94-95 $EE xdf (EEXTRA)

[jthompson122183]

been looking at this XDF with my noob eyes and (in addition to the ton of new parameters) I noticed a difference at address 0x12046 (unknown spark adder vs. EST sytem time lag, 2 digit usec vs 1 digit integer display). Dunno if it means anything but it may be helpful to know, I have it set to 0 in my bin so I don't have to try to account for added spark when working with the main advance tables...

Here's what I have on file.


Hi Jonathon,

This is the EST system time lag and is meant to correct for the latency in the spark system. It is a fixed value in usec:

lag (usec.) = N x 0.08477

Of course since the time lag is a fix time value the correction in terms of degrees will depend on RPM.

Best regards,

TC

[Dirtybob]

Here's what I have on file. Hi Jonathon, This is the EST system time lag and is meant to correct for the latency in the spark system. It is a fixed value in usec: lag (usec.) = N x 0.08477 Of course since the time lag is a fix time value the correction in terms of degrees will depend on RPM. Best regards, TC

thanks for the info

[troutdog311]

Thanks excited to check this out later!

[kevm14]

Has this exposed any kind of kickdown delay constant? In B-body applications, the 4L60E is significantly more responsive to a kickdown in the 9C1/Impala SS applications, than the Roadmaster or Fleetwood applications. And I have a Roadmaster where the kickdown delay is maddening. I just got this 96 Roadmaster so my head is spinning as I figure out what my best tuning options are (very limited if I stay with the 96 PCM, I know).

EDIT: I loaded the VDF and searched. This is what I see. Not sure what to think. Is there no delay code?

[Aroberson77]

I will definitely check this out, thanks for the continued work on $EE

[Boise]

NOT bad considering weight and altitude.

I will be glad to see some logs at that baro.
If you go lower altitudes make some logs to see if your tune is off the chart and how good is PCM at correction.


You can find the patch in the xdf posted in this thread
http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Inj...E-xdf-(EEXTRA)

It has "cell 16 duplicate" in the name.

Here in Idaho, it's pretty much all UP from where I'm at at 2700'MSL.
The car used to live in Albany NY running mainly at ~20-400'MSL. Once we moved to BOI, the MIL would come on regularly. That's when I found using a regular Craftsman OBD1 scanner that BLMs were correcting too far lean outside the allowable norm apparently.
Having already some small experience with LSx OBD2 logging and tuning (HPT), and thanks to folks who call this board home I learned how to crack into ye old $EE. I then reacharacterized what I found to be way-wrong MAF tables, which were the source of major closed loop fueling correction to the lean side. I'll bet it was always there, correction within allowable limits, but just got exacerbated by moving to a high-altitude state moving the corrections over that line. Running E10 in NY likely masked it too, but we are now able to get E0 here in all grades, so using that exclusively also drives CL and BLMs to attempt a true 14.7:1, not a fake 14.7:1 stoich' that is actually 14.1:1 or so.
I'll know more when I get my WB hooked up as to the honesty of the CL method of reporting fueling, and actual resulting PE mixture from my tables. Good clean fun, this stuff.

Thanks for the tip on the patch, I'll look forward to learning more about that!

[jthompson122183]

Here in Idaho, it's pretty much all UP from where I'm at at 2700'MSL.
The car used to live in Albany NY running mainly at ~20-400'MSL. Once we moved to BOI, the MIL would come on regularly. That's when I found using a regular Craftsman OBD1 scanner that BLMs were correcting too far lean outside the allowable norm apparently.
Having already some small experience with LSx OBD2 logging and tuning (HPT), and thanks to folks who call this board home I learned how to crack into ye old $EE. I then reacharacterized what I found to be way-wrong MAF tables, which were the source of major closed loop fueling correction to the lean side. I'll bet it was always there, correction within allowable limits, but just got exacerbated by moving to a high-altitude state moving the corrections over that line. Running E10 in NY likely masked it too, but we are now able to get E0 here in all grades, so using that exclusively also drives CL and BLMs to attempt a true 14.7:1, not a fake 14.7:1 stoich' that is actually 14.1:1 or so.
I'll know more when I get my WB hooked up as to the honesty of the CL method of reporting fueling, and actual resulting PE mixture from my tables. Good clean fun, this stuff.

Thanks for the tip on the patch, I'll look forward to learning more about that!

maybe you were trying to reply to this thread?

http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Inj...-thing!/page63

[jthompson122183]

Has this exposed any kind of kickdown delay constant? In B-body applications, the 4L60E is significantly more responsive to a kickdown in the 9C1/Impala SS applications, than the Roadmaster or Fleetwood applications. And I have a Roadmaster where the kickdown delay is maddening. I just got this 96 Roadmaster so my head is spinning as I figure out what my best tuning options are (very limited if I stay with the 96 PCM, I know).


EDIT: I loaded the VDF and searched. This is what I see. Not sure what to think. Is there no delay code?

I have labeled way more in this coming up release, you might just find the answer your looking for.

[dzidaV8]

Here's my updated EEXTRA, maybe you'll find something new in it :) I have added some parameters for evaporator temperature sensor and A/C low charge.

[jthompson122183]

Here's my updated EEXTRA, maybe you'll find something new in it :) I have added some parameters for evaporator temperature sensor and A/C low charge.

Thank you for the contribution to the xdf. Ill have it added in with credit for source of information.

[Lockdun1]

I’m super happy to see you obd 1 swapped your a4 I’m trying to do the same to my vette now. I’m waiting on the resistor for the pcm and the cable so I can give this a shot. How did you deal with the transmission electronics issue?

[jthompson122183]

I’m super happy to see you obd 1 swapped your a4 I’m trying to do the same to my vette now. I’m waiting on the resistor for the pcm and the cable so I can give this a shot. How did you deal with the transmission electronics issue?

I responded to your pm

[jthompson122183]

I’m super happy to see you obd 1 swapped your a4 I’m trying to do the same to my vette now. I’m waiting on the resistor for the pcm and the cable so I can give this a shot. How did you deal with the transmission electronics issue?

I bought a sonnax reman valve body kit for 250$
I had people online tell me that pcm for less may change something in the tune but nobody has pony up a copy of there tune so i could see what was changed. i have a feeling they are either maxing out(100%) the 3 -> 2 Solenoid Duty Cycle vs. Baro vs. MPH table or copying the 3->2 operating system code from 96/97

[lionelhutz]

I’m super happy to see you obd 1 swapped your a4 I’m trying to do the same to my vette now. I’m waiting on the resistor for the pcm and the cable so I can give this a shot. How did you deal with the transmission electronics issue?

I'm running a 96 transmission with a 95 $EE PCM. It's worked fine with no special changes being made.

[robertgun16]

can anyone help me with tuning my 94 z28. i installed a paxton novi gss supercharger and the guy i paid to tune it is playing games, saying its mechanical and its not the tune. i had a tuning shop look at the tune and they said that its bad and needs a retune, i dont have enough for a shop to tune the car and the guy doesn't want to tune it right. i went over everything and nothings wrong with the engine and car. stock injector's and tune works fine. but his tune 60lb injector's and the supercharger it pops and bangs at idle. any help would be grate