Notices
ECU Flash

PATCH: TephraMod V5

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 02:56 AM
  #811  
Asmodeus6's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh
Originally Posted by razorlab
That is probably because you have the CEL on Knock flash time of 2000ms and the first 3 count of knock was still firing the CEL for 2secs.

I set my CEL time to around 400ms. That way I know if the knock went away during the pull. The 2000ms was driving me crazy because one little knock spike would make the CEL flash during a whole 3rd gear pull, even if it was totally clean after the initial knock spike.
I did this a long time ago too. (On the old patch) That way you could see if the knock was stacking up, or was an isolated event. Without taking your eyes off the road during a pull.
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 07:48 AM
  #812  
tephra's Avatar
Thread Starter
EvoM Guru
15 Year Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,486
Likes: 67
From: Melbourne, Australia
I think there is a "bug/feature" where:

get 3 knock, slow flash for 2 seconds
get 8 knock, fast flash for 2 seconds
HOWEVER if 8 drops to 7...6...5.. then it will revert to the slow knock, rather than holding onto fast knock...

kinda undecided if this is bad and whether high knock should override low knock for 2 seconds...
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 08:04 AM
  #813  
leecavturbo's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,392
Likes: 2
From: uk
Originally Posted by tephra
I think there is a "bug/feature" where:

get 3 knock, slow flash for 2 seconds
get 8 knock, fast flash for 2 seconds
HOWEVER if 8 drops to 7...6...5.. then it will revert to the slow knock, rather than holding onto fast knock...

kinda undecided if this is bad and whether high knock should override low knock for 2 seconds...
i think its fine as it is, cus if you want fast flash before 8 then you would just
lower the value wouldn't you?
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 08:52 AM
  #814  
Smogrunner's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,558
Likes: 1
From: Inland Empire, CA
I'm doing two conversions at once. I'm switching my 94170008 to Tephra's 94170014 modified map. So I'm switching ROMs and adding the V5 patch. Here is my first issue. I don't understand how the boost limit table that comes standard on both the 0014 and the v5 patch .bin can be right. Here it is:



On my 0008 Rom the table is runs from 3000rpms to 7000rpms in 500rpm increments on the left, and all values on the right are set at 319.

I'm currently using a MBC so none of it really matters, but I want the setting to be right if I decide to switch back to ecu based boost control.

(Edit: I just noticed that it looks like the table selected comes from my original 100oct rom. It doesn't.)

Last edited by Smogrunner; Jul 19, 2008 at 08:55 AM.
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 09:07 AM
  #815  
gsrboi80's Avatar
Evolved Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
Liked
iTrader: (38)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,909
Likes: 47
From: On a cliff
The Boost Limit RPM address is wrong in the XML

change

<table name="Boost Limit" address="3614">
<table name="RPM" address="6b7e" elements="9" />


to

<table name="Boost Limit" address="3614">
<table name="RPM" address="6dd2" elements="9"/>


so it needs to be 6dd2 instead of 6b7e
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 12:19 PM
  #816  
Smogrunner's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,558
Likes: 1
From: Inland Empire, CA
Originally Posted by gsrboi80
The Boost Limit RPM address is wrong in the XML

change

<table name="Boost Limit" address="3614">
<table name="RPM" address="6b7e" elements="9" />


to

<table name="Boost Limit" address="3614">
<table name="RPM" address="6dd2" elements="9"/>


so it needs to be 6dd2 instead of 6b7e

Thank you. I can report to everyone that this change fixed the problem.
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 12:57 PM
  #817  
gsrboi80's Avatar
Evolved Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
Liked
iTrader: (38)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,909
Likes: 47
From: On a cliff
Sweet man glad to help you
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 01:06 PM
  #818  
fryedchikin's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by tephra
I think there is a "bug/feature" where:

get 3 knock, slow flash for 2 seconds
get 8 knock, fast flash for 2 seconds
HOWEVER if 8 drops to 7...6...5.. then it will revert to the slow knock, rather than holding onto fast knock...

kinda undecided if this is bad and whether high knock should override low knock for 2 seconds...
Thanks for clarifying how this is supposed to work .

However, if you a looking for suggestions, I would like the High knock warning to override the Low until the specified Flash time has expired. Maybe even be able to specify a different flash time for each threshold.
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 05:28 PM
  #819  
Smogrunner's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,558
Likes: 1
From: Inland Empire, CA
I'm excited to say that I have almost entirely completed the the transfer from from my 94170008 ROM to Tepra's 94170014 v5 patch. After doing so, I carefully followed Jack_of _Trades instructions on his Official 2 byte thread! to add 3D MUT table, 2 byte load, 2 byte rpm, and 2 byte air flow. It is amazing how much I have learned just following the processes. Big thanks to Jack of Trades too. I haven't tested it because I'm hoping to finish the last couple of changes first:
1. Lean spool enable and disable is on my old 0008 ROM but not on my new 0014 one.
2. I need to mod my EGR values again to avoid getting the CEL with the AMS VSR intake manifold.

I wasn't the one who added those originally, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Can I get a hand or even a link? Does the addition of the MUT table change the way I should proceed compared to before?


Last edited by Smogrunner; Jul 19, 2008 at 05:36 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 07:39 PM
  #820  
Asmodeus6's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh
Originally Posted by tephra
I think there is a "bug/feature" where:

get 3 knock, slow flash for 2 seconds
get 8 knock, fast flash for 2 seconds
HOWEVER if 8 drops to 7...6...5.. then it will revert to the slow knock, rather than holding onto fast knock...

kinda undecided if this is bad and whether high knock should override low knock for 2 seconds...
IMO what you described is a good thing. Then I can see the knock count is not increasing but; decreasing. And my foot stays on the loud pedal.

Instead of trying to keep track of how many times the CEL/knock has been triggered to see how many counts have stacked up. And then guessing if its just stubborn sitting on my limit, or has gone to some incredible block venting amount.

If what you say is a side effect of the current CEL/knock patch. Then it is a good one. Maybe I'll try the V5 patch eventually then.
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2008 | 07:41 PM
  #821  
RazorLab's Avatar
EvoM Guru
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,092
Likes: 1,090
From: Mid-Hudson, NY
Originally Posted by Smogrunner

I'm currently using a MBC so none of it really matters, but I want the setting to be right if I decide to switch back to ecu based boost control.
Boost limit 100% matters even with MBC. The boost limit is load based and is still active even if you use a MBC. I am willing to bet your boost cut delay timer has a huge MS setting in, basically turning the safety feature off.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2008 | 04:04 AM
  #822  
discodino's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
From: greece
Where can i download the tephra v5 patch
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2008 | 04:21 AM
  #823  
Asmodeus6's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh
page 1.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2008 | 06:07 AM
  #824  
juyanith's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Smogrunner, I'm curious why you converted to *014 instead of *015? I did this same conversion a little while ago and figured if I was going to go to the effort I'd just go to the latest. I was under the impression that the difference between the two was very minimal. Is there some reason to prefer *014?
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2008 | 08:05 AM
  #825  
Jim in Tucson's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 2
From: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Originally Posted by juyanith
Is there some reason to prefer *014?
I just went to the 014. It was my understanding the 014 (v5.1) is golden, but the 015 (v5.8) is not...yet.

Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:19 AM.