Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: 1994 LT1 calibration 16230221 couple questions

  1. #16

  2. #17
    Fuel Injected! babywag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by steveo View Post
    awesome, looking good!
    Thanks, very happy with how it's running now vs. when I bought it.
    I'm very surprised that w/ 140k and the original catalytic converters that it even passed smog!
    Especially since @ the rpm they dyno test @ is fairly low, 1372RPM in the case of my test.
    Even running pig rich (IMHO) w/ BLM's in the 11x range, I'd venture a guess that testing it now would show a marked improvement in test result numbers?
    Tony

    '88 Jeep Grand Wagoneer (aka Babywag)
    '67 Jeep J3000
    '07 Dodge Magnum SRT8

  3. #18
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,008
    in round figures, a blm of 110 means about ~15% fuel had to be removed to correct the rich condition. not a huge deal, but it does mean before the trims kick in, you were running 'bout ~12.5:1 instead of 14.7:1

  4. #19
    Fuel Injected! babywag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by steveo View Post
    in round figures, a blm of 110 means about ~15% fuel had to be removed to correct the rich condition. not a huge deal, but it does mean before the trims kick in, you were running 'bout ~12.5:1 instead of 14.7:1
    Technically it shouldn't be running "rich" if everything is working correctly. But it sure seemed/felt like it.
    I know low BLMs don't necessarily mean rich, just indicate it's pulling fuel.
    Keep having to remind myself though.
    Testing numbers seemd high to me, but @ least it passed.
    Tony

    '88 Jeep Grand Wagoneer (aka Babywag)
    '67 Jeep J3000
    '07 Dodge Magnum SRT8

  5. #20
    LT1 specialist steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,008
    just because trims fix cruising fuel doesn't mean all transitional fuel (most of which isn't really tuneable in $EE) is also trimmed... so until your trims are in line, it's normal for it to run like a bag of shit.

    also in every bin i've seen power enrichment by default (and obviously when using a blm locker) only uses trims higher than 128 as a base. so it'll help compensate for lean conditions a bit, but happily dump a ton of fuel if trims are under 128...

  6. #21
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Mt. Airy, MD
    Posts
    51
    steve-o,

    I never had issued with connection to b bodies or d bodies until the latest update. Flashing, reading, all of it was great. I will try what was suggested.

    OP the reason the o2 swing voltages are different is the distance the cat is from the manifolds on the b bodies. Not the differences on where the manifold discharges the exahaust to the cat, and also the firing order of the engine was another reason. There are differences in the 94/95 cars to the 96 cars too. In general I set them all to 450mv.
    Chris.

  7. #22
    Fuel Injected! babywag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by steveo View Post
    just because trims fix cruising fuel doesn't mean all transitional fuel (most of which isn't really tuneable in $EE) is also trimmed... so until your trims are in line, it's normal for it to run like a bag of shit.

    also in every bin i've seen power enrichment by default (and obviously when using a blm locker) only uses trims higher than 128 as a base. so it'll help compensate for lean conditions a bit, but happily dump a ton of fuel if trims are under 128...
    Yeah, as evident by crappy idle @ cold start and cold/warm/hot restart. I could feel it running rich w/o EEHack running.

    It runs a lot better now, and adjusting the stoich to 14.3 is what I have done on everything I've tuned.
    Today's fuel isn't what it was back in 1994.
    I'm no expert, and learn something new all the time from reading/asking/experimentation.
    Always nice that folks are so willing to help!

    One of these days I need to yank the wideband from my Jeep, and install it on the Caprice.
    I already added the wire on the PCM, just have to get motivated enough to crawl under there and weld in a bung.
    I have debated just pulling the o2, and using the simulated signal, that has worked in the past for me.
    Some say it isn't accurate, and causes issues, I never had a problem doing it that way in past.
    I have an Innovate MTX-L and really like it.

    After I get the MAF dialed in, I'd also like to tune the VE tables.
    Tony

    '88 Jeep Grand Wagoneer (aka Babywag)
    '67 Jeep J3000
    '07 Dodge Magnum SRT8

  8. #23
    Fuel Injected! babywag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by steveo View Post
    the differences in swing voltage is present in the y-body bins too. my best guess is the harness has a bit more resistance on one side than the other, since it's only a few mv.
    So just a follow up...I grabbed a spare junkyard pcm several months ago and I pulled the .bin off.
    It was actually a 4.3 baby LT1. Same year 1994 even.
    Same wiring harness, same 02 sensors, smaller engine(obviously).
    However, interestingly enough the o2 swing voltages are the same side to side.

    5.7 table and 4.3 table for comparison. Still seems odd to me for the diff in the 5.7 .bin
    Last edited by babywag; 12-01-2016 at 10:01 AM.
    Tony

    '88 Jeep Grand Wagoneer (aka Babywag)
    '67 Jeep J3000
    '07 Dodge Magnum SRT8

  9. #24
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,470
    Hi,

    Can you post the 4.3 bin.
    I`ve been looking for it a long time.

  10. #25
    Fuel Injected! babywag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by kur4o View Post
    Hi,

    Can you post the 4.3 bin.
    I`ve been looking for it a long time.
    Sure can...calibration ID 16199871, from a 1994 Caprice w/ 4.3 VIN 1G1BN52W7RR102356

    Any thoughts on why the difference on the 5.7 .bin?
    Last edited by babywag; 12-01-2016 at 06:17 PM.
    Tony

    '88 Jeep Grand Wagoneer (aka Babywag)
    '67 Jeep J3000
    '07 Dodge Magnum SRT8

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-05-2016, 01:06 AM
  2. New to the site with a couple 87 tbi projects
    By MxRace75 in forum Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-03-2014, 10:53 PM
  3. Suburban update and a couple ??s
    By 1BadAction in forum GM EFI Systems
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 06:32 PM
  4. A couple prob simple questions.
    By Playtoy_18 in forum GM EFI Systems
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-11-2013, 01:08 PM
  5. Couple of AutoProm questions
    By brianko in forum TunerPro Tuning Talk
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-26-2012, 10:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •