don't give away hard work for free... again.. a great idea... and makes for a great community to hang out and learn... but it is counterproductive to start thinking you are entitled to every ounce of knowledge that comes along without having to put in the effort...


The TM world is really more of an open book than any other community of cars guys I have been around...

and instead of acting like folks are doing wrong by not giving up info they have worked hard for (which darn sure isn't most of the people I have seen around here) ... wouldn't it be better to ask them for help using a disassembler??? Or whatever??

I just don't get it


I am new to all this calibration stuff.. a good part of it is still over my head.. and I sure would love to have it all handed to me... but dang.. I just think it is a bit disrespectful to not to expect to have to give something for all of that knowledge..

roachjuice
02-12-2011, 12:56 AM
i dont expect to get it one bit. hell point me in the right direction and ill figure it out on my own. i just need some files and what he is programing with. im not asking for his secrets on 86lm stuff. i could care less really. i have 87lm stuff and its all free. it was just something i was trying to help a friend out with because he was tired of sending his computer off to have it done and wait a week or two to get it back. the problem with someone tuning over email it that they dont ride in the car and have no idea what the car is doing.
it still is easier to tune with the 87lm. you just point and click what injectors you have, what map, and a few other items. hell there are provisions for 2 step limiters anti lag blah blah blah. the list goes on.

vipernbox
02-12-2011, 01:09 AM
Ya... having to wait... and shipping chips back and forth would be a huge pain... Netflicks for your car... :lol:

roachjuice
02-12-2011, 01:36 AM
Ya... having to wait... and shipping chips back and forth would be a huge pain... Netflicks for your car... :lol:

Lol hell yea.

Keito
02-12-2011, 06:32 AM
Matt Wright burned a +20 3 bar cal for me and it works flawless.

Aries_Turbo
02-12-2011, 12:40 PM
LOL. not hoarding it by any means. am now running +40's and have played at 20+ psi a few times (too icy lately). had previously run +20's and 18 psi. there was a TM'r local to me I'd have been more than happy to take my laptop to, socket his board, and walk him thru it step by step for maybe $20 and some pizza. I figured out how to do a 2.5 LM cal on my own, didn't see anyone doing it publicly (yes, I saw yours. I'm on an early LM, don't forget). do I have it completely disassembled? no. I've gotten pretty far though, beyond the early stuff. I'm no programmer either. anyone wants to jump in and help me complete it - I will publicize it. let wowzer finish the disassembler, give me a leg up, and let me finish it before you break my balls. I simply don't want the blame and criticism of doing something wrong along the way when someone screws it up. seen enough bickering on the boards over the years. I mean I say I'm running a high-boost/big injector cal, and look at the responses inside of a couple of posts. nice warm fuzzy feeling.

it really makes little difference. EVERYONE goes for the late LM's, probably from people saying it is the easiest way! like I said, the info is there.

if you are concerned with getting it right first, i totally understand.

but this line right here:


no one wants to put the effort in. that is why I won't give it away, even if I'd just be asking for a token price for a .bin.

I'm happy to be (and remain) one of the few!

pissed me off. :)

i dont expect you to give your stuff away if you dont want to. its your work and you took the time and effort and had enough background info and personal knowhow to accomplish your task.

its the line that you claim that no one (including myself) has tried at all which makes me mad. ive tried and it immediately exposes my lack of programming skill/training or whatever (i havent the foggiest on how to get a disassembler to work even lol), so i exhaust my avenues and arrive back where i started. plus, i have a million things going on so working on a cal/disassembly for a car that i dont own isnt high on my priority list. why do you think i focused so much on 87 and 2.5L. thats what i have. 3 cars worth :)

so basically, sorry for coming across so harsh and like i wanted you to give away all your hard work. i was overreacting to one line of your post at the same time hoping youd share your info so we all could be further ahead. like that combination was going to get me anywhere lol. :)

Brian

Force Fed Mopar
02-12-2011, 03:05 PM
I think I have a Matt Wright 3-bar +40 cal in my dual-cal GLHS LM still. It fired up and ran, but as I still had a 2-bar map and stock T2 injectors at the time, never got any further along with it. I dunno how to pull it off the chip though.

chilort
02-12-2011, 04:22 PM
I knew about the Matt Wright cals. But I sure wish I would have known that someone else (someone that I could actually get a hold of) was playing with the '86 cals. I would have gladly funded someone's efforts to play with the '86 log cal.

Too late now though.

Aries_Turbo
02-12-2011, 04:31 PM
yeah the log cals would be a good one to get into as they have that injector modifier to account for the unevenness of the log intake. that would be nice for those with intercooled log cars and those with the DC intercooler kits that want to keep using it and dont want to fool with different injectors and such.

Brian

chilort
02-12-2011, 05:23 PM
yeah the log cals would be a good one to get into as they have that injector modifier to account for the unevenness of the log intake. that would be nice for those with intercooled log cars and those with the DC intercooler kits that want to keep using it and dont want to fool with different injectors and such.

Brian

I've got a cal from FWD Performance right now for my intercooled log. I have no idea what is different in it. I also don't like that no one can get in and play with it other than FWD Performance.

But that's okay, soon I will have an intercooled log intake, '86 FWD Performance Cal, and a ported suck through throttle body for sale. I'm caving in and going blow through and 2.5L.

x.Gen
02-12-2011, 07:09 PM
if you are concerned with getting it right first, i totally understand.


yeah, I'm a fanatic about anything I do. I wouldn't put something out for consumption unless I'm sure it is right (but that is only part of it). especially when you have so many people going DIY and not really knowing what they are doing; anyone who has done it long enough knows that the difference between when you start ("editing", as roachjuice accurately called it) - and when you actually understand - are extremely different.



but this line right here:



pissed me off. :)

i dont expect you to give your stuff away if you dont want to. its your work and you took the time and effort and had enough background info and personal knowhow to accomplish your task.

its the line that you claim that no one (including myself) has tried at all which makes me mad. ive tried and it immediately exposes my lack of programming skill/training or whatever (i havent the foggiest on how to get a disassembler to work even lol), so i exhaust my avenues and arrive back where i started. plus, i have a million things going on so working on a cal/disassembly for a car that i dont own isnt high on my priority list. why do you think i focused so much on 87 and 2.5L. thats what i have. 3 cars worth :)


god bless the internet for giving all of us the opportunity and just enough rope to hang ourselves whenever we see fit! always easy to interpret statements not quite how they were intended. what I was saying, firstly - is everyone eventually gives up and goes with a late LM and a pre-formatted codebase. I don't even have to look to see there must be at least 3 posts in this thread alone saying that. so I'm not "hoarding" (that actually had my laughing). everybody thinks they are in a hurry when a reasonable solution is available sooner than later, and go in the other direction. they just don't understand enough to find it. I bet if you ask all the vendors collectively how many GLHS module cal's they have actually sold over the years - the numbers would be miniscule in comparison, even just to LM's alone.

most importantly, to explain myself - I WAS NOT saying others haven't helped the community. not by any means. I was saying no one has interest in helping with the early cal's on a cooperative scale (like with Turbonator). not a slam, it is just the result of the community not really needing it. if you look through most of my very few posts - they are trying to help others, specifically with cal and ostrich issues. even though no one "actively" helped me, I did get indirect help and try to be somewhat active when I can contribute. so please don't misunderstand my posts, I want to contribute along with everyone else.

on top of all that - open source (like Rob's stuff) is one thing...sounds like you see I think this is another. an open exchange of ideas in pursuit of a goal, I am with. I'm happy to throw in whenever I can. when someone asks for the file and the how-to, and declines the thought a bone should be thrown, seems different. no big deal.




so basically, sorry for coming across so harsh and like i wanted you to give away all your hard work. i was overreacting to one line of your post at the same time hoping youd share your info so we all could be further ahead. like that combination was going to get me anywhere lol. :)

Brian

apology appreciated but not necessary. I respect everyone's efforts and their opinions. besides - what kind of ball-breaker would I be if I couldn't take a little when it comes my way?

Force Fed Mopar
05-22-2012, 05:37 PM
Bumping this thread because I'm about to try and figure out these old cals. Brian, you have a PM.

Brandon, if you use the Scan button in Dcal, it will bring up all the tables, they just won't be named.

ShelGame
05-22-2012, 06:53 PM
yeah the log cals would be a good one to get into as they have that injector modifier to account for the unevenness of the log intake. that would be nice for those with intercooled log cars and those with the DC intercooler kits that want to keep using it and dont want to fool with different injectors and such.

Brian

FWIW, I added the bank scaling to the T/LM code last year for Wes' log build. I even added the ability to swap which bank is enriched (the MP IC log cals enriched the opposite bank due to the inlet being on the other end...).

The code is still a T2 code and the code is still setup for the late AIS motor. But, it should be easy enough to graft the 2wire AIS code into T/LM...

Omsession
05-22-2012, 06:53 PM
Isn't the chipset in the '86 LM a 6803 processor?

The logical place to start would be the processor datasheet.
http://datasheets.chipdb.org/Motorola/mc6801_3.pdf

And then to begin reverse engineering the controlling software, just determine where RESET points to in ROM on a cold-boot' and then break it down from there.

Easier said than done...

Anything that doesn't look like controlling code can usually be considered data or lookup tables, but according to Gary Donovon's site, it's not utilizing a lookup table in favor of an algorithm for determining injector pulse width.
http://www.thedodgegarage.com/turbo_pfi.html

(http://www.thedodgegarage.com/turbo_pfi.html)HTH

ShelGame
05-22-2012, 06:56 PM
Bumping this thread because I'm about to try and figure out these old cals. Brian, you have a PM.

Brandon, if you use the Scan button in Dcal, it will bring up all the tables, they just won't be named.

I think the cals in the repository have .tbl files with them that should be partially id's anyway.

Wow, old thread.

Anyway, I have a partial disassembly of the 86 MP IC cal if anyone wants to pick it up and carry this torch...

Force Fed Mopar
05-22-2012, 08:31 PM
I think the cals in the repository have .tbl files with them that should be partially id's anyway.

Wow, old thread.

Anyway, I have a partial disassembly of the 86 MP IC cal if anyone wants to pick it up and carry this torch...

Yeah I'd like to work on it, if you could send me that and give me some pointers.

ShelGame
05-22-2012, 09:43 PM
Yeah I'd like to work on it, if you could send me that and give me some pointers.

OK, I think I can give you quite a head start on it based on what I've already got. Let me put it together tomorrow for you (it's a slow week at work).

Force Fed Mopar
05-22-2012, 09:53 PM
OK, I think I can give you quite a head start on it based on what I've already got. Let me put it together tomorrow for you (it's a slow week at work).

Sounds good, will look for your e-mail.

ShelGame
05-23-2012, 10:41 AM
OK, what's the priority? GLHS or '86 T1/MPIC cals?

The T1's are basically the same - well, same dis-assy setup anyway.

But the GLHS is completely different from the T1. So, it will need it's own setup.

Which one do you want to start with?

Keito
05-23-2012, 01:07 PM
Matt was on today too.
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/member.php?116-mw6886

Force Fed Mopar
05-23-2012, 04:16 PM
OK, what's the priority? GLHS or '86 T1/MPIC cals?

The T1's are basically the same - well, same dis-assy setup anyway.

But the GLHS is completely different from the T1. So, it will need it's own setup.

Which one do you want to start with?

Let's start with the GLHS first.

ShelGame
05-25-2012, 02:14 PM
Ok, here you go. This is in the read-me.txt file, but I'll post it here as well in case anyone else is interested.


Here's what I've done -

I used the '87 T2 T/LM code to create an .mpt file for the GLHS and GLHS StgII cals. There is also a .tbl file if you prefer to look at it in D-Cal.

THESE FILES ARE NOT COMPLETE!

The table grouping, MAP sacling and Injector scaling was copied down from the T/LM files. But, the MAP and Injector table scaling lists are not complete. In the T/LM there are 10 injector tables and 75 MAP tables; in the incomplete GLHS files, there are only 5 MAP tables and 35 Injector tables ID'd. To find the remaining MAP and injector tables, the dis-assembly needs to be completed.



Dis-assembler How-To:

A) To run the dis-assembler, simply run the batch file associated with the .bin you want to dis-assemble.
For example, double click on "86_22_t2_640_GLHS_STGII.bat" to dis-assemble the GLHS Stg II cal.
The batch file is setup to put the 2 GLHS .bin files together in the correct order and with the correct addresses.
This is the 24k .bin file you'll find. The 8k .bin's are the originals from the actual chip.

The GLHS_All.bat file will dis-assemble both the GLHS and StgII .bins. The 2 binaries use the same addresses, only the cal data is changed.

B) To improve the accuracy of the dis-assembly, you need to add RAM and ROM definiitons to the "symbolsGLHS.txt" file.
This file defines for the dis-assembler where the variables, tables, constants, and subroutines are located.
You will need to copy the table locations from the .tbl file to the symbol file.

For example, open the .tbl file in a text editor (Notepad) and you will see many lines like this:

E210 1 n FuelPartThrottle MAP -14.7 14.7 psi Pulsewidth 0 65535 uSec MAPTBL [MPGroup:Fuel\Running\]Fuel_at_Part_Throttle._Other_tweaks_will_be_added_ to_this_amount,_to_a_MAXIMUM_of_the_Full_Throttle_ table

The important parts of this entry are the address, table name, and short name (for dis-assembly purposes anyway).

Address = E210
Table Type = 1 (5-byte, 16-bit return)
Table Name = FuelPartThrottle
ShortName = MAPTBL

Converted to the dis-assmbler format...

E210 T_HEX_TABLE5 MAPTBL_FuelPartThrottle <-- put this line into the symbolsGLHS.txt file

The tables types are:

1 = T_HEX_TABLE5
2 = T_HEX_TABLE4
3 = T_HEX_BYTE
4 = T_HEX_WORD
5 = T_HEX_BYTE

These are the only types I found in the .tbl files.
Once you have converted all of the table file entries, you can run the dis-assembler.

The next step will be to compare the dis-assembly to the '87 T/LM .asm file to find similarities in the code and ID more tables and subroutines. This is the really hard part...

Force Fed Mopar
05-25-2012, 03:51 PM
Sweet! I'm gonna start working on this right away.

Force Fed Mopar
05-26-2012, 01:27 PM
Edit: I think I'll just e-mail you lol.

Force Fed Mopar
05-28-2012, 07:35 AM
Rob, you get my e-mail?

ShelGame
05-28-2012, 11:13 AM
Rob, you get my e-mail?

I was out-of-town Sat/Sun. I didn't see it until last night and I was too tired to reply.

I should have deleted more out of the symbolsGLH.txt file. Anything you see after a ";" is ignored. So, the addresses you see in that file mostly don't mean anything, at least not for the GLHS file. I started with the symbols file for the '87 T2 thinking that most of the tables would be the same, if not in the same location. I left them in and commented ";" out just to keep the names and tbale types handy. So, if you find an entry in the .tbl file, the .tbl address is coreect and you shoudl over-write the address in the .txt file. And remove the ";" for the entries you've corrected the address for. Leave the ";" for entires the others.

Force Fed Mopar
05-28-2012, 10:05 PM
So basically if it has a ; in front of it, it is unused in the GLHS cal?

Also this sort answers my address question, I think. IE, the first entry in the GLHS .tbl file has an address of E2D5. When I search for that in the symbols .txt file, it is not there. But if I understand you right, the table may be there but at a different address. If so, I need to edit the address for that table in the symbols .txt file. Correct?

ShelGame
05-28-2012, 10:25 PM
So basically if it has a ; in front of it, it is unused in the GLHS cal?

Also this sort answers my address question, I think. IE, the first entry in the GLHS .tbl file has an address of E2D5. When I search for that in the symbols .txt file, it is not there. But if I understand you right, the table may be there but at a different address. If so, I need to edit the address for that table in the symbols .txt file. Correct?

If it has a ; in front of it, the dis-assembler ignores that line. Those tables are probably in the GLHS cal, but not at the same address as in the '87 T2 (which is what that .txt file was for originally).

So, I would serach by common name (the first 6 leters in all caps) and match those up. Then copy the address from the .tbl file into the .txt file and delete the ; on that line. Once you get all of those done, you can run the .bat file and it will re-write the .asm file.

Force Fed Mopar
05-29-2012, 08:47 AM
Ah, gotcha.

Force Fed Mopar
06-04-2012, 12:26 PM
Okay, just to make sure I'm doing this right:

I found AdvanceFromMapCold in both the StageII .tbl file and the symbolsGLHS.txt file. There is not a ; in front of it in the .txt file, but the address is different. Change the address in the .txt to match the .tbl?

ShelGame
06-04-2012, 01:07 PM
Okay, just to make sure I'm doing this right:

I found AdvanceFromMapCold in both the StageII .tbl file and the symbolsGLHS.txt file. There is not a ; in front of it in the .txt file, but the address is different. Change the address in the .txt to match the .tbl?

Yes, the addresses in the .txt file should come from the .tbl...

Force Fed Mopar
06-04-2012, 01:08 PM
Okay, they are pretty much all different so I was wondering. I am making some headway on this today.

Force Fed Mopar
06-04-2012, 01:42 PM
I am assuming that there are either less tables in the '86, or the .tbl file is incomplete, as the .txt is way longer. I guess that is the point of this exercise, is to input all the known addresses into the .txt, then make an .asm that can be opened in MPTune (or whatever) to visually compare and ID the rest? I should have the .txt fully updated in a day or so, maybe even tonight.

Edit: just finished updating the .txt file. Sent you an e-mail.

chilort
06-04-2012, 09:39 PM
Rob, that's what I noticed with the little time I spent working on it (and with far less experience than you). I thought it would be an easy find-the-address-and-go type thing. It wasn't. At leat for me it wasn't.

Aries_Turbo
06-05-2012, 07:11 AM
i wonder if a feature could be added to mptuner where you would have an address shift + or - button.

so you have an incomplete table file where alot of the addresses would be wrong or guessed at somewhat. you select the table that you want to try to find the address. click the address shift +or- buttons till the table lines up with the correct address and appears properly.

i know it wouldnt be an exact science as you really need a proper dissassembly to know the addresses exactly. but you know when a table doesnt have the correct address defined, it looks insane with points jumping all around everywhere. it would be more of a visual tool to aid the process. the constants would still need to be figured out. when scrolling down through tables, i more or less know what they are supposed to look like. this might help some i would think.

just a thought. :)

Brian

ShelGame
06-05-2012, 08:34 AM
i wonder if a feature could be added to mptuner where you would have an address shift + or - button.

so you have an incomplete table file where alot of the addresses would be wrong or guessed at somewhat. you select the table that you want to try to find the address. click the address shift +or- buttons till the table lines up with the correct address and appears properly.

i know it wouldnt be an exact science as you really need a proper dissassembly to know the addresses exactly. but you know when a table doesnt have the correct address defined, it looks insane with points jumping all around everywhere. it would be more of a visual tool to aid the process. the constants would still need to be figured out. when scrolling down through tables, i more or less know what they are supposed to look like. this might help some i would think.

just a thought. :)

Brian

I really wished Derek had open-sourced D-Cal before he got out of these cars. It would be nice to have the table find feature from D-Cal in my dis-assembler. He didn't even leave any hints about how it works in the old ECM list on Yahoo or his D-Cal group. I've been thinking of how to write my own and add it to my dis-assembler (actually, a heavily modified version of the 6803 dis-assmebler Geoff Allan had hack together for BlueBerry/LadyBug). As it is, I have it correctly dis-assembling ALL of the 6811 opcodes, and it also dis-assembles all tables and constants, when they're ID"d in the symbol file. But, it would be nice if I could add the ability to ID new tables and ids-assemble them automatically. Maybe one I get the current major bug fixed, I'll work on adding that...

Force Fed Mopar
06-05-2012, 08:59 PM
You have another e-mail :)

ShelGame
06-06-2012, 04:07 PM
I just realized that most of the subroutine addresses in the symbols.txt file are wrong. I think they're what I had from the '86 T1 dis-assy I started. I'm re-working the .txt file a little. I gave you a bad starting point :(

roachjuice
06-06-2012, 06:40 PM
Tried the tune rob sent me yesterday on a socketed 86 computer. Set the offset to c000. Got nothing.

ShelGame
06-06-2012, 08:44 PM
Tried the tune rob sent me yesterday on a socketed 86 computer. Set the offset to c000. Got nothing.

Which Rob? And what tune? :)

If it was one of these GLHS files, it won't work as a single binary.

I had to put the 2 binaries together into a single file for the dis-assembler to work with it. The lower chip is mapped at 0xA000, while the upper chip is mapped at 0xE000. That leaves an 8k 'blank' in between. So I made a dummy file and put the 3 together. The result is a 24k file. But, the LM can only read a 16k chip in the upper position. So, while it might be possible to squeeze the entire GLHS calibration onto a 16k chip, it won't work without making a fully relocatable source (like T/LM and T/SMEC) and moving the lower chip contents so that they start at 0xC000.

Rob M., I'll send you some updated files to play with tonight. If I have time, I can work on it tomorrow, too...

roachjuice
06-06-2012, 09:03 PM
Ah ok. I'll try that. Rob m and his tune lol

Force Fed Mopar
06-07-2012, 06:42 AM
Which Rob? And what tune? :)

If it was one of these GLHS files, it won't work as a single binary.

I had to put the 2 binaries together into a single file for the dis-assembler to work with it. The lower chip is mapped at 0xA000, while the upper chip is mapped at 0xE000. That leaves an 8k 'blank' in between. So I made a dummy file and put the 3 together. The result is a 24k file. But, the LM can only read a 16k chip in the upper position. So, while it might be possible to squeeze the entire GLHS calibration onto a 16k chip, it won't work without making a fully relocatable source (like T/LM and T/SMEC) and moving the lower chip contents so that they start at 0xC000.

Rob M., I'll send you some updated files to play with tonight. If I have time, I can work on it tomorrow, too...

Sounds good, yeah I made a test cal using D-cal but I used the big file, had a feeling that was the problem. So I need to make the change to the upper .bin, then he can burn it at 0xE000?


I just realized that most of the subroutine addresses in the symbols.txt file are wrong. I think they're what I had from the '86 T1 dis-assy I started. I'm re-working the .txt file a little. I gave you a bad starting point :(

I'll just delete what I have so far then and just start over from scratch with the new files. Not a big deal since the .txt bit doesn't take long using the Find function :)

ShelGame
06-07-2012, 08:27 AM
Sounds good, yeah I made a test cal using D-cal but I used the big file, had a feeling that was the problem. So I need to make the change to the upper .bin, then he can burn it at 0xE000?

I think that's right. I honestly haven't looked closely enough to know for sure if all the data lies in the upper bin, but I think that's right.


I'll just delete what I have so far then and just start over from scratch with the new files. Not a big deal since the .txt bit doesn't take long using the Find function :)

I actually already re-imported all of the .tbl file data. I use Excel. I paste the data into excel, do some formulas on it to get it into the symbol file format, and paste it back out to the txt file. I'm going thru the main loop code right now trying to ID as much as possible. So far, it looks likt it's all the same data as the '87 T2, just in different locations.

Force Fed Mopar
06-07-2012, 01:17 PM
Sweet!

ShelGame
06-07-2012, 02:33 PM
The GLHS Dis-assembly is complete.

Was pretty easy, actually. It's almost entirely the same as the '87 T2 - except for some timing details, and the fact that it's split over 2 chips.

