9653006v5 WORKS for 05 USDM (9694011)
One of your definitions in your xml got messed up.
When it scrambles like that you have a code problem, or it's looking in the wrong place for the information. It should NOT do that. And it has nothing to do with the rom change.
(I know you don't I?)
When it scrambles like that you have a code problem, or it's looking in the wrong place for the information. It should NOT do that. And it has nothing to do with the rom change.
(I know you don't I?)
Last edited by Asmodeus6; Jul 9, 2009 at 10:06 AM.
Yeah I did. I'm having a slight fuel consumption issue. Wasn't really paying attention in class (looking at the WB) lately I guess.
My open loop threshold seems to be bullsh*t. 1-2psi and the car goes 11-1. Which means part throttle cruising up a hill becomes a horrendous waste of fuel. So much so... it took me nearly an hour to scrub the back end of my car.
What doesn't make sense to me at all is nowhere in my fuel maps am I even remotely near anything resembling an 11-1 A/F ratio. In fact, if I go WOT it leans back up to more closely resemble my fuel map.
I have lean spool off. Problem seems to be mostly in 5th gear at low rpm. I went back and checked the 9694 vs 9653 open loop load tables and they are not the same. Although similar enough... it shouldn't be so different from how it was before.
I could tip in pretty far before and get almost 8psi or so... enough my meth light would start to flicker before I would really come out of closed loop. What this translates to; is me going from 2X mpg to 1X mpg. I've been doing a lot more pulls tuning the boost and tables and such... but I have to REALLY watch touching the gas at all now.
Are the open loop load tables 'good' on this rom? I know I cannot touch accel enrichment tables as they are not correct.
But being able to keep the car in closed loop longer would be really nice. I could do the opposite and tune it for being in open loop... but I have no idea why it's so damn rich on the bottom.
I noticed the maf scaling was different as well. But my ltft low isn't far off, and mid is pretty close to 0. So I don't think I have a huge problem there either.
Maybe it's a combination of all 3 things boning me right now. Any thoughts before I start screwing with stuff?
My open loop threshold seems to be bullsh*t. 1-2psi and the car goes 11-1. Which means part throttle cruising up a hill becomes a horrendous waste of fuel. So much so... it took me nearly an hour to scrub the back end of my car.
What doesn't make sense to me at all is nowhere in my fuel maps am I even remotely near anything resembling an 11-1 A/F ratio. In fact, if I go WOT it leans back up to more closely resemble my fuel map.
I have lean spool off. Problem seems to be mostly in 5th gear at low rpm. I went back and checked the 9694 vs 9653 open loop load tables and they are not the same. Although similar enough... it shouldn't be so different from how it was before.
I could tip in pretty far before and get almost 8psi or so... enough my meth light would start to flicker before I would really come out of closed loop. What this translates to; is me going from 2X mpg to 1X mpg. I've been doing a lot more pulls tuning the boost and tables and such... but I have to REALLY watch touching the gas at all now.
Are the open loop load tables 'good' on this rom? I know I cannot touch accel enrichment tables as they are not correct.
But being able to keep the car in closed loop longer would be really nice. I could do the opposite and tune it for being in open loop... but I have no idea why it's so damn rich on the bottom.
I noticed the maf scaling was different as well. But my ltft low isn't far off, and mid is pretty close to 0. So I don't think I have a huge problem there either.
Maybe it's a combination of all 3 things boning me right now. Any thoughts before I start screwing with stuff?
When updating to 96530006, do we need to update the MAF Raw scaling and compensation/smoothing from the 96940011 or does this new ROM work well with the default values and not screw up closed loop tuning?
Better search terms found this sorry - One more thing I just noticed, are there startup latency and pulse width vs ECT adders defined for this ROM?
Better search terms found this sorry - One more thing I just noticed, are there startup latency and pulse width vs ECT adders defined for this ROM?
Last edited by thermaldynamics; Jul 14, 2009 at 07:43 PM.
John - I just took a look at the disasm - you can use elements=16 for the OpenLoop Loads ie
Code:
<table name="Open Loop Load # 1" address="3624"> <table name="RPM" address="6594" elements="16"/> </table> <table name="Open Loop Load # 2" address="363a"> <table name="RPM" address="6594" elements="16"/> </table> <table name="Open Loop Throttle Low Load" address="3656"> <table name="RPM" address="6594" elements="16"/> </table> <table name="Open Loop Throttle High Load" address="366c"> <table name="RPM" address="6594" elements="16"/> </table>
No, you can't just increase the sizes of the maps in your defs. The size of the maps are fixed in the ROM. The space before and after the maps is other code and/or maps. If you try to simply increase the size of a particular map, you will be spilling over into this other code and rewriting that.
lol, I think I'll take your word for it.
I figured I would ask one more time about adding elements. I had no idea how the file is written to memory whether it simply over writes data that is in its way or shifts everything out making room for the added values.
I figured I would ask one more time about adding elements. I had no idea how the file is written to memory whether it simply over writes data that is in its way or shifts everything out making room for the added values.
I am still having stalling issues on one car when converting. I logged the ISC steps last night and both were the same, between 15-22. Now that 2 byte load is working i don't think i will worry about it, just tune it and be done.
