PDA

View Full Version : Turbonator SBECII (T1)



ShelGame
09-01-2011, 11:12 AM
I'm about 75% done with my dis-assembly of the '92+ T1 code and thought I'd start a thread to see how much interest there was in a Turbonator version. How many of these cars are still out there anyway? Can't be many, right?

The code, by the way, is a PITA. It's totally different from anything before it. There are no more P/T, WOT, Idle tables. There is only 1 fuel surface, then modifiers for idle and WOT. Timing is a little different in that idle and off-idle are different. But then, WOT timing is a modifier to the off-idle (ie, P/T) timing.

The boost control is all new, there's a new type of 3D table that I don't understand yet, and much more I'm sure. I want to finish the dis-assy at least because there are some interesting ideas in there that I might want to incorporate somehow into a 'master' codebase for SMEC/SBEC/SBECII - someday, sigh...

ShelGame
09-05-2011, 08:31 PM
Wow, so like no interest at all...

bakes
09-05-2011, 09:28 PM
That's because we are a waiting for a 3.ol turbo cal LOL

1BADVAN
09-14-2011, 03:26 PM
i have no need or interest in a sbec 2 cal but i too am interested in what things it has that we could incorporate into the other styles

turbovanmanČ
09-14-2011, 05:04 PM
What year was SBEC II?

I think most are waiting for turbo 3.0L cals and TIII stuff.

cordes
09-14-2011, 05:06 PM
What year was SBEC II?

I think most are waiting for turbo 3.0L cals and TIII stuff.

It was 92'

ShelGame
09-14-2011, 05:24 PM
What year was SBEC II?

I think most are waiting for turbo 3.0L cals and TIII stuff.

TIII stuff is basically done. That's why I'm moving on to the next thing. The SBECII and Mexican cals are on the list well before anything turbo 3.0...

zin
09-15-2011, 01:52 AM
I'm always interested in new stuff! I'm imagining that the new code is a result of higher computational power of the newer computers, I would expect that the new code can more closely monitor/control the engine, all the better if it can be bent to our "will"!

Mike

ShelGame
09-15-2011, 09:42 AM
I'm always interested in new stuff! I'm imagining that the new code is a result of higher computational power of the newer computers, I would expect that the new code can more closely monitor/control the engine, all the better if it can be bent to our "will"!

Mike

The problem with the '92 T2 code, is that it is philosophically different from the earlier code. Where the early code has 3 different tables for idle, p/t, and wot fuel; the '92+ T1 has only 1 (3D) table for all fuel. Then there's a modifier table for WOT. So, tuning it will be fundamentally different from the early code and even from the TIII. The other parts of the code are basically just evolved from the T1 and TIII SBEC code. I can probably learn a thing or 2 from the boost control - it's more advanced than the TIII. But, other than that, I don't see anything in there that will really be all that useful.

The Mexican cals are another story. They have a computer controlled BOV that I want to figure out and adapt to the Turbonator cals. The thing with the Mexican cals is that the code is just more organized, actually. Seems to me to be better thought out. I think a completely different person or group must've coded it because very little is the same as the US cals.

zin
09-15-2011, 03:23 PM
The Mexican cals are another story. They have a computer controlled BOV that I want to figure out and adapt to the Turbonator cals. The thing with the Mexican cals is that the code is just more organized, actually. Seems to me to be better thought out. I think a completely different person or group must've coded it because very little is the same as the US cals.

Seems like they wouldn't have to compromise the performance (mpg/hp/drive-ability) to meet EPA standards, they could just concentrate on making it "work" in a logical way, no doubt the Mexican stuff is cleaner code because of it.

I really like the idea of a computer controlled BOV, these mech ones always seem to be 1/2 azz...

Mike

PS Have you ever compared the SBECII code to more modern code, say SRT4? I'm curious if the newest stuff evolved from an older code (SBECII or MEX, etc), or if it was a "clean slate" kind of deal, which tends to be rarer.

ShelGame
09-15-2011, 04:20 PM
I believe, though I haven't confirmed it for sure, that the '96-00 or so generation of computers used much of the same logic as the older computers - even though they went to a 16-bit Motorola processor. Some of the 2D tables and lookups, etc. were carried over. But, after '00, I don't know. I think not as it was a completely different computer and no longer designed by Chrysler as I understand it.

Vigo
09-15-2011, 11:10 PM
The only sbec2 car i have and plan on modding is my 93 3.3 dynasty. I have an AEM fic for it so the only thing i would REALLY need would be a moved rev limiter. After that, on my not-needed-but-certainly-nice list would be adding timing since 3.3 is non-adjustable.

So if you think the rev limit would be easily found in sbec2 thats the thing i'd be looking for, personally.

Turbo SOB
09-16-2011, 02:14 PM
Wait, what?!?!?

'92 TI SBEC-II code disassembly?

DO WANT!!!!!

Turbo SOB
09-23-2011, 04:36 PM
Question: Is not the SBEC-II a flashable box, as-is?

ShelGame
09-23-2011, 05:06 PM
Question: Is not the SBEC-II a flashable box, as-is?

Some are, at least. I've seen some with the same 87C257 that the SBEC uses...

Turbo SOB
09-26-2011, 01:30 PM
Has someone figured out how to flash these, without needing to socket them?

ShelGame
09-26-2011, 01:47 PM
Yes and no. I think I know how to do it. But, there's no software yet to do it. The chips they use have a 20V programming voltage that needs to be turned on/off at the appropriate time. It could be done with an FTDI adapter and a step-up voltage regulator. Just need to use the CTS/RTS lines on the FTDI cable to enable the programming voltage. Which requires some new PC-side software.

ShelGame
10-05-2011, 09:30 AM
FWIW, I just figured out that the '92+ Mexican T2 cals use nearly the exact same code as the US 2.5 T1 cals. So, I'm finishing both dis-assemblies in parallel.

Turbo SOB
10-05-2011, 09:38 AM
Wow, that's awesome.

Dumb question time. Is there any difference in the hardware between the two boxes? That is, can you hook up a charge temp sensor to a TI box, flash a Mexican TII cal onto it and have it work? For that matter, will a TIII box handle a TI or TII cal? Or, even a V6 (3.0, 3.3 or 3.8) box?

ShelGame
10-05-2011, 10:12 AM
You should be able to put the SBECII (92+) Mex T2 cal into a T1 SBECII and have it work. From what I've seen, the T1 code already handles the charge temp sensor, it's just that the code is masked out and the tables using it are set to return 0.

The TIII SBECII will run a T1 cal, yes. They're pretty hard to find, too, though.

I believe you can use a 3.0V6 SBECII to run a T1 cal. It has enough injector and coil drivers. I'm not sure if the 3.0 computer will have the knock sensor circuitry, though.

The same way with the 3.3/3.8 SBECII. It has enough injector and coil drivers to run either the T1 or TIII. But, I'm not sure about the knock sensor circuits.

Turbo SOB
10-05-2011, 10:44 AM
I see V6 computers every time I go to the yard. It would be a shame if the knock sensor circuitry is the one factor preventing using these cheap and plentiful boxes as surrogates for the more hard to find versions.

I will pick up a 3.3 or 3.8 box the next time I go.

ShelGame
10-05-2011, 11:17 AM
I see V6 computers every time I go to the yard. It would be a shame if the knock sensor circuitry is the one factor preventing using these cheap and plentiful boxes as surrogates for the more hard to find versions.

I will pick up a 3.3 or 3.8 box the next time I go.

I wonder if the 3.3/3.8 had knock sensors? Looks like maybe they did. A '94 Intrepid shows a knock sensor. '93 New Yorker with a 3.3 also shows a knock sensor.

Though, there are apparently 2 different SBECII's. '92/93 should follow my previous post. I don't know about the '94/95. I think the SBECII (if they even still called it that in '94) changed and they are not compatible from '93 to 94.

Turbo SOB
10-05-2011, 11:29 AM
Yeah, quick check on RockAuto shows knock sensors in just about everything (under the Emissions section). I left the '92 wiring diagrams at home today. Will definitely be checking tonight.

I won't be touching any of the '94 and up boxes. I'm not sure if the Class II bus is compatible with all the digital stuff (digital gauge pod, EVIC stuff, security alarm, body computer, etc). All I know is '90 - '91 stuff doesn't talk to '92 - '93 stuff.

ShelGame
10-05-2011, 11:36 AM
The other thing I've noticed is that the '94/95 code is much bigger than the '92/93 (62k vs. 32k). So, there must be some major differences in the logic section of the computer for it to handle that much memory.

Turbo SOB
10-06-2011, 10:12 AM
I checked the '92 wiring diagrams last night. That didn't answer anything. The index shows "Detonation Sensor ... Page 28". The ECU pinout chart (at the end of the diagrams) shows a detonation sensor at pin 42, with a reference page of 28. Then, go to page 28? No sensor. I dunno, I guess we'll only know for sure when it's tried with parts in hand.

Turbo SOB
10-21-2011, 05:10 PM
I picked up a '92 3.8L V6 computer from the yard last weekend. I will have to tear into it, and compare it to my '92 TIII computer, and '92 TI computer. I'll look for missing components from one board to the next and try to follow the traces.

Zoskalon
10-21-2011, 05:39 PM
I'm extremely interested in progressing the SBEC-II. Wish I was a little further down in my computer engineering field to take part.

ShelGame
10-21-2011, 08:30 PM
I picked up a '92 3.8L V6 computer from the yard last weekend. I will have to tear into it, and compare it to my '92 TIII computer, and '92 TI computer. I'll look for missing components from one board to the next and try to follow the traces.

Take it out of the case and look at the backside. There will be 5-pin drivers and some larger 3-pin drivers. The 5-pins drivers are for injectors, and 3-pin are for the coils. There will also be some smaller 5-pin drivers for the other solenoids. It should be pretty easy to tell which are which.

ShelGame
10-24-2011, 01:25 PM
OK, I need to start collecting part numbers and binaries for the SBECII. I have the following:



HAVE 4672120/160 1992 SBECII Unknown Application
HAVE 4672125/165 1992 SBECII 2.5 T1 ATX W/LU Daytona/Lebaron
HAVE 4672121/161 1992 SBECII 2.5 T1 MTX Daytona/Lebaron

NEED 4714122 1992 SBECII 2.5 T1 MTX Lebaron

WANT 4672658 1994 SBECII 2.5 T2 ATX Mexican Phantom
WANT 4684820 1995 SBECII 2.5 T2 ATX Mexican LeBaron (A-Body)
HAVE 4672650 1993 SBECII 2.5 T2 ATX Mexican Spirit


From what I can tell ,the -120 is the Dodge P/N and the -160 is t he Chrysler P/N. The binary file itself has both P/N's in it and the cal is the same. Same thing for -121/-161; -125/-165 and I assume there's a -162 to go with the -122. If anyone knows what -120/-160 is for, please let me know. I have the binary, but no application info.

The Mexican 2.5 T2 cals and the US 2.5 T1 cals use the same codebase (save for 1 difference in the target bat volts calculation). At least, the -650 is the same. I'd like to have them all. I have made really good progress on the dis-assembly and hope to have a Turbonator version ready in the next month or so. But, I'd like to include as many templates as possible.

So, if you have any of the P/N's above that I don't already have, please considering donating it to the project. I can read the cal off the computer without having to pull the chip. All you need to do is send it to me and I'll read the cal. Then send you back your computer.

Also, if you have a known turbo SBECII with a P/N different from above, please post that up, too. I don't have a good list of Turbo SBECII's just what's posted above.

Force Fed Mopar
10-24-2011, 01:42 PM
How do you figure out what part # one is if the sticker is gone? I have a supposedly FFV computer but has no sticker on it to verify. I'm hoping to be ready to play w/ the V6 SBEC II cals by next spring at least, maybe sooner if I get my project car running in the next week or so.

ShelGame
10-24-2011, 01:48 PM
How do you figure out what part # one is if the sticker is gone? I have a supposedly FFV computer but has no sticker on it to verify. I'm hoping to be ready to play w/ the V6 SBEC II cals by next spring at least, maybe sooner if I get my project car running in the next week or so.

You can open up the case and usually read the P/N off the chip in the lower RH corner. You will probably have to clean the dust/dirt off the potting compound to read it. At least the last 3 digits should be there. But, it seems like Chrysler was putting the whole P/N on the chip for the SBECII's.

ShelGame
11-15-2011, 05:29 PM
OMFG - the adaptive retard routine in this thing just goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and... you get the idea.

They must have been setting this up to run 'regular' fuel or something. The knock retard/adaptive retard is ridiculously long winded.

zin
11-15-2011, 06:09 PM
This is actually kind of intriguing, I'm expecting/hoping it is a more robust/accurate method of curing knock... I wonder if, once you have figured it out, it can be added to Turbonator? Assuming it is a better (and compatible) routine....

Mike

ShelGame
11-15-2011, 07:29 PM
This is actually kind of intriguing, I'm expecting/hoping it is a more robust/accurate method of curing knock... I wonder if, once you have figured it out, it can be added to Turbonator? Assuming it is a better (and compatible) routine....

Mike

I don't think I'd want to. It's too complicated.

capev86
11-15-2011, 07:48 PM
The Mexican 2.5 T2 cals and the US 2.5 T1 cals use the same codebase (save for 1 difference in the target bat volts calculation). At least, the -650 is the same. I'd like to have them all. I have made really good progress on the dis-assembly and hope to have a Turbonator version ready in the next month or so. But, I'd like to include as many templates as possible.

almost forgot about the factory 2.5T2 in Mexico! that cal would be perfect for my setup.

ShelGame
11-15-2011, 08:12 PM
almost forgot about the factory 2.5T2 in Mexico! that cal would be perfect for my setup.

Probably not - knock and O2 feedback seem to be disabled in it.

zin
11-15-2011, 08:57 PM
I'm curious how this version is more complicated than the older versions? I might expect it to have code that sifts out noise, but that would just make it better at pulling timing when there is actual knock... But then again, I'm more than a little ignorant when it comes to computer code!

Mike

ShelGame
11-18-2011, 12:11 PM
I'm curious how this version is more complicated than the older versions? I might expect it to have code that sifts out noise, but that would just make it better at pulling timing when there is actual knock... But then again, I'm more than a little ignorant when it comes to computer code!

Mike

I would say there's just a lot more (and very specific) conditions for knock retard and the knock retard is more tightly integrated with the boost control. To me, it doesn't look like anything you'd want to add to a car unless you were just really wanting to run crap fuel to save a few $$.

The spark and fuel lookups are different from previous (and different from the T3), but that mostly seems to be for optimization of the ECU time. Simpler calculations, fewer 3D lookups and that type of thing.

cordes
11-18-2011, 08:04 PM
I would say there's just a lot more (and very specific) conditions for knock retard and the knock retard is more tightly integrated with the boost control. To me, it doesn't look like anything you'd want to add to a car unless you were just really wanting to run crap fuel to save a few $$.

The spark and fuel lookups are different from previous (and different from the T3), but that mostly seems to be for optimization of the ECU time. Simpler calculations, fewer 3D lookups and that type of thing.

So you're saying it's right up my alley then?

zin
11-18-2011, 10:09 PM
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, the more "robust" routine should provide the same added protection to someone running a marginal fuel, be it 93 or 110 as those running a stock engine with craptastic 85 octane (yes it does exist, or did in New Mexico/high elevation) depending on the applications.

Unless I'm missing something here, it would seem that better knock detection has no downside. Feel free to educate me if I'm off target here...

Mike

PS I'm curious if the later TIIIs used the same anti-knock code or maybe the bean counters thought it better to "idiot/consumer-proof" the bigger percentage of what they sold, especially since the TIII buyers would be more likely to take care of them, and feed them the right fuel...

Force Fed Mopar
11-18-2011, 10:17 PM
I think he is saying that's too much complication for very little gain. It seems to me like they were just trying to make it able to compensate for changing quality fuels, ie if you were traveling across the country and ended up somewhere that had poorer quality gas than you normally run, or if you normally run 93 and then go somewhere that only has 91.

zin
11-18-2011, 10:27 PM
I think he is saying that's too much complication for very little gain. It seems to me like they were just trying to make it able to compensate for changing quality fuels, ie if you were traveling across the country and ended up somewhere that had poorer quality gas than you normally run, or if you normally run 93 and then go somewhere that only has 91.

That seems like a very useful thing to me! I don't see it being much different that what so many of us tend to do, go to the track and get whatever race gas they are selling and try to run that, either way, it seems like it would be better suited to save your bacon!

I can see that it may be something that means too much work right now, stuff like this can have a domino effect and I think everyone would rather have a calibration that works to 90+ percent of its capabilities NOW than one that might go to 101% at some latter date.

I just wouldn't dismiss it as I doubt the bean counters would spend money to re-do code that didn't present a significant value, ie. fewer engine replacements due to fuel quality issues...

Mike

ShelGame
11-19-2011, 09:27 PM
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, the more "robust" routine should provide the same added protection to someone running a marginal fuel, be it 93 or 110 as those running a stock engine with craptastic 85 octane (yes it does exist, or did in New Mexico/high elevation) depending on the applications.

Unless I'm missing something here, it would seem that better knock detection has no downside. Feel free to educate me if I'm off target here...

Mike

PS I'm curious if the later TIIIs used the same anti-knock code or maybe the bean counters thought it better to "idiot/consumer-proof" the bigger percentage of what they sold, especially since the TIII buyers would be more likely to take care of them, and feed them the right fuel...

Actually, the 92 T3 is virtually identical to the 91 except for hardware differences.

I guess I just prefer a CAL without too many adaptives.

zin
11-19-2011, 09:42 PM
I can see that being the way to go while tuning. You get feedback on how close a tune is without the computer trying to fix it, possibly making you think the tune is right when it's actually the adaptives.

How difficult would it be to switch the adaptives off during tuning, while retaining the check engine flash, then activate the more robust anti knock adaptives once the tune is settled? Seems like a way to have our cake and eat it too!

Mike

ShelGame
11-19-2011, 10:10 PM
I can see that being the way to go while tuning. You get feedback on how close a tune is without the computer trying to fix it, possibly making you think the tune is right when it's actually the adaptives.

How difficult would it be to switch the adaptives off during tuning, while retaining the check engine flash, then activate the more robust anti knock adaptives once the tune is settled? Seems like a way to have our cake and eat it too!

Mike

I don't know; I haven't dug into it enough yet. But, I'm talking about code that is easily 3x longer than the current knock+adaptive retard function with multiple RPM and MAP factors involved. Tuning the 'new' adaptive routine (assuming it would even need tuning) would be difficult at this point...

Actually, I'm starting my dis-assembly on the Mexican cals. Considering the fuel down there is usually like 85 octane at best, it may be that the routine is only used for Mexico and not the US. Though, for sure, the code is on the US cal as well. It simply may be bypassed since we have higher fuel standards here. I'll have to check that when I get to making the US template.

Also, someone was possibly going to send me some other Mexican and Euto-spec cals to add to the database. So, it will be interesting to see what differences there are in those.

zin
11-20-2011, 03:07 AM
I agree it would be pretty exciting to see how the different market's code varies. I also agree with the idea of the Mexican cals needing to having superior knock routines, I'd especially be interested in any TIII cals and how they compare to US cals... Then again, while I look at them being the high end, they may also not have been the squeaky wheel that gets the assets thrown at it... Only one way to find out I guess!

I would hope the more sophisticated code wouldn't require tuning, that it would be "smart" enough to recognize what needs to be done, which may be part of why it is so long, perhaps it incorporates a "data base" of sorts that indicates "problem areas" (RPMs or Boost/MAP points) that require special handling?

Maybe they mapped the "noise" or the code is part of the signal conditioning of the raw signal from the knock sensor, creating a "band pass" filter of sorts that tells it what frequencies to ignore, regardless of voltage level? Lots of possibilities I guess, wish I could help, but I know about as much about coding as I do about doll collecting, just enough to get myself into trouble (or hit a home run by accident)!

If detonation has a particular frequency, common to some standard (bore size, etc) it might be possible to code a "universal" knock detection routine, tuned to an engine's specifications... Great! One more thing for me to research!

Anyway, hope this pans out to the community's (and your) benefit, and hope you share your findings, it's a bit like a who done it/mystery!

Mike

ShelGame
11-22-2011, 04:25 PM
OK, so it's not really 'adaptive' retard. It's just more factors adding to the total retard. The adaptive retard is actually basically the same as previous (a little bit better MAP factoring).

So, they added retard based on DeltaTPS, and speed is basically all.

But, the Retard from DeltaTPS is different if the adaptive retard is active or not. So, basically if adaptive retard is working, and you hammer the throttle, you get less total timing than you would if there was no knock.

Also, there's a retard from speed that has nothing to do with the adaptive retard. Basically, if MAP is higher than 2psi, then there is retard based on your speed. But, this is setup to do noting in the US calibration (0 return value from the lookup table, no retard). Even in the Mexican cal, the value is only 5 degrees below 10mph. Above that it goes to 0. So, only used in times of high load and probable knock.

So, it looks like all the extra code is really in there for Mexcio and to protect against the fuel quality. Perfect for you Cordes :thumb:

turbovanmanČ
11-22-2011, 04:53 PM
If detonation has a particular frequency, common to some standard (bore size, etc) it might be possible to code a "universal" knock detection routine, tuned to an engine's specifications... Great! One more thing for me to research!

Mike

Google it, there is alot of info and detonation is a certain frequency that doesn't vary much.

ShelGame
11-22-2011, 05:48 PM
Actually, now that I figured out what all that new code does, it's kind of nice to have a 'single' codebase for US and Mexcio. I assume that Europe is the same as well. I'm supposed to be getting some Euro computers to read the cal from. They'll get added to the template database for this as soon as I get them.

ShelGame
11-22-2011, 10:18 PM
If anyone has access to a Euro spec SBECII T1, I'd love to borrow it to read the cal. Actually, any T1 SBECII cals would be welcome.

Force Fed Mopar
11-22-2011, 10:20 PM
Is the FFV a T1 cal? You probably have that already though.

turbovanmanČ
11-23-2011, 02:59 AM
I have some SBEC computers and an FFV that I have no idea what they are, even you didn't know, lol. Your welcome to them so we can figure out what they are.

ShelGame
11-23-2011, 09:14 AM
Is the FFV a T1 cal? You probably have that already though.

I have the cal, it was hoping it was just a 1-bar T1 cal; but no luck. It appears to be unique.

Force Fed Mopar
11-23-2011, 01:53 PM
Weren't FFV cars turbo'd?

ShelGame
11-23-2011, 02:11 PM
Weren't FFV cars turbo'd?

Nope, NA MPFI. They used the turbo 1-pc intake, but not turbo'd.

Force Fed Mopar
11-23-2011, 02:24 PM
Ah, had never seen one or really researched. So it's unique you say? I'm planning on getting an Omni after the first of the year, was gonna drop in a NA engine w/ a turbo intake and run a multi-port NA using a modded T1 cal, but if the FFV would be a better fit and you have the code broken to where I can tune it... Especially if I can use the Flex Fuel part, I have E85 close to me.

ShelGame
11-23-2011, 02:36 PM
No, I haven't really broken in to the FFV cal yet. I just tried to run it thru my dis-assy setup for the SBECII Turbo cals and it didn't work. That's the only way I know it's not the same...

Force Fed Mopar
11-23-2011, 02:44 PM
Well boo :)

zin
11-23-2011, 08:32 PM
I always thought that a combo of the FFV cal for the vacuum side with turbo pieces for the boost side should be the best of both worlds. I assume (yeah, I know) that the engineers would have the N/A tune nicely figured out as they didn't have to deal with what amounts to (in my eyes anyway) a second tune when in boost. Add a nicely adjusted boosted "section" of code and you get the best of everything... In theory anyway.

In practice I'll wager this doesn't turn out to be the case, but maybe... I am curious to see what they did to allow them to adapt to varying levels of Alky... Mostly what type of sensor was used and whether its output to the ECU would still be a 0-5v signal, or something else...

As a bonus, the use of that part of the code and the sensor (or something compatible) would seem to make an E85 cal simply a matter of putting that fuel in the tank, calibration wise anyway... Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if the sensor and code would be compatible with both Alkys, Ethanol and Methanol? I seem to recall Methanol was the flavor of the week when these were introduced... Here's hoping for broad compatibility!

Mike

ShelGame
11-28-2011, 04:27 PM
Does anyone know if Mopar made a performance computer for the '92's? The binary I have with P/N 4714120 has no overboost and no boost targets setup (all set to FF). In other ways, it's similar to the Mexican cal I have. I have no idea where this cal came from, but I'd like to know...

EDIT: It looks like this might be the Mexican MPFI cal. I'll have to try and find out if it is for a 1-bar MAP or a 2-bar. I suspect it runs with a 2-bar MAP...

ShelGame
12-07-2011, 11:46 AM
I did a little testing on a socketed SBECII last night, here are the results:

1) The 87C257 definitely does work in place of the Toshiba chip.
2) The Toshiba chip appears to be a 64k, re-flashable version of the 87C257. It uses A15 and a couple of 'new' control signals (I assume for re-flashing).
3) My latch adapter boards work just fine in the SBECII with a 27SF512.
4) My SBEC Flash module works in the SBECII, though the Rd/Wr and E control signals have to be hand-wired like on the SMEC's. I can (and will) design a new board layout specific for the SBECII if there's enough interest in reflashing these over USB.

ShelGame
12-14-2011, 04:11 PM
Ok, so I got my source code all done - it compiles back to stock code. Just needing an update to MP Tune to handle a 'new' 3D table type and I'll be ready to release T-SBECII...

ShelGame
01-25-2012, 12:10 PM
OK, anyone with an SBECII car want to be a guinea pig? I have stock code I need to test, and a 3-bar +40 version setup. I'm working on a 2.2 version for a customer. I think this code actually will be pretty easy to convert to different displacements.

zin
01-25-2012, 12:43 PM
Showing my ignorance here again, but how hard would it be to use a SBECII in a SBEC car? Is it just wiring or are there more serious/hardware issues?

Mike

ShelGame
01-25-2012, 12:56 PM
I think it might depend on the car. I know I ran my '91 Daytona on a '92 SBECII. It started and ran the car, drove it around the block. But, when I went to turn off the key, the engine stayed running! Until I hit the brake pedal, then it died. So, there must be at least a pin or 2 to move around. And, for sure the cruise won't work due to switch differences. Depending on the car, there may be issues with the body computer interface as well. For all I know, that's the cause of the brake pedal killing the engine thing. And, if you have the anti-theft system, I think it's probably not going to work.

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

Also, I just ordered SBECII specific flash boards for anyone that wants to flash it easily from MP Tune...

ShelGame
01-31-2012, 12:56 PM
Anyone want to test some SBECII goodness?

Turbo SOB
01-31-2012, 01:01 PM
Augh! Yer killin' me! I haven't swapped out all the '87 electronics for the '92 stuff yet. I want to test BADLY but I'm just not there yet.

ShelGame
01-31-2012, 02:41 PM
Augh! Yer killin' me! I haven't swapped out all the '87 electronics for the '92 stuff yet. I want to test BADLY but I'm just not there yet.

Well, get to work!

Turbo SOB
01-31-2012, 02:47 PM
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a131/jeff_vs/lol.gif

ShelGame
07-10-2012, 09:30 AM
The fuel injector scaling for 3 constants was wrong. wowzer updated MP Tune to correct the scaling. But, if you have a current cal and want to fix the tables, they are:

PWMIN_NoCellUpdateBelow_PWMIN_Pulsewidth
FUELTR_FuelMonitorConversionFactor
POSFUL_AisEnrichmentFuelPulse (only in the SMEC and SBEC code)

PWMIN probably had minimal effect; FUELTR obviously affected the navigator fuel economy figures; and the POSFUL would have an effect on idle fueling and will be worse for bigger injectors. POSFUL is only in the SMEC and SBEC codebases.

If everything is working fine in your cal, I wouldn't worry about it. But, if you have a rich idle issue or want to fix the navigator FE display, you'll need to manually scale these values. Scale them by this formula:

scaling factor = current value * (34.9/injflowrate)^2

MP Tune scaling factors for the common injectors (scale each of the 3 tables above by this factor using 'right click, scale table' from the pop-up menu):

+20's --> 69%
+40's --> 45%
72's --> 23%

1BADVAN
10-01-2012, 10:35 PM
is there a file for this i could open in MPTune? is this and the R/T cars the only ones with 3D tables?

ShelGame
10-02-2012, 07:22 AM
is there a file for this i could open in MPTune? is this and the R/T cars the only ones with 3D tables?

Yes, but I haven't released it yet. The SBECII T1 cals are very different from the earlier stuff and even from the TIII. I've actually been working on it this week. and I noticed there's still a few scaling values to define.

THose are not the only cals with 3D. The V6 cals and all of the truck cals use 3D tabels starting with the SBECII. The Neon FCC (basically a specialized SBECII) also uses them.

1BADVAN
10-02-2012, 09:17 AM
Yes, but I haven't released it yet. The SBECII T1 cals are very different from the earlier stuff and even from the TIII. I've actually been working on it this week. and I noticed there's still a few scaling values to define.

THose are not the only cals with 3D. The V6 cals and all of the truck cals use 3D tabels starting with the SBECII. The Neon FCC (basically a specialized SBECII) also uses them.

Thanks cool to know!

ShelGame
10-02-2012, 10:56 AM
Thanks cool to know!

You have an SBECII you want to use this with?

1BADVAN
10-02-2012, 01:07 PM
You have an SBECII you want to use this with?
No i was more curious just to look at it. I am setting up my Datalogginng and it can output charts just like the 3d timing chart the SMEC cals had, and i just think it would be awesome to actually be able to adjust a specific box directly instead of the supporting tables.

Just playing around more than anything.

ShelGame
10-02-2012, 02:23 PM
No i was more curious just to look at it. I am setting up my Datalogginng and it can output charts just like the 3d timing chart the SMEC cals had, and i just think it would be awesome to actually be able to adjust a specific box directly instead of the supporting tables.



Just playing around more than anything.


Oh, OK. Well, the SBECII T1 tables are quite different from anythign else. Actually, I don't like the fuel tbales very much. Instead of P/T and WOT tables, there's a base table, and the a PT enrichment calculation+max surface, and then a WOT enrichment surface. So, trying to calculate the 'target' AFR for WOT (or even P/T) is a PITA. The only thing that is easy to see the AFR for is the base table. I actually prefer the TIII setup with separate fuel tables for WOT and P/T in boost.

Timing is easy enough to understand, though.

ShelGame
07-15-2013, 08:14 PM
Oh, OK. Well, the SBECII T1 tables are quite different from anythign else. Actually, I don't like the fuel tbales very much. Instead of P/T and WOT tables, there's a base table, and the a PT enrichment calculation+max surface, and then a WOT enrichment surface. So, trying to calculate the 'target' AFR for WOT (or even P/T) is a PITA. The only thing that is easy to see the AFR for is the base table. I actually prefer the TIII setup with separate fuel tables for WOT and P/T in boost.

Timing is easy enough to understand, though.

Hmm, been a while since I posted in this thread. I've actually changed my mind about the fuel tables. I think they're probably the best available for the pre-OBDII Chryslers.

Anyway, I found the issue I had with scaling the fuel tables for 3-bar. I think it's working now. At least, it looks good. I'll plug in my SBECII later this week and try it out. Since there's not much demand for this code, I'll probably not release v1 and go straight to v2 with the rotating spark cut staging limiter and WB to O2 conversion code installed.

Anyone have a 3.3 or 3.8 SBECII? '92 or '93 preferred. I want to see if a 4 cylinder will run on one using the appropriate code...

Turbo SOB
07-16-2013, 08:08 AM
I have a '92 SBEC II from a 3.8. I actually got it for you, life got in the way. PM me and we can figure out how to get it to you.

Later,
Jeff

ShelGame
07-16-2013, 08:12 AM
I have a '92 SBEC II from a 3.8. I actually got it for you, life got in the way. PM me and we can figure out how to get it to you.

Later,
Jeff

I realized last night that I have 2 of them already. Vigo sent them to me earlier this spring. I just forgot about them.

I really need yo get a better ecu storage system; they all just kind of sitting on the shelf.

Vigo
07-16-2013, 12:03 PM
I was just about to come in here and berate you but... Carry on. :)

I like to think i helped your organization as far as i could by writing what they were on them with a sharpie. :p

ShelGame
07-16-2013, 01:06 PM
I was just about to come in here and berate you but... Carry on. :)

I like to think i helped your organization as far as i could by writing what they were on them with a sharpie. :p

Yeah, the problem is, they were still sitting in the box they came in on the floor. Of course, I just about trip over the box anytime I need to use the soldering iron, lol. I need more shelves.

MoparStephen
07-16-2013, 10:19 PM
Man - you are starting to make me regret keeping the LM in my Shelby :)

phantomrt
05-30-2015, 01:40 PM
Bumping an ancient thread. I'll have to read the entire thing in the near future, but I am looking for, at least the equipment, setup, and know-how to re-program these things. Its a skill that I will have to learn, having to start with just a bit of general electronics knowledge that I currently have.

I'm just too busy working these days. I'm motivated to get the house paid up.

ShelGame
05-30-2015, 06:51 PM
I currently have my race car setup to run an SBEC or SBECII. So, I've tested this recently and the base version is working OK.

I'm also setting up my GLH to use SBECII electronics so I'll be able to really develop this later this year, hopefully.

zin
05-30-2015, 07:01 PM
One word. Boostbutton. Well, maybe that's supposed to be two, but you get the point.

The software is here for the download, MP tune and MP scan. A socketed computer, cable and either chips and a burner or an ostrich emulator.

There's a number of threads that cover tuning and a wiki page too. Lots of reading in your future, but that's what it takes.

Mike

Speak of the devil...