Next step is not too hard either, but very tedious. We need to compare the data in the dis-assy to a known template (the '87 T2 A171, in this case, looks like the best candidate), and copy over the MP Tune definition stuff. For example:

In the dis-assy file, we'll have data definitions that look like this:

.org 0xe024
TMPTL1_TempForColdScaleFromA2D:
.byte 3 ; number of points
.byte 0x00, 0xc9, 0xff, 0xa2 ; point 1
.byte 0xd7, 0x7a, 0xff, 0x0d ; point 2
.byte 0xff, 0x54 ; point 3

.org 0xe02f
TMPTL2_TempForHotScaleA2D:
.byte 2 ; number of points
.byte 0x40, 0xff, 0xff, 0x72 ; point 1
.byte 0xff, 0x95 ; point 2

.org 0xe036
CHGTL1_TempForChargeTempA2D:
.byte 4 ; number of points
.byte 0x0e, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x43 ; point 1
.byte 0x29, 0xd0, 0xff, 0x8d ; point 2
.byte 0xe3, 0x7c, 0xfe, 0x70 ; point 3
.byte 0xfa, 0x58 ; point 4


We need to add the MP Tune definition lines to the .asm so that those lines look like this (from the '87 T2):

TMPTL1_TempForColdScaleFromA2D:
;mpgrp Setup\Transfer_Functions\
;mptbladdr 0x1345
;mptbltype 0
;mpsubtype n
;mptbllname TempForColdScaleFromA2D
;mptblcname TMPTL1
;mpxaxis raw 0 255 scale
;mpyaxis Coolant_Temperature -200 260 F
;mptbldesc Detailed_Description
.byte 0x03 ;Number of points in table
.byte 0x00, 0xC9, 0xFF, 0xA2 ;Point 1
.byte 0xD7, 0x7A, 0xFF, 0x0D ;Point 2
.byte 0xFF, 0x54 ;Point 3

;.org 0xc5ab
TMPTL2_TempForHotScaleA2D:
;mpgrp Setup\Transfer_Functions\
;mptbladdr 0x1355
;mptbltype 0
;mpsubtype n
;mptbllname TempForHotScaleA2D
;mptblcname TMPTL2
;mpxaxis raw 0 255 scale
;mpyaxis Coolant_Temperature -200 260 F
;mptbldesc Detailed_Description
.byte 0x02 ;Number of points in table
.byte 0x40, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0x72 ;Point 1
.byte 0xFF, 0x95 ;Point 2

;.org 0xc5b2
CHGTL1_TempForChargeTempA2D:
;mpgrp Setup\Transfer_Functions\
;mptbladdr 0x1364
;mptbltype 0
;mpsubtype n
;mptbllname TempForChargeTempA2D
;mptblcname CHGTL1
;mpxaxis raw 0 255 scale
;mpyaxis Coolant_Temperature -200 260 F
;mptbldesc Detailed_Description
.byte 0x04 ;Number of points in table
.byte 0x0E, 0xFF, 0xFE, 0x43 ;Point 1
.byte 0x29, 0xD0, 0xFF, 0x8D ;Point 2
.byte 0xE3, 0x7C, 0xFE, 0x70 ;Point 3
.byte 0xFA, 0x58 ;Point 4



It's really just a matter of copying over all of the ;mp...... lines to the appropriate data definition in the .asm. Only the ;mp.... lines should be copied (the ones in blue). Not the .byte lines. The .byte lines are the actual data from the GLHS cal. In most cases, the data is the same as the '87 T2, but not all. So, be sure to not over-write the .byte lines.

Again, not hard but very tedious. There's no automated way to do it :( Rob M., you want to try and tackle that?

I will start to take a look at moving all of the code so that the GLHS binary can be a single 16k .bin on the upper chip only. I'll have to look at my '86 LM again, but I'm pretty sure Chrysler put the address lines to the upper chip so that a 16k chip can be used there. The bottom chip will still have to be removed to do this, but nothing will need to be put in it's place.

EDIT: Oops, missed a couple of data bytes... Updated the .zip...

Keito
06-07-2012, 02:44 PM
Good work!
Rob M., I emailed you that info we talked about.

Force Fed Mopar
06-07-2012, 03:09 PM
The GLHS Dis-assembly is complete.

Was pretty easy, actually. It's almost entirely the same as the '87 T2 - except for some timing details, and the fact that it's split over 2 chips.

Next step is not too hard either, but very tedious. We need to compare the data in the dis-assy to a known template (the '87 T2 A171, in this case, looks like the best candidate), and copy over the MP Tune definition stuff. For example:

In the dis-assy file, we'll have data definitions that look like this:

.org 0xe024
TMPTL1_TempForColdScaleFromA2D:
.byte 3 ; number of points
.byte 0x00, 0xc9, 0xff, 0xa2 ; point 1
.byte 0xd7, 0x7a, 0xff, 0x0d ; point 2
.byte 0xff, 0x54 ; point 3

.org 0xe02f
TMPTL2_TempForHotScaleA2D:
.byte 2 ; number of points
.byte 0x40, 0xff, 0xff, 0x72 ; point 1
.byte 0xff, 0x95 ; point 2

.org 0xe036
CHGTL1_TempForChargeTempA2D:
.byte 4 ; number of points
.byte 0x0e, 0xff, 0xfe, 0x43 ; point 1
.byte 0x29, 0xd0, 0xff, 0x8d ; point 2
.byte 0xe3, 0x7c, 0xfe, 0x70 ; point 3
.byte 0xfa, 0x58 ; point 4


We need to add the MP Tune definition lines to the .asm so that those lines look like this (from the '87 T2):

TMPTL1_TempForColdScaleFromA2D:
;mpgrp Setup\Transfer_Functions\
;mptbladdr 0x1345
;mptbltype 0
;mpsubtype n
;mptbllname TempForColdScaleFromA2D
;mptblcname TMPTL1
;mpxaxis raw 0 255 scale
;mpyaxis Coolant_Temperature -200 260 F
;mptbldesc Detailed_Description
.byte 0x03 ;Number of points in table
.byte 0x00, 0xC9, 0xFF, 0xA2 ;Point 1
.byte 0xD7, 0x7A, 0xFF, 0x0D ;Point 2
.byte 0xFF, 0x54 ;Point 3

;.org 0xc5ab
TMPTL2_TempForHotScaleA2D:
;mpgrp Setup\Transfer_Functions\
;mptbladdr 0x1355
;mptbltype 0
;mpsubtype n
;mptbllname TempForHotScaleA2D
;mptblcname TMPTL2
;mpxaxis raw 0 255 scale
;mpyaxis Coolant_Temperature -200 260 F
;mptbldesc Detailed_Description
.byte 0x02 ;Number of points in table
.byte 0x40, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0x72 ;Point 1
.byte 0xFF, 0x95 ;Point 2

;.org 0xc5b2
CHGTL1_TempForChargeTempA2D:
;mpgrp Setup\Transfer_Functions\
;mptbladdr 0x1364
;mptbltype 0
;mpsubtype n
;mptbllname TempForChargeTempA2D
;mptblcname CHGTL1
;mpxaxis raw 0 255 scale
;mpyaxis Coolant_Temperature -200 260 F
;mptbldesc Detailed_Description
.byte 0x04 ;Number of points in table
.byte 0x0E, 0xFF, 0xFE, 0x43 ;Point 1
.byte 0x29, 0xD0, 0xFF, 0x8D ;Point 2
.byte 0xE3, 0x7C, 0xFE, 0x70 ;Point 3
.byte 0xFA, 0x58 ;Point 4



It's really just a matter of copying over all of the ;mp...... lines to the appropriate data definition in the .asm. Only the ;mp.... lines should be copied (the ones in blue). Not the .byte lines. The .byte lines are the actual data from the GLHS cal. In most cases, the data is the same as the '87 T2, but not all. So, be sure to not over-write the .byte lines.

Again, not hard but very tedious. There's no automated way to do it :( Rob M., you want to try and tackle that?

I will start to take a look at moving all of the code so that the GLHS binary can be a single 16k .bin on the upper chip only. I'll have to look at my '86 LM again, but I'm pretty sure Chrysler put the address lines to the upper chip so that a 16k chip can be used there. The bottom chip will still have to be removed to do this, but nothing will need to be put in it's place.

EDIT: Oops, missed a couple of data bytes... Updated the .zip...

Yeah I'll do it, I'll start tonight.


Good work!
Rob M., I emailed you that info we talked about.

Got 'em, thanks!

ShelGame
06-07-2012, 09:06 PM
Anotehr thing, while you're copying in the ;mp data, if you match the ;mptbladdr 0x---- to the .org 0x---- in the .asm, then we can easily make an .mpt file from that data and read/edit the binary in MP Tune.

Just leave the .org 0x---- as in the original .asm (that's the actual address of the table), and copy over the address in the ;mptbladdr line.

Force Fed Mopar
06-13-2012, 08:44 PM
Rob, I don't see anything in the T-LM .asm that looks like what is shown in blue in your example.

ShelGame
06-13-2012, 09:48 PM
Rob, I don't see anything in the T-LM .asm that looks like what is shown in blue in your example.

It's not in the .asm. it's in the .tpl, sorry. Open the .tpl in a text editor and you'll see those lines...

Force Fed Mopar
06-14-2012, 01:42 AM
Ah ok. So I copy it from the .tpl into the GLHS .asm?

ShelGame
06-14-2012, 08:25 AM
Ah ok. So I copy it from the .tpl into the GLHS .asm?

Yep. And, see my 2nd note about that - while you're doing it, if you copy the address down from the .asm to the ;mptbladdr line, I can paste out the data to make a .mpt file for editing the stock binary (as a first step). And, it's basically a template, too. The code section of the .asm will need a little work to make sure that it all goes back together and will still run. But, that's not too bad.

The most time-consuming step now is just getting all the ;mp data into the .asm so we can build a template from the GLHS data.

Force Fed Mopar
06-14-2012, 10:29 AM
I'm on it :)

Force Fed Mopar
06-17-2012, 07:25 PM
Ok, got that done. Got the ;mp data added in anyway. Haven't done the address part. Is the .org the address, or do I need to look at the top of the file?

ShelGame
06-17-2012, 07:58 PM
Ok, got that done. Got the ;mp data added in anyway. Haven't done the address part. Is the .org the address, or do I need to look at the top of the file?

Yeah, there's a .org in front of each table. That's the original address for each table. Copy that address to the ;mptbladdr line for each table.

Can you send me what you have? Or post it?

Force Fed Mopar
06-18-2012, 09:03 AM
Sure thing.

ShelGame
06-18-2012, 09:44 AM
Hold up on copying over those addresses.

I found some things in the dis-assy I want to fix first. There are some bytes in the data section that weren't defined and I need to figure out what they are. I'll post up a new file for you to work with in little bit...

ShelGame
06-18-2012, 11:49 AM
OK, I fixed the dis-assy errors I could find, and moved all of the data to a .mpt file. I copied many of the .org lines down to the ;mptbladdr lines, but I stopped about halfway through the timing tables. I just wanted to get a few in there to see if it would work with MP Tune 2. It does, but there are still many errors - mostly the table address that need to be fixed, but it looked like there were a few others as well.

So, PLEASE DO NOT load this up in MPT for tuning yet. It's definitely not ready for that.

Once you get the addresses copied over, I'll update the table grouping to the new format I'm using. It doesn't seem to want to update right now...

ShelGame
06-18-2012, 03:59 PM
Actually, I got bored this afternoon and updated the addresses already. I'm just now trying to get it to update the table data and then I'll post it...

ShelGame
06-18-2012, 04:27 PM
OK, these are fully editable in MP Tune 2. I included the .mpt file as well as the .bin file. To open, you'll have to change the file type in the open dialog to .bin.

These are still 100% stock binary files. So, no special features are added (ie, CE Flash, Anti-Lag, etc.). I need to work on making the GLHS code relocatable for that. But, you can at least tune the GLHS stock and Stage II (MP) cals using these files.

I beleive that MAP and injector scaling should work as well. Though, adding points to tables is not possible. There's no 'padding' in any of the stock tables that I noticed. Meaning, there's no room to add data. Until I get the relo code done anyway...

Then, there's the whole splitting these into 2 chips again. It's not hard, but not so easy to explain either. Basically, once you have the file edited and saved, you'll need to extract the first 8k of the 24k .bin into it's own binary (the 'lower') and the upper 8k into it's own binary (the 'upper'). The middle 8k are just a spacer and not needed when burning the chips. When viewed with a hex editor, the 'lower' 8k goes from 0x0000 to 0x2000; the 'upper from 0x4000-0x6000.

EDIT: Found a solution to the file splitting thing. Here's a command line utility to split the 24k.bin file back into 2 8k .bins suitable for burning. The only thing is, the batch file is setup for the .bin as named (ie, it expects a file called '86_22_t2_640_GLHS_STGII.bin'). So, if you edit the .bin file name, you'll have to edit the batch file appropriately.

EDIT2: FWIW, the calibration data in the stock GLHS is exactly the same as the '87 T2 as far as I could see. And, there is no code for cruise in the GLHS at all. Did they not have cruise control available?

Force Fed Mopar
06-18-2012, 08:24 PM
Sweet! I'll try it out. IIRC the GLHS did not have an option for cruise.

Edit: What do you want me to look for as far as issues in MPT with this? I assume you meant for the Y axis in the boost tables to go up to 29.4, even though it's a 2-bar cal?

ShelGame
06-18-2012, 09:01 PM
Sweet! I'll try it out. IIRC the GLHS did not have an option for cruise.

Edit: What do you want me to look for as far as issues in MPT with this? I assume you meant for the Y axis in the boost tables to go up to 29.4, even though it's a 2-bar cal?

You shouldn't need to do anything to it. It should be good to go as far as tuning the stock binary. I beleive you can even use this to scale for 3-bar, if you want to. You just won't have the features that T/LM has.

If you do find any problems, let me know.

I'm going to start working on a Turbonator version with all the bells and whistles. But, I need to check out my '86 LM and make sure the upper chip has all the address lines.

ShelGame
06-18-2012, 09:35 PM
I just checked out the '86 LM I have here. Granted, it's a T1 LM, but I think the GLHS uses the same board. The 'upper' chip in fact does NOT have the extra required address lines going to it to use a 27C128 chip. So, basically, the GLHS is stuck with 2 8k binaries. It's going to be hard to make it completely 'relocatable', but I should still be able to add the Turbonator features.

Force Fed Mopar
06-18-2012, 11:01 PM
Can you put the T-LM features into the lower chip? Also, what do I need to start on the 85-86 T1 code?

Force Fed Mopar
06-18-2012, 11:46 PM
EDIT: Found a solution to the file splitting thing. Here's a command line utility to split the 24k.bin file back into 2 8k .bins suitable for burning. The only thing is, the batch file is setup for the .bin as named (ie, it expects a file called '86_22_t2_640_GLHS_STGII.bin'). So, if you edit the .bin file name, you'll have to edit the batch file appropriately.


Okay, so I made a custom cal using MPTune and gave it a new name. How do I use this to split it?

chilort
06-19-2012, 12:03 AM
This is really cool work you guys!

ShelGame
06-19-2012, 09:15 AM
Okay, so I made a custom cal using MPTune and gave it a new name. How do I use this to split it?

You'll have to edit the .bat file (with a text editor) and change every instance of "86_22_t2_640_GLHS_STGII" to your file name...

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 AM ----------


Can you put the T-LM features into the lower chip? Also, what do I need to start on the 85-86 T1 code?

I'm going to have to take a look and see where the Turbonator features can be added. Since it's split over 2 chips, it's a little more complicated. There's actually code in both chips, but 99% of the cal data is in the upper chip. I think the small bit of cal data in the lower chip is stuff that wouldn't normally be tuned.

Let me take a quick look at what I have done already for the '86 T1 and I'll post up some files for you to work on. I haven't done anything at all so far with the '85 code. Is there really much interest in the '85?

Aries_Turbo
06-19-2012, 11:21 AM
85 DC intercooled log cal might be nice to see all done up.

Brian

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------

85 DC intercooled log cal might be nice to see all done up.

Brian

ShelGame
06-19-2012, 11:19 PM
85 DC intercooled log cal might be nice to see all done up.

Brian[COLOR="Silver"]



How about the '86 DC IC Cal? That's what I worked on today for a bit. It has a lot in common with the GLHS cal, so it seemed a good starting point. There's some obvious differences like AIS control, of course.

Also, I think it might be possible to add the Turbonator features witout modifying the lower chip at all. That means you'd only have to socket/burn the upper chip (unless you're converting a T1 to GLHS specs, then you'd have to do both, and probably some other components as well). It probably also means that the 24k .bin files and splitter I supplied previously aren't really necessary. It could probably be done with just the 8k 'upper' file. I'll look into that tomorrow and re-post if it works out...

Force Fed Mopar
06-20-2012, 08:17 AM
You'll have to edit the .bat file (with a text editor) and change every instance of "86_22_t2_640_GLHS_STGII" to your file name...

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 AM ----------



I'm going to have to take a look and see where the Turbonator features can be added. Since it's split over 2 chips, it's a little more complicated. There's actually code in both chips, but 99% of the cal data is in the upper chip. I think the small bit of cal data in the lower chip is stuff that wouldn't normally be tuned.

Let me take a quick look at what I have done already for the '86 T1 and I'll post up some files for you to work on. I haven't done anything at all so far with the '85 code. Is there really much interest in the '85?

My main interest in the '85 is to see the timing curves for the G-head :) Also I think the fueling is different, at least the PumpEff. It will help me (and anyone else) in building G-head cals.

ShelGame
06-20-2012, 09:10 AM
OK, making a T/GLHS code is getting complicated.

If I opt to leave the lower chip alone (so that it doesn't have to be removed/socketed), then I'll have to .org a bunch of tables in the template for the GLHS so that the stock lower chip can find them. What this means, is that the code will not be as 'flexible' as the later codes with respect to adding data and moving things around.

If I make the code fully relocatable, then everyone who wants to run it will need to socket both the upper and lower chips; and then burn 2 chips.

Force Fed Mopar
06-21-2012, 12:26 AM
Can't use a larger chip?

ShelGame
06-21-2012, 07:05 AM
Can't use a larger chip?

Nope. The GLHS LM only has address lines for an 8k chip...

Force Fed Mopar
06-22-2012, 09:28 AM
Okay, got a cal to try, 0xE000 is the offset to burn it, correct?

sdac guy
06-22-2012, 11:49 AM
OK, making a T/GLHS code is getting complicated. ......... If I make the code fully relocatable, then everyone who wants to run it will need to socket both the upper and lower chips; and then burn 2 chips.Small price to pay. To get all the bells & whistles in it, I don't think anyone will complain about the extra effort. Anyone that does is just lacking something else to whine about! :D


Barry

ShelGame
06-22-2012, 11:03 PM
Okay, got a cal to try, 0xE000 is the offset to burn it, correct?

For the upper chip burning to a 27SF512, yes.

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 PM ----------


Small price to pay. To get all the bells & whistles in it, I don't think anyone will complain about the extra effort. Anyone that does is just lacking something else to whine about! :D


Barry

Good Point!

Force Fed Mopar
06-22-2012, 11:29 PM
Small price to pay. To get all the bells & whistles in it, I don't think anyone will complain about the extra effort. Anyone that does is just lacking something else to whine about! :D


Barry

I agree :)

ShelGame
06-26-2012, 05:08 PM
OK, 2 chips it is. I need a break from my car. Maybe I'll work on T/GLHS tonight...

ShelGame
06-28-2012, 08:42 PM
OK, I've got T/GLHS to compile - mostly. I get a linker error from MP Tune when it's done compliling. I sent a note to Morris (wowzer) to see what's up with it. As soon as I get that sorted, I'll post it up for testing.

wowzer
06-29-2012, 11:24 AM
rob - posted an update to mpt2 that hopefully will fix the linker issue. the data tables in the middle of the chip caused problems.

ShelGame
06-29-2012, 01:43 PM
T/GLHS is posted - http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?66733-Turbonator-GLHS-codebase&highlight=

roachjuice
06-29-2012, 02:04 PM
Sweet. Is it still E000 offset?

Aries_Turbo
06-29-2012, 02:26 PM
cool. it compiles correctly on my end. no 86 car to test it out on though.

Brian

chilort
06-29-2012, 08:56 PM
Really cool. Here's the internet version of a pat on the back.

ShelGame
06-29-2012, 09:27 PM
Sweet. Is it still E000 offset?

Yes, and the latest version of MP Tune (2.0.3.3; should auto-update) will automatically compile it, and split the resulting .bin into the correct upper and lower .bin images. But, you must use these 2 new .bin images and socket both the upper and lower chips on the GLHS LM. It won't work with a stock lower .bin.

Oh, and there are templates for both the stock GLHS and the StgII (Mopar Performance) cals.

I appreciate the pat on the back, but don't forget Force Fed (Rob M.) - he did the vast majority of the grunt work in creating the template files...

chilort
06-29-2012, 11:04 PM
I'm pretty sure Rob knows I think he's awsome. If not, good work Rob.

ShelGame
06-29-2012, 11:09 PM
Sweet. Is it still E000 offset?

For the upper chip, yes. The lower chip is is at a000.

Force Fed Mopar
06-30-2012, 05:14 AM
I'm pretty sure Rob knows I think he's awsome. If not, good work Rob.

Lol, thank you :)

Rob L, whenever you have time get me whatever is needed to start on the '86 and/or '85 T1 code.

ShelGame
06-30-2012, 08:13 AM
Rob L, whenever you have time get me whatever is needed to start on the '86 and/or '85 T1 code.

I can give you what I have, but it's not much of a head start at this point. There's quite a few differences in the older T1 code.

DevoBuzz
07-02-2012, 07:51 AM
Hey guys - all this is jibberish to me. lol. Getting to the point - does this mean I can buy a custom cal from you? ShelGame if I send you an 86 GLHS Stage 2 LM can you reprogram to my specs?

Thanks,
Ralph

ShelGame
07-02-2012, 08:44 AM
Hey guys - all this is jibberish to me. lol. Getting to the point - does this mean I can buy a custom cal from you? ShelGame if I send you an 86 GLHS Stage 2 LM can you reprogram to my specs?

Thanks,
Ralph

Maybe. It hasn't really been tested yet as far as I know. So, I'm not sure if this code will even run a car. If you want to be a guinea pig, I can do a cal for you.

ShelGame
07-03-2012, 11:37 AM
Just FYI, MP Tune isn't displaying the 3 main fuel tables correctly for the GLHS. I think it will scale for injectors OK, but do not use the AFR setup. It will give you half (I think) the fuel required. wowzer is working on an update so that the GLHS fuel tables get treated like the 87 T2 LM.

wowzer
07-03-2012, 05:59 PM
this should be fixed in the latest version now posted.

ShelGame
08-14-2012, 09:37 AM
Anyone try this yet?

Force Fed - you still want to try doing something with the log T1 code? It's a slow week at work, I'm trying to stay busy :)

Force Fed Mopar
08-15-2012, 08:48 AM
Yes! :)

ShelGame
08-15-2012, 09:38 AM
Yes! :)

OK, let me look at what I have again (it's been a few weeks) and I'll post something for you to work with...

DevoBuzz
09-26-2012, 06:57 PM
Bump for update...