PDA

View Full Version : Turbonator GLHS codebase



ShelGame
06-29-2012, 12:28 PM
Turbonator/GLHS --- is custom source code for the GLHS LM. This is a source code+template format – meaning that the calibration data is stored in a separate file from the actual code. If you’re new to this format, it is different from D-Cal and CHeM in that they edited the actual Chrysler binary file directly. While, with MP Tune and Turbonator, we create a completely new binary file from the source code. After compilation, MP Tune still allows the user to edit the binary directly if you choose.

This Turbonator/GLHS is based on the stock Chrysler '86 GLHS code and calibrations. But, with the additional features listed. These features are unique to the Turbonator codebase.

Turbonator/GLHS Features:

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

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

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

4) Anti-lag Retard – Anti-Lag is a feature that helps spool the turbo. Anti-lag retards the timing proportionally to the difference from boost target.



6/24/2015 – v1 Now Posted:
(For use only with MP Tune 2.0.3.2 or later)
Template files updated with missing TPS Transient fuel tables

Download T/GLHS (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwcPBhg2fwrISU9hV051MU1qa3c)

ShelGame
06-29-2012, 01:44 PM
Just FYI - This will still need some type of .bin splitter to break the assembled .bin into the upper and lower chip .bin files. I think wowzer is working on adding that to function to MP Tune.

turbovanman²
06-29-2012, 01:57 PM
Pretty sweet guys, :hail:

zin
06-29-2012, 03:06 PM
Sounds like this would require a "double" socketed LM?

Mike

wowzer
06-29-2012, 03:15 PM
done. when you compile a glhs bin it will now create a 24k bin AS WELL AS an 8k lower bin and an 8k upper bin. there is a setting under program settings to turn this on or off. the default is on.

ShelGame
06-29-2012, 03:42 PM
Sounds like this would require a "double" socketed LM?

Mike

Yes, it will. Really no way around that.

ShelGame
06-29-2012, 04:34 PM
I'd be curious if anyone could build a stock version of this, plug it in, and make sure it works; since I have no way to test it other than to look over the code...

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.

ShelGame
07-05-2012, 08:43 PM
OK, the last update to MP Tune should have fixed the fuel table issue.

Anyone try this yet? Dyin for some feedback (and maybe something to do tomorrow)...

ShelGame
07-10-2012, 09:27 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%

ShelGame
07-12-2012, 01:17 PM
Anyone try this yet? Once we've confirmed there are no bugs in it, I'll make a set of stage cals from it...

Force Fed Mopar
07-21-2012, 09:50 AM
For somebody to try this, they will need to have a GLHS LM w/ both chips socketed, correct? Most just have the upper socketed, if that.

ShelGame
07-21-2012, 11:48 AM
For somebody to try this, they will need to have a GLHS LM w/ both chips socketed, correct? Most just have the upper socketed, if that.

Yes, needs upper and lower chip socketed...

ShelGame
08-14-2012, 09:35 AM
Anyone?

zin
08-14-2012, 02:59 PM
I'm interested in trying this, but the Omni is off-site right now due to other projects, as well as having to socket the "other" chip... Which I've never done, so I'm a little hesitant...

Mike

Force Fed Mopar
08-15-2012, 08:49 AM
I need to send you my GLHS LM to socket the lower chip so I can try this.

ShelGame
08-15-2012, 09:37 AM
I need to send you my GLHS LM to socket the lower chip so I can try this.

Ok, send it on. LM's are easy to socket...

Force Fed Mopar
08-15-2012, 03:44 PM
Aight, I'll send it this week.

ShelGame
12-11-2012, 10:02 AM
Aight, I'll send it this week.

Still want to try this? I forgot about you sending your LM to me to socket...

Force Fed Mopar
12-11-2012, 07:46 PM
Still want to try this? I forgot about you sending your LM to me to socket...

So did I, it's been riding around in my trunk for a while but somehow never makes it into the mail lol. I'll box it and send it to you tomorrow, just send it to the address on the BoostButton website? Also, I may send you one of my '85-86 T1 computers to double socket as well, as I'm sure any future tuning on them will require that also?

ShelGame
12-11-2012, 10:20 PM
So did I, it's been riding around in my trunk for a while but somehow never makes it into the mail lol. I'll box it and send it to you tomorrow, just send it to the address on the BoostButton website? Also, I may send you one of my '85-86 T1 computers to double socket as well, as I'm sure any future tuning on them will require that also?

Sounds good...

jckrieger
01-21-2013, 11:57 AM
Has anyone tried this? I was considering converting my GLHS to 87 electronics, but with this available there is no reason to! I'll order some ZIF stockets today and hopefully will have this flashed in a week or two. Today is the day I'll be trying out the Turbonator T3 code on my R/T.

On a side note, is there any good source for the 8K eproms/eeproms? I'd prefer not to destroy the original chips if I don't have to.

ShelGame
01-21-2013, 12:20 PM
Has anyone tried this? I was considering converting my GLHS to 87 electronics, but with this available there is no reason to! I'll order some ZIF stockets today and hopefully will have this flashed in a week or two. Today is the day I'll be trying out the Turbonator T3 code on my R/T.

On a side note, is there any good source for the 8K eproms/eeproms? I'd prefer not to destroy the original chips if I don't have to.

You can use a 32k eprom with the LM. You just have to burn the .bin with an offset to put it in the right spot on the chip...

jckrieger
01-21-2013, 03:47 PM
For some reason I thought the smaller 8K eproms had fewer pins than the 16K+ eproms. I'll have to take a look. I know all of the older GM eproms had a reduced pin count.

ShelGame
02-26-2013, 03:24 PM
So did I, it's been riding around in my trunk for a while but somehow never makes it into the mail lol. I'll box it and send it to you tomorrow, just send it to the address on the BoostButton website? Also, I may send you one of my '85-86 T1 computers to double socket as well, as I'm sure any future tuning on them will require that also?

You get those LM's back yet :eyebrows:

Force Fed Mopar
02-26-2013, 09:24 PM
You get those LM's back yet :eyebrows:

Yes I did, thanks! Need to get a car put back together to use the now :)

ShelGame
05-06-2013, 09:11 PM
Anyone ever have the chance to try this out?

ShelGame
05-10-2013, 06:54 PM
Anyone? Beuller?

Force Fed Mopar
05-11-2013, 12:22 AM
Not yet, still trying to get one put together. The was a guy local to roachjuice that me and him were trying to build an '86 cal for, but haven't heard from him in a while.

ShelGame
09-05-2013, 10:07 AM
Anyone try this yet?

roachjuice
11-25-2013, 01:15 PM
Not yet, still trying to get one put together. The was a guy local to roachjuice that me and him were trying to build an '86 cal for, but haven't heard from him in a while.

he sold that car and now has an 86 glhs #421. it has a mp stage 2 tune on it.

jckrieger
09-07-2014, 01:26 PM
Has anyone tried this code base yet? My GLHS is apart for an injector swap and I'd like to know if I should buy a fuel pressure regulator or be the guinea pig for this code. I'll need to order a couple sockets and chips, but I have every intention of getting this finished this week so I can auto-x the car on Sunday (7 days from now).

ShelGame
09-07-2014, 01:38 PM
Has anyone tried this code base yet? My GLHS is apart for an injector swap and I'd like to know if I should buy a fuel pressure regulator or be the guinea pig for this code. I'll need to order a couple sockets and chips, but I have every intention of getting this finished this week so I can auto-x the car on Sunday (7 days from now).

FWIW, I've built several cals with this code and no complaints so far. Not sure if that's because its OK, or just everyone's cars are down for other reasons...

jckrieger
09-07-2014, 01:55 PM
Rob,

I just ordered 2 chips and 2 sockets. I'll install my 52 lb injectors this afternoon and will setup the ECU with the Turbonator code base as soon as the hardware arrives. I'll be starting with a 2 bar map first.

ShelGame
09-07-2014, 02:47 PM
Rob,

I just ordered 2 chips and 2 sockets. I'll install my 52 lb injectors this afternoon and will setup the ECU with the Turbonator code base as soon as the hardware arrives. I'll be starting with a 2 bar map first.

Sounds good.

jckrieger
09-13-2014, 11:25 PM
I just tested the Turbonator GLHS code on my 86S. I'm running 72 lb injectors, so I scaled everything for 81 lbs since I'm running 55 psi fuel pressure, cranked the boost to 14 psi, and used the stage 2 timing with the anti-lag and stock staging limiter values.

The car runs damn well. I can't wait to see how it works at the auto-x tomorrow. I think there was something wrong with my stock injectors, so the combination of new injectors and this cal transformed the car. I guess now I need to install a boost gauge and my WB02...

Force Fed Mopar
09-13-2014, 11:58 PM
Nice!

ShelGame
09-14-2014, 08:20 AM
I just tested the Turbonator GLHS code on my 86S. I'm running 72 lb injectors, so I scaled everything for 81 lbs since I'm running 55 psi fuel pressure, cranked the boost to 14 psi, and used the stage 2 timing with the anti-lag and stock staging limiter values.

The car runs damn well. I can't wait to see how it works at the auto-x tomorrow. I think there was something wrong with my stock injectors, so the combination of new injectors and this cal transformed the car. I guess now I need to install a boost gauge and my WB02...

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback.

crusty shadow
09-14-2014, 04:42 PM
Any possibility that you have a Turbonator style ignition table for the 86? I ask because I am running megasquirt, and the timing table is definitely not correct because I have been using a swirl head spark table while my engine runs a G-head. I have tried to interpolate the stock G head cal into something that resembles a cell type spark table like what I am used to working with, but that has been an exercise in futility. Chrysler's spark tables are split into like 10 different line graphs that all interact together to get a final advance, and are listed in PSI instead of KPA like I am used to seeing.

I can tell this engine is not running enough timing but since I don't know where the baseline for a g head is I am very wary of making a lot of adjustments.

any help would be greatly appreciated!

ShelGame
09-14-2014, 06:01 PM
Any possibility that you have a Turbonator style ignition table for the 86? I ask because I am running megasquirt, and the timing table is definitely not correct because I have been using a swirl head spark table while my engine runs a G-head. I have tried to interpolate the stock G head cal into something that resembles a cell type spark table like what I am used to working with, but that has been an exercise in futility. Chrysler's spark tables are split into like 10 different line graphs that all interact together to get a final advance, and are listed in PSI instead of KPA like I am used to seeing.

I can tell this engine is not running enough timing but since I don't know where the baseline for a g head is I am very wary of making a lot of adjustments.

any help would be greatly appreciated!
I thought the GLHS used a FB head? If not, then does the 87? The GLHS and 87 T2 cals are essentially the same. And, the timing isn't much different from the 88/89 T2.

crusty shadow
09-14-2014, 07:22 PM
an 86 would have had the 287 G- head as the swirl head didn't come out till 87. a G head gives a lower comp ratio so they like bunch more timing advance compared to the swirl head. I would just start bumping the timing up a bit at a time but I don't currently have a knock sensor so I am very wary of advancing timing until I have knock sense capability.

ShelGame
09-14-2014, 07:28 PM
I'm hardly an expert on what head was used on what car; but according to AllPar, the 86 GLHS used a FB head.

jckrieger
09-14-2014, 08:47 PM
Rob,

You are correct, the 86 GLHS was built with a "fast burn" head. I actually gave up using a G head on my 87 CSX because of all the issues getting a G head to run correctly on a 2.5L. I think I spent a year messing with the G head and still ended up making the car run better with the fast burn head.




I'm hardly an expert on what head was used on what car; but according to AllPar, the 86 GLHS used a FB head.

jckrieger
09-14-2014, 09:01 PM
I thought I'd give some more feedback on the cal. I drove the car for a short period last night and besides for a couple misfires, the car ran pretty darn well. Well today I ran 11 auto-x passes with the bricks in my catalytic converter turned sideways, and the misfire was more severe.

The problem seemed to be during transient throttle operations, like coming out of a turn. I repaired the exhaust, and the problem is improved, but I can get the car to misfire once in a while. One thing I noticed is the power loss light comes on some times during the misfire. I have the check engine light on knock detect turned on, so there's a possibility it's timing related, or it could be fuel, or lots of other things.

My plan is to add a boost gauge and A/F ratio gauge tomorrow after work to troubleshoot the issue (and not blow the car up). This might be related to my scaling of the 81 lb injectors, or could be because I set the boost target to 14 psi and still have the 2 bar map. I disabled overboost, but I didn't disable the overboost when the wastegate failure is detected. I'm wondering if I'm getting a spike that is above the map, then the car is shutting me down for overboost because I'm above the target. This might explain the power loss light coming on.

Once I get things straightened out on my end I'll report back with what I had to tweak in order to use such large injectors and cure my misfire.

Force Fed Mopar
09-15-2014, 08:14 PM
Really need a wideband on there to really know if it's fuel related. More than likely it is though, if you are running stock Stage II timing maps you shouldn't have any timing misfires if you run 93 octane or better.

jckrieger
09-15-2014, 08:44 PM
I have a wideband, but it killed 2 sensors on my CSX. I'm not sure if it was due to the E85 or because something in the controller is bad. Either way, I used to do lots of tuning with the standard O2 sensor so I'll work on that route before I mess with the wide band again.

I found the logic module pinouts, so now I can hook up my instrumentation and begin the testing process.


Really need a wideband on there to really know if it's fuel related. More than likely it is though, if you are running stock Stage II timing maps you shouldn't have any timing misfires if you run 93 octane or better.

Force Fed Mopar
09-15-2014, 09:15 PM
If you're familiar with it then yeah you can go off a NB, I've tuned fairly successfully that way, just don't like recommending it to anyone :)

cordes
09-15-2014, 09:21 PM
I'm hardly an expert on what head was used on what car; but according to AllPar, the 86 GLHS used a FB head.

To my knowledge all 86 cars should have been a swirl head.

x.Gen
09-16-2014, 10:40 AM
I thought I'd give some more feedback on the cal. I drove the car for a short period last night and besides for a couple misfires, the car ran pretty darn well. Well today I ran 11 auto-x passes with the bricks in my catalytic converter turned sideways, and the misfire was more severe.

The problem seemed to be during transient throttle operations, like coming out of a turn. I repaired the exhaust, and the problem is improved, but I can get the car to misfire once in a while. One thing I noticed is the power loss light comes on some times during the misfire. I have the check engine light on knock detect turned on, so there's a possibility it's timing related, or it could be fuel, or lots of other things.

...

Once I get things straightened out on my end I'll report back with what I had to tweak in order to use such large injectors and cure my misfire.

check your transient enrichment tables under fuel. best I can do is half of a clue for you to start with.

if I remember correctly, when adjusting tables by injector size, one of the generations of cals didn't include pump shot tables (AESLOP/Delta MAPEnrichment FromTemp2, and POSSLP/EnrichmentFromTemp) in the modified tables (and those tables had to be edited manually). I just opened T-GLHS to compare to my (previous GLHS) settings for the sake of reference. I could find AESLOP but not POSSLP in the directory tree, and the same goes for the list of tables under the scaling tab. I'm pretty sure both need to be scaled or you will never get part-throttle tuned right, took me a long time to realize it. been several years since I ran this module, can't remember how I resolved it, sorry I can't help further.

jckrieger
09-17-2014, 08:40 PM
Ok, I hooked up my A/F ratio gauge and noticed any time I have a hesitation or misfire I'm going full lean. The problem is essentially only light or no throttle to full throttle transients. Since I'm going lean and not going rich, I'm thinking something got scaled that shouldn't have. Any ideas?

- - - Updated - - -

For troubleshooting purposes I will also be turning off anti-lag. I want to eliminate as many variables as possible.

It looks like the PumpShot PW map did not get scaled. My thought is that the pump shot is so large that the engine misfires and I'm getting a lean indication simply because the fuel didn't burn. At least, I'll try scaling this "DeltaMAPEnrichment FromTemp2" table and see what happens.

Back in the old days, I used to go through any table that had a PW axis and scale it for the injectors. That used to work well, so I guess I'll continue with that philosophy until the issue is fixed.

ShelGame
09-17-2014, 09:16 PM
Ok, I hooked up my A/F ratio gauge and noticed any time I have a hesitation or misfire I'm going full lean. The problem is essentially only light or no throttle to full throttle transients. Since I'm going lean and not going rich, I'm thinking something got scaled that shouldn't have. Any ideas?

- - - Updated - - -

For troubleshooting purposes I will also be turning off anti-lag. I want to eliminate as many variables as possible.

It looks like the PumpShot PW map did not get scaled. My thought is that the pump shot is so large that the engine misfires and I'm getting a lean indication simply because the fuel didn't burn. At least, I'll try scaling this "DeltaMAPEnrichment FromTemp2" table and see what happens.

Back in the old days, I used to go through any table that had a PW axis and scale it for the injectors. That used to work well, so I guess I'll continue with that philosophy until the issue is fixed.

The Pump Shot MAP tables are in units of msec/psi (or usec/torr, I think, officially). So, they do get scaled for injectors; but then they get scaled inversely for MAP. If you're scaling for +40's and a 3-bar, the net effect is no change since the 2 scale factors are nearly the same.

You can check to see if they are scaled for injectors in MP Tune under 'Scaling, injectors, tables'. I just checked and it is set to be scaled.

The issue may be due to resolution. The PW change is very small. When you scale for a 3-bar MAP, the PW change per each incremental MAP change (IE, each bit) is 1.5x what is was with the 2-bar MAP.

Of course, feel free to tune as needed.

roachjuice
09-18-2014, 03:14 PM
86 uses a fast burn head.

jckrieger
09-24-2014, 10:19 PM
I'm not sure if this is Turbonator related, but my 2 bar 81 lb/hr GLHS tune is still having an issue. I added some transient fuel enrichment and resolved some of the transient lean conditions, but I noticed a very repeatable 5,000 rpm cutout that occurs both at WOT and light throttle. The A/F gauge shows lean when the cutout occurs, and the car does recover and continue past 5,000 rpm. I added 4% more fuel in the pumping efficiency table at 5,000 rpm and there was no improvement. Any ideas? The car didn't do this with the stock cal and stock injectors. Unfortunately, I changed injectors and went to the Turbonator cal at the same time.

I will be checking the plugs and distributor components tomorrow. I may add a ton of fuel in the upper RPM range and see if it has any effect on this 5,000 rpm "lean" misfire.

jckrieger
10-02-2014, 07:22 PM
I think my issue may be related to the speed/distance sensor. I will turn off the staging limiter feature and report back. One time when I was staging from a complete stop the limiter didn't work, so that tells me there's something going on with the electrical side of things.

jckrieger
10-18-2014, 07:10 PM
Problem solved! I disabled the 2 step limiter and the car runs great. Since the car has a cable speedo, I guess I never knew the speed/distance sensor was flaky. Thanks for putting up with my posts!

This code is really good. I can't wait to relocate my map sensor under the hood and make a 3 bar cal. Maybe this winter the car can get some forged pistons and decent T2 rods.

Force Fed Mopar
10-18-2014, 08:54 PM
Yeah my speed sensor wigs out on me every so often. Nothing like trying to take off quick and suddenly banging the launch limiter at 4k in 1st gear lol.

ShelGame
10-18-2014, 11:55 PM
How much interest is there in a GLHS 3- or 4-bar MAP? IE, an On-board MAP? One of the things I've been toying with this winter is to build my own MAP sensors using Motorola internals and my own board inside a stock housing. I know Tom Spranger started to do that a while back, but I think he never made many.

zin
10-19-2014, 01:42 AM
Wow! 4bar! That's really something!

I'm curious if the GLHS code has something going for it above the 87code?

I've always heard it had better adaptives, etc, and requiring two chips seemed to confirm there was something "special" going on, but, not speaking machine, it's always just been speculation ...

Mike

ShelGame
10-19-2014, 09:10 AM
Wow! 4bar! That's really something!

I'm curious if the GLHS code has something going for it above the 87code?

I've always heard it had better adaptives, etc, and requiring two chips seemed to confirm there was something "special" going on, but, not speaking machine, it's always just been speculation ...

Mike
No, its pretty much identical to the 87 T2 except that the boost control is only psuedo-pwm. It doesn't run on its own timer, just the system clock. So, its slightly less precise.

zin
10-19-2014, 11:54 AM
Odd. Why's it need that much space /chips?

Mike

ShelGame
10-19-2014, 02:08 PM
Odd. Why's it need that much space /chips?

Mike

It does't. It's just old. It uses 2 8k chips instead of a single 16k. 16k chips were expensive at one point in time, lol....

zin
10-20-2014, 03:38 PM
LOL! They probably are still, now that no one makes them that small anymore!

Mike

jckrieger
10-22-2014, 08:39 PM
Rob,

I think I'm likely to just run the map wires under the hood. This gets the map out of the way of the sockets in the LM so I can change the chips without pulling the board.


How much interest is there in a GLHS 3- or 4-bar MAP? IE, an On-board MAP? One of the things I've been toying with this winter is to build my own MAP sensors using Motorola internals and my own board inside a stock housing. I know Tom Spranger started to do that a while back, but I think he never made many.

jckrieger
04-23-2015, 08:59 PM
Does anyone know how the transient enrichment tables work? I setup a cal for my GLHS with 72 lb injectors and the transient enrichment causes the car to misfire and puff black smoke out the tailpipe. Part throttle and full throttle tables seem to be working fine. I just burnt a version of this with a bunch of the transient enrichment tables cut back by 75% (50% reduction still seemed too rich).

If I figure out how to tune this out I'll post my results.

jckrieger
04-24-2015, 08:58 PM
I disabled the transient enrichment and now the car runs great. I will use this as an opportunity to fine tune the part throttle and full throttle tables. I imagine at some point when I lean out the steady state fuel I'll see a reduction in performance without the transient enrichment.

jckrieger
06-24-2015, 07:55 PM
I've resolved the issue with my transient enrichment. The THRTCN table is scaled in the wrong direction for larger injectors. The logic is backwards, increasing the table values DECREASES fueling, while reducing the values in the table INCREASES fueling.

ShelGame
06-24-2015, 08:40 PM
I've resolved the issue with my transient enrichment. The THRTCN table is scaled in the wrong direction for larger injectors. The logic is backwards, increasing the table values DECREASES fueling, while reducing the values in the table INCREASES fueling.

It's actually not scaled at all for injectors. It's an averaging value, not a PW table. But, you're right; my wiki page description of it's effect is backwards. I'll fix that. I need to look into how the TPS transients affects fuel in the LM cals. It's different than the SMEC and later (the GLHS LM doesn't seem to have a PW table for the pump shot value, so I'm not sure how it's calculated).

ShelGame
06-24-2015, 08:54 PM
Doh! There is a table and constant missing from the table file in the T/GLHS code. The PW table for the TPS transient fuel (which should be scaled for transient fuel). It's actually missing completely, which is why you get odd transient fuel behavior. I'll post an update very soon.

Thanks for your feedback, Clark - I probably never would have found this otherwise.

ShelGame
06-24-2015, 09:13 PM
OK, template files are updated with the added table and constant.

Clark - You'll have to manually scale the PW table for your injectors (33/72).

jckrieger
06-24-2015, 09:48 PM
OK, template files are updated with the added table and constant.

Clark - You'll have to manually scale the PW table for your injectors (33/72).

Rob,

Thanks for the quick feedback! I'll update to the latest template this weekend and scale the new table appropriately.

ShelGame
06-24-2015, 10:05 PM
Most likely, the issues you were having was due to a 'phantom' table lookup. The way that table was called was by reference (not directly). Since the table and data weren't there, who knows what value it was pulling for the transient fuel PW. You probably were better off setting the THRTCN to zero.

Unfortunately for you, it also means you will probably have to re-do everything you got working on your transient fuel. But, I don't recommend not updating. The phantom lookup thing is not good.

Aries_Turbo
06-24-2015, 10:18 PM
is this an issue in T-LM?

ShelGame
06-24-2015, 10:37 PM
is this an issue in T-LM?

Nope. I checked. The transient fuel tables are there in T/LM.

Aries_Turbo
06-25-2015, 06:18 AM
sweet. thanks

Brian

jckrieger
07-10-2015, 12:14 AM
I tested the code and reset my transient tables back to stock. The car's transient enrichment works perfectly and everything is as good as stock. I've now wired the car for an under-hood 3 bar map and will be testing out the scaled cal.

One issue I've been having is a boost spike in 4th and 5th gear at WOT. Lower gears seem to hit the 13psi boost target fine, but I get a big spike at the higher boost levels. If anyone has any ideas, let me know. I've tried a couple different orifice sizes and it didn't seem to make any difference.

ShelGame
07-10-2015, 01:38 PM
Maybe play with the RATLIM and RSFAC tables. They should help to keep spikes under control. I haven't played with them much myself as they're not in the newer cals. Maybe 5DIGITS can give some tips on how to tune those tables to control spikes...