Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: High BLMs - 6870 ECM Fueling Calibrations ($1F updated mask)

  1. #1
    Electronic Ignition!
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    10

    High BLMs - 6870 ECM Fueling Calibrations ($1F updated mask)

    Greetings, Gearhead EFI Tuning Experts – In this installment of my ‘6870-ECM’d 350ci project, I’m soliciting the assistance of other early Gen3 and early C4 Corvette owners (original or otherwise) who have attempted to optimize the tune of their vehicles (original power plants or swaps) with the 6870 ECM.

    While I’m fully aware of the 6870’s limitations and the limited ‘6870-based tuning resources on Gearhead EFI, I do plan to move to a 7165-based ECM/compatible calibration PROM. In the meantime, I’d like to eke out max performance from the current power plant with the existing ECM/PROM combo (the PROM is a Hypertech155332 – yeah, yeah, I know). As part of this task, I’m requesting assistance from the various Gearhead EFI experts in this forum to help me understand the significance of various fueling calibrations specific to the 6870 ECM (and its corresponding $1F_updated mask).

    Taken directly from a HLK bin (’85 F-body/700R4/5.0L), I’ve listed here the fueling calibration details:

    Scalars:
    a) Stoichiometric Air/Fuel Ratio = 14.73
    b) Minimum allowable BLM = 105
    c) Maximum allowable BLM = 160
    d) Minimum Closed-loop Integrator Value = 65
    e) Maximum Closed-loop Integrator Value = 160
    f) AE Enable Minimum ΔLV8 Threshold = 255 counts
    g) Power Enrichment Minimum ΔLV8 Threshold = 130 counts
    h) AE ΔTPSPW Scale Factor = 0.31 Multiplier
    i) AE Enable Positive ΔTPS Threshold = 1.95 %TPS
    j) AE Disable Negative ΔTPS Threshold = 1.95 %TPS

    Tables:
    a) Injector PW vs LV8
    b) TPS Threshold vs RPM to Enable WOT
    c) %Change to Fuel/Air Ratio at WOT vs Coolant Temperature
    d) %Change to Fuel/Air Ratio at WOT vs RPM
    e) %Change to Fuel/Air Ratio vs Coolant Temperature (open loop)
    f) %Change to Fuel/Air Ratio vs LV8 (open loop)
    g) IAC Warm Park Position vs Coolant Temperature
    h) AE ΔTPS Pulse Multiplier vs AE Pulse Number
    i) AE ΔTPS Pulse Multiplier vs Coolant Temperature
    j) Injector Offset vs Battery Voltage
    k) Injector Low PW Correction vs Injector PW
    l) ΔTPS AE Injector Pulses vs Coolant Temperature
    m) AE ΔLV8 Injector Pulse Multiplier vs ΔLV8
    n) AE ΔLV8 Injector Pulse Multiplier vs Coolant Temperature
    o) AE ΔLV8 Decay Rate vs Coolant Temperature
    p) Crank Fuel Injector PW vs Coolant Temperature
    q) Crank Fuel Injector PW Multiplier vs %TPS

    After pouring over multiple threads on this and other fora as well as reading Banish’s two books on EFI and Tuning, here’s my understanding of the various calibrations and where applied:

    1) At crank and idle: Scalars [a-e] and Tables [a, e, f, g, j, k, p, and q]
    2) At part-throttle and cruise: Scalars [a-e, f, h-j] and Tables [a, b, c, d, f, h, i,j, k, l, m, n, o]
    3) WOT or “Power Enhancement”: Scalars [a-j] and Tables [a, b, d, e, f, h, i, j, k, l,m, n, o]

    Interestingly, nowhere in either the HLK (305ci Camaro) or the HLH (350ci Corvette) bins is there a scalar explicitly listed for “injector constant.” Gen3 V8’s of the era ran 19 lb/hr injectors in the 5.0Ls and 22 lb/hr injectors in the 5.7Ls.

    In my particular case, the engine builder swapped out the locked-up, stock 5.0L for a FT-cam’d 5.7L GM crate engine and re-used the 5.0L’s stock MAFS/TPI intake, stock FPR, and 19 lb/hr fuel injectors (Rochester 5235047). The MAFS/TPI intake and FI combo is attached to an L98 intake manifold. Corvette ZZ4 aluminum heads, Hedman headers, and a 3” Flowmaster cat-back exhaust system complete the package.

    As a result of this configuration, I’ve been operating and have datalogged a “perceived lean” operating V8 at both idle and part-throttle/high-speed cruise with BLMs as high as 160.

