Can I request a units changed in the automatic transmisssion section? The "Maximum Line Pressure" of 90psi needs to NOT be in psi - it's really "max line pressure threshold" - the number at which the force motor is at full extension. Unless I'm not understanding that parameter at all...
A bunch of tables would really need re-naming, since psi is used a number of times. The pressure tables are all factors, not psi. My understanding is that they are combined to a final factor that is divided by the max pressure threshold and then looked-up in the force motor tables to get the force motor current. But then, maybe the max pressure is the cut-off threshold for the factor?Originally Posted by sherlock9c1
Yes, cut-off threshold is a good way to put it.
In real life, a healthy 4L60E with zero% TPS runs around 65-70psi just idling in P, N or D. It spikes to 100-150psi in Reverse. Add throttle and line pressure goes up, to a max of around 230psi near the top of 1st gear. As a guy who has spent a lot of time inside 4L60Es and months driving around with pressure gauges ziptied to the windshield wipers watching what's happening, having the "psi" labels in the tuning programs just drives me crazy.
I've read before that increasing that parameter would actually cause the line pressure to drop, which would seem to indicate it's more than just a cut-off or limit on the pressure factor.
Yes i would agree alot of it will be never used or useful to a tuner, but just to compare calibrations is awesome! My car is a auto, i know you don't want hear this but it would be nice have more auto stuff added in. Something that ive notice is when comparing a factory Y F B/D body that 26d3 mult to cal %tps & 12020 multiplier for tps voltage to get %TPS is different between all three. i changed mine to the vette and seemed to notice just a little bit better throttle response. I had someone test 12046 poss spark adder from reference pulse to min rpm spark and closed tps spark tables and it took away the added spark at wot for them.
while still on the xdf topic your V3.6, when changing the values in the spark correction vs temp they dont save they revert back to was originally loaded. Also its the same with maf table 3 7888hz & 8016hz values. This is also the same for the xdf i posted as it started off as V2.8
Last edited by jthompson122183; 12-23-2015 at 03:02 AM.
97z28 A4 obd1 swap(16188051)
Tunerpro Newbie
i agree completely. having two seperate xdf files is awesome for this purpose.
i'd love more details on that, especially that mystery table at 12046.My car is a auto, i know you don't want hear this but it would be nice have more auto stuff added in. Something that ive notice is when comparing a factory Y F B/D body that 26d3 mult to cal %tps & 12020 multiplier for tps voltage to get %TPS is different between all three. i changed mine to the vette and seemed to notice just a little bit better throttle response. I had someone test 12046 poss spark adder from reference pulse to min rpm spark and closed tps spark tables and it took away the added spark at wot for them.
another thing missing which im sure has been found is iac to throttle follower (assuming it exists, logs seem to indicate that it does)
auto stuff? of course i want to improve that. i just dont want to do any of the work or learn about automatic transmissions, i have enough on my plate. i'd love for someone to help update my automatic trans stuff, documentation etc, but it has to be of the same quality as the rest of the XDF (i.e. all well named, categorized, noobified and commented/documented). also just need to be sure that average tuners would benefit from the parameters added.
yeah the coolant temp thing is some horrifying tunerpro bug when you're using a bias value. notice updating the RAW value works, and updating a non-negative value works fine too at least most of the time... i should delete the bias cross-reference from the XDF and just build it into the calc. i can't imagine any tuner would ever change that bias anyway. the only reason i put it in there is in case someone is reading a tune-by-mail tune and they've used it to jack spark advance up across the board or something, at least they'd know about it.while still on the xdf topic your V3.6, when changing the values in the spark correction vs temp they dont save they revert back to was originally loaded. Also its the same with maf table 3 7888hz & 8016hz values. This is also the same for the xdf i posted as it started off as V2.8
that is, unless someone can tell me why tunerpro acts this way so i can fix it
the maf thing is news to me, but you're right. i haven't run a maf in a while so i haven't really played around with it. i can't seem to figure out WHY it's happening, though. i'd appreciate any thoughts?
tunerpro has some really bizarre bugs sometimes.
would you perhaps like to take a stab at the automatic transmission stuff against v3.6 and let me know how it goes? i'd love some help in that area...
Is there any torque management stuff in the 8051? Specifically, the ability to cut timing during heavy load shifts. My guess is no, because that would have saved a LOT of 4L60Es during the mid 1990s!
just throwing it out there;
may not be hard to hack in simple retard-as-you-shift logic to $ee as there's an almost-never-used timing retard routine just sitting there: traction control! (spark retard vs rpm with a hard request input)
it obviously pulls traction control requests from a hardware address as requests happen. you could change that address to something else and insert a simple line of code as a shift is happening to increment that address to produce a 'traction control request' or whatever (and count that back down to zero earlier on in the loop so you have decay)
or as a hardware hack with no patch...maybe... you could produce a request electrically by making a simple module that tickles the traction control request line when a shift solenoid is actuated.
if per-rpm retard control isn't enough, you could probably re-purpose the traction control routine even further by making the table vs. map instead of vs. rpm, and then you'd have load-dependent retard?
none of this is very elegant but why not..
is this what your talking about?
Attachment 10043 Attachment 10042
97z28 A4 obd1 swap(16188051)
Tunerpro Newbie
nah
iac seems to advance based soley on TPS (even when idle to vss follower is zeroed out)
maybe it's calculated instead of being a table
What does AD stand for or mean? Like AD tps or AD Map. Adaptive? Is it what the pcm uses for default values if the sensor goes bad? I see this alot in these map.txt.
97z28 A4 obd1 swap(16188051)
Tunerpro Newbie
In this case AD=analog to digital (conversion).
Or the tps, map voltage converted to raw digital data without any processing;
for examle 0 - 5 volts range equals to $00 - $ff range in digital counts
126dc in the eextra.xdf file looks like it could be the coded rpm limit in the 8051. I need to dig around in the code to see if it is a math limit or a hard limit. If it "works out" maybe the tables themselves could be stretched for more rpm. I dont think anything but a new opti would handle that. And maybe not many current new ones could.
though maybe 1240a may be the airflow mass adder for an rpm delta measurement. It is different in each y/b/f calibrations.
12848 and 126f5 might be related to open loop/closed loop. I have seen other coolant temp to fuel calcs in other ecms with this sort of spread
Just Thinking out loud. I have a year or more to read up on disassembly just to be a real part of this convo.
Awesome work guys. Just awesome
Chris
How hard would it be to adjust the MAP scale values to accomodate 2-bar or 3-bar MAP sensors? could these tables be enlarged in size so you don't lose resolution?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks