Notices
ECU Flash

Going back to 94170015

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 12:56 PM
  #1  
Appauldd's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,408
Likes: 7
From: Northern KY near Cincy
Going back to 94170015

I've played with v7 and I am just not happy with the number of "issues" for USDM VIII cars to go to the "universal" 9653 variant rom. I resolved nearly every issue and for the most part I was pretty satisfied with it until my rev limiter quit working.

SO....myelf and some others has been testing a tuning a v7 version of 94170015 rom labeled 94170715.

I flashed the car back and.......
Rev limiter works as desired.
No cold start issues.
Idle is rock steady. (no more hunting or 2K rev)
No throttle hang at all.

I have nearly every table that was discovered in 9653 for my 94170015 but a few.

I am looking for addresses for the following tables. XML from 9653 below.

Code:
	

WARM-UP CONTROL

We need accurately defined locations in other roms in order to find this stuff in 9417. Please post if you have accurate tables in other roms.


ISCV CONTROL

	<table name="ISCV Demand CTS Adder #2** (Post WOT) (sub_1F1F8) [sub_1EFC0]" category="ISCV Control" address="5a54" type="2D" level="1" scaling="ISCV_AX2_8">
		<table name="Coolant Temp" address="6a50" type="Y Axis" elements="8" scaling="Temp"/>
	</table>

	<table name="ISCV Demand CTS Adder #2*** (Post WOT) (sub_1F2C6) [sub_1EFC0]" category="ISCV Control" address="5a70" type="2D" level="1" scaling="ISCV_AX2_8">
		<table name="Coolant Temp" address="6a50" type="Y Axis" elements="8" scaling="Temp"/>
	</table>

	<table name="ISCV Demand RPM Adder (Moderated by Baro, IATS) (FFFF6EA8) (sub_204B6) [sub_1EFC0]" category="ISCV Control" address="651c" type="2D" level="1" scaling="ISCV_AX2_8">
		<table name="RPM" address="7b70" type="Y Axis" elements="10" scaling="RPM"/>
	</table>

	<table name="ISCV Demand Baro Adder**** (FFFF7C0E) (sub_1F6E6) [sub_1EFC0]" category="ISCV Control" address="64fe" type="2D" level="1" scaling="ISCV_AX2_8">
		<table name="Baro" address="6608" type="Y Axis" elements="5" scaling="Baro16"/>
	</table>

Please help me hook up 9417 to the same level as 9653

UPDATE:

Tephra has posted 94170715 on the v7 thread here....https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...hramod-v7.html

BUT....at this time the XML is very limited. We have every table but the few listed above. Once we conclude the rest of the xml listing it will be updated by Phenem in the same thread, so please be patient.

94170715 is an amazing rom. It required little to no additional tweaking of unusual tables to make it run well. Actually many of the tables that had to be "tuned" in 9653 simply remain with stock values in 94170715.

This rom will work for 03-04 VIIIs. More testing is required to verify it will work in 05s as well.

For the record...94170715 has all of the bells and whistles we have come to love from Tephra. Thanks so much for your hard work.

There is not an SD version for this rom.


UPDATE 7 Feb 10

I posted the rom and xml on the wiki.....http://evoecu.logic.net/wiki/File:94170715-v7.zip

**You will see that the user level is higher on some tables. These will show up as blue tables. I did that as an easy way to determine what tables are incorrect. The blue tables are incorrect. I say again the blue tables are incorrect. Any editing or changing of the values in these blue tables could have adverse affects.**

UPDATE 10 Feb 10

Through the use of Acamus's phenomenal coding skills (Thanks Acamus) we were able to define a few more tables. It appears that some of the ISCV demand stuff may not be correct in 9653 so finding the correct ones in 9417 is proving to be difficult.

UPDATE 18 Feb 10

Thanks again Acamus for your help in finding more definitions. I uploaded the latest and greatest XML to the wiki.

http://evoecu.logic.net/wiki/File:94170715-v7.zip

You will need the previous version to get the rom and the new xml link above to be current with 94170715.

UPDATE 21 APR 10

Thanks for all the hard work defining the proper gear based and psi based boost control problems.

Updated XML is on the wiki....

http://evoecu.logic.net/wiki/File:94170715-v7.zip


If anyone has any additional findings please send them to me so that I can keep the file up to date.

Last edited by Appauldd; Apr 21, 2010 at 07:44 PM. Reason: UPDATING FINDINGS.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 12:58 PM
  #2  
project_skyline's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,532
Likes: 1
From: Colorado
Did you have any problems with v6? Cause I switched over to the universal rom v6 form 94170015 and my car ran better...
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:01 PM
  #3  
Appauldd's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,408
Likes: 7
From: Northern KY near Cincy
I never ran v6. I went from 5.10 to the new v7 9653.

Are you on v6 9417 now???
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:02 PM
  #4  
GST Motorsports's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 2
From: Hayward
Rev limiter or launch limiter stopped working?

I wonder if those small issues you pointed out are 03-04 specific (they do have different tbodys, map sensors, etc)

My cold starts have stayed the same (excellent even on E85 in 20F) and no idle hunting, and my rev limiter still works.

05 Evo

- Bryan

Last edited by GST Motorsports; Feb 1, 2010 at 01:04 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:04 PM
  #5  
Appauldd's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,408
Likes: 7
From: Northern KY near Cincy
Did v6 have the boost control tables like v7? As in the ability to have gear based psi or load controlled boost control???
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:04 PM
  #6  
Appauldd's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,408
Likes: 7
From: Northern KY near Cincy
Both stopped working.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:06 PM
  #7  
Boosted Tuning's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,383
Likes: 8
From: Chico, CA (Nor-Cal)
Cool news.

I have never been a fan of 9653 on a USDM car. I always found that 9417 drove smoother and better then 9653 on car I tested. Especially a 05 that was running 9653.

Soon it will all be better.....
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:06 PM
  #8  
travman's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh
Very weird......

I helped set up a friends 03 VIII with the V7 version prior to Big maps and his car ran great - after i adjusted the BISS his car idled and drove rock solid. Soon as we do the turbo install and stuff this weekend it will be getting the big maps version...

but he has zero complaints and drives the car daily prior to when he parked it for the winter to get his new goodies on. Also never noticed any throttle hang when i was tuning his injectors and we were getting a base tune done for his 1000's. I will see what happens when i flash thefinal big map version on - hopefully nothing changes.

Also 0xDEADs dsm runs V7 and his stationary limiter works - i was there for initial testing when we were playing with launch stuff and he confirmed he did testing this weekend and it worked when he got his wiring done. Strange it works for some and not others.....

Last edited by travman; Feb 1, 2010 at 01:09 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:07 PM
  #9  
project_skyline's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,532
Likes: 1
From: Colorado
Originally Posted by Appauldd
I never ran v6. I went from 5.10 to the new v7 9653.

Are you on v6 9417 now???
Im on v6 96300063 or whatever, im going to v7 today.

Originally Posted by Appauldd
Did v6 have the boost control tables like v7? As in the ability to have gear based psi or load controlled boost control???
It did but I haven't used them.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:12 PM
  #10  
Appauldd's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,408
Likes: 7
From: Northern KY near Cincy
Originally Posted by project_skyline

It did but I haven't used them.
Can you post or send me the xml and or the address for the tables??


As for the "issues" being small, yes they essentially are. The thing is that "issues" continue to come up. I am just getting tired of working to solve the "issues" all of the time. I want to work on tuning my car rather than fixing problems.

It does seem that 03-04 VIIIs see the majority of the problems with v7 9653. I would assume it has to do with the difference as mentioned above.

If all goes as planned I should be able to do everything that v7 9653 can do here soon.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:13 PM
  #11  
GST Motorsports's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 2
From: Hayward
Originally Posted by Boosted Tuning
Cool news.

I have never been a fan of 9653 on a USDM car. I always found that 9417 drove smoother and better then 9653 on car I tested. Especially a 05 that was running 9653.

Soon it will all be better.....
Runs just fine on my 05 Evo. It's actually a bit smoother then the original rom ID.

- Bryan
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:16 PM
  #12  
Appauldd's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,408
Likes: 7
From: Northern KY near Cincy
I believe that the "smoother" running car is mostly due to the big maps and the ECU not having to interpolate so much.

Please let's not turn this into a debate on which one is better than the other. My intention is to draw in some information so I can make my 9417 as well defined as v7.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:16 PM
  #13  
Boosted Tuning's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,383
Likes: 8
From: Chico, CA (Nor-Cal)
Originally Posted by GST Motorsports
Runs just fine on my 05 Evo. It's actually a bit smoother then the original rom ID.

- Bryan
Im talking about the 05 EVO that had on 9653. I put on 9417 with the same exact tune (every table copied the same) and the car ran way smoother.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:17 PM
  #14  
Boosted Tuning's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,383
Likes: 8
From: Chico, CA (Nor-Cal)
Originally Posted by Appauldd
I believe that the "smoother" running car is mostly due to the big maps and the ECU not having to interpolate so much.

Please let's not turn this into a debate on which one is better than the other. My intention is to draw in some information so I can make my 9417 as well defined as v7.
I used 9417 V5.1, so there was no BIGMAPS.

And yes, no debating, just sharing info
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2010 | 01:20 PM
  #15  
GST Motorsports's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 2
From: Hayward
Originally Posted by Boosted Tuning
Im talking about the 05 EVO that had on 9653. I put on 9417 with the same exact tune (every table copied the same) and the car ran way smoother.
? That is what I said as well. My personal 05 Evo runs 9653 V7 with none of the issues so far. I had pretty much the same tune copied over as well.


- Bryan
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:44 PM.