    First and foremost in attacking the high BLM (“perceived lean”) conditions are to:


    • …track down and fix any air-meter, vacuum, and/or exhaust leaks;
    • …replace the tired, stock FPR with a Holley AFPR (or equivalent);
    • …replace the old 19 lb/hr Rochester injectors with 22 lb/hr Bosch III (or better) injectors.


    Thanks in advance and I look forward to any/all feedback.

  2. #2
    Carb and Points!
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5
    Being an owner of a 85 Corvette i'm interested..It's a very limited ecm,most guys here swap,as you want, to the next generation 165 as a MAF option,or ,they go directly to a 730-727 speed density ecm.These are well documented ecm's and bins ,not to mention the very limited baud rate of a 870 (160 vs 8192)this limits the data flow while logging.
    You figured out the attacks point very well.Be very carefull when choosing your new injectors since their flowing rate ,a part from nominal data are very sensitive.For example early C4 TPI like the 85 was known to use a one year 24lb injectors fired at 38 PSI.Next MY under the 165 used the 22lb fired at 40-42 psi. Actual Bosch gen III injectors are modern units using 22- 24lb bosch III you could end up with an opposite situation of a very rich AFR.The 870 doesn't use a scalar INJECTOR FLOW RATE as the 730 ,so i think "WE" have to play with Injector PW vs LV8 as a "base pulse width" vs load or LV8.
    Last edited by tunedport; 02-07-2018 at 04:12 PM.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator dave w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,279
    I'm a HUGE fan of the '7730 $8D TPI Engine Control Module. Upgrading to the '7730 $8D is a proven and solid upgrade. There is an overwhelming amount technical and tuning information for the '7730 $8D.

    dave w

  4. #4
    Electronic Ignition!
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by tunedport View Post
    Being an owner of a 85 Corvette i'm interested..It's a very limited ecm,most guys here swap,as you want, to the next generation 165 as a MAF option,or ,they go directly to a 730-727 speed density ecm.These are well documented ecm's and bins ,not to mention the very limited baud rate of a 870 (160 vs 8192)this limits the data flow while logging.
    You figured out the attacks point very well.Be very carefull when choosing your new injectors since their flowing rate ,a part from nominal data are very sensitive.For example early C4 TPI like the 85 was known to use a one year 24lb injectors fired at 38 PSI.Next MY under the 165 used the 22lb fired at 40-42 psi. Actual Bosch gen III injectors are modern units using 22- 24lb bosch III you could end up with an opposite situation of a very rich AFR.The 870 doesn't use a scalar INJECTOR FLOW RATE as the 730 ,so i think "WE" have to play with Injector PW vs LV8 as a "base pulse width" vs load or LV8.
    Many thanks for your reply, tunedport - I figured an AFPR would allow me the latitude of some adjustment using the existing weak-ass injectors. That I expect the BLM datalogs after the AFPR install to drop below 160 at part-throttle and high-speed cruise, then I'm on the right track to replace the 19 lb/hr Rochester 5235047s with improved 22s or 24s. That you mentioned adjusting the injector PW values in the "Injector PW vs LV8" table is interesting - I managed to plot across three bins (HLH, HLK, and ABTT) the base injector PWs and found that HLH and ABTT injector PWs overlay each other whereas, in the HLH bin, the injector PWs for the 19 lb/hr injectors are larger for LV8s > 80.

    Once I've a firm handle on the current tune with new injectors and, after the 7165 ECM upgrade, I may opt to install a slightly more aggressive roller cam over the mild-mannered FT cam in the engine now (intake 194 deg/0.383" lift, exh 202 deg/0.401" lift, 112 deg LSA). If my thinking's on the right track with a more aggressive roller cam, the ECM might perceive a lean operating condition with 22 lb/hr injectors.

    Any other comments and suggestions are most welcome.

  5. #5
    Electronic Ignition!
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by dave w View Post
    I'm a HUGE fan of the '7730 $8D TPI Engine Control Module. Upgrading to the '7730 $8D is a proven and solid upgrade. There is an overwhelming amount technical and tuning information for the '7730 $8D.

    dave w
    Noted with many thanks, dave w; I'll proceed on my current learning curve to improve the tune with the existing configuration. Once I've a tune well understood/optimized, I'll transition to the 7165. Any other comments and suggestions are most welcome.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-08-2017, 08:00 AM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-26-2016, 06:44 AM
  3. Perfect BLMs every time!
    By EagleMark in forum GM EFI Systems
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-07-2014, 07:08 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-20-2012, 03:09 AM
  5. IAC Logic for 1227747 Robert Rauscher 10/14/2000, updated 12/4/00
    By EagleMark in forum Fuel Injection Writeups Articles and How to New and Old
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-2012, 03:41 AM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •