View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:33 pm Post subject: Tuning idea. |
|
|
Ok.. does anybody know of a device that functions like this? I almost have one but not quite.
Here's what I'm thinking. Using a wideband O2 sensor to signal some electronics that will send a modified narrow band signal to the ecm in order to fool it into going to a set AFR.
Right now I have a device that I can set to a certain boost or vacuum level and then it will modify the o2 sensor signal to enrichen the mixture to a set point. I've semi automated this because it has a 2nd trigger input that you can set to a predetermined voltage. I've connected this to my wideband so that as this thing richens the mixture, if it goes past a certain point (11.5 at the moment) it shuts off the device thus allowing it to lean out again until the device kicks back in.
I'm thinking that a box could be built that you would say set to 12.5afr read by a wideband. It would then simulate a narrow band o2 sensor reading of either rich or lean depending on which side of 12.5 you are and feed that back into the factory ecm. This would have to have a built in map like my current device so that you can set a turn on point. Basically a sort of self tuner.
Anybody seen anything like that? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alphius Peanut
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 2429 Location: Grand Mound
1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any Innovate wideband has a simulated narrowband output where you can program the curve any way you want. You could set the simulated narrowband output to switch at any AFR.
One of many reasons I've always preferred Innovate over AEM.
Check out page 8 and on in this document:
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/support/manual/MTX-L_Manual.pdf _________________ 84 Camaro Z28 - LS1/T56
85 Silverado - Low and Slow |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Still needs a map switch and need to fool 2 sensors.. which could mean buying a 2nd innovate. The thing I have does fool 4 sensors allready with the boost switch.. Kind of need a combination of the 2. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alphius Peanut
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 2429 Location: Grand Mound
1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I see what you mean. Sounds like you need a MegaSquirt. _________________ 84 Camaro Z28 - LS1/T56
85 Silverado - Low and Slow |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
An MS2 kit is $279.00 from DIYAutotune. You'd spend that much plus a lot of wasted time screwing around trying to trick the stock ECU. I know you love electronic projects Brandon, it's time to step up your ECU game. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ms won't work for either of my projects however. Car would require a full on EFI changeover. Jeep has a special crank trigger timing that only the newest megasquirt can cover. And it would kill my dashboard/bcm functionality. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, now that you mention it I think we did talk about that in person at some point.
You could just go completely off the rails and do an MS3 and Autolites and just make a full-on project out of it.
There's also the option of using an older/cheaper/simpler MS and a wideband to do your stock ECU fooling. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is actually for the jeep.. car defintely doesn't need any kind of close loop fooling.
I am however about to burn a chip for the car. I finally found a good definition file for the 8097 ecm. It's been purged from most everywhere or only known connections are dead links.
Figure on starting with the ZZ4 bin. Looking at it, I may want to add a bit more start timing. Might also go back to ecm control of the tcc since I'll be able to play with those numbers now too.
Of course the burner I have doesn't specifically list the old fashioned 2532 chip that this ecm uses. But I found a hack to make an adapter and then you burn it as a 2732. Crazy thing, I found the hack on my Atari forums lol. Almost all the links for actually burning that kind of chip take you back to the Atari people.
Something else kinda funny. I can actually buy an eprom burner that works on my atari.. and burn a chip for my formula! I almost want to buy one just for that. It was just re-released this week too. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I figured it was Jeep related when you said BCM.
I'm glad to hear you've hunted down the burner for the LG4, I can't imagine GM or Hypertune chips are worth beans. ECM control of the trans is a definite win. The vacuum setups work, but IME they're annoying to drive with. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've searched for those definition files before but all the links usually go back to Moates. Moates evidently purged them when they moved the files to the Gearhead site. Finally found someone else who had them on the monte site, just had to join up to d/l them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chips came today. Just gave it a try and looks like my home made adapter worked great. Burned, verified, and I even read the new chip and checked it by eyeball. Now to give a try in the car.
Had me worried because the original Prom isn't readable with this burner. Has to be read as a 2564 and almost every pin is different. Seems strange to me that 2 chips that can be so different can work in the same spot. But they seem to be successful on the monte forum. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tried a plain ZZ4 chip. Idle stabilized with this chip. Seems to run very good. Odd about the idle, I only see an additional 2* of idle timing over the hypertech. Wonder what else has changed?
Tried to read the hypertech chip, it reads and show's data but it's gibberish in tunerpro. I see other people have had the same issue. Some kind of copyprotection scheme.
Does anybody know the base timing setting for the zz4 prom? I'm thinking it should be advanced more then the stock proms. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Twilightoptics Hardcore (12sec Club)
Joined: 13 Jan 2004 Posts: 9191 Location: Auburn , WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Base timing is a setting. Look for it in the bin. _________________ A redline a day keeps the carbon away! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh i've seen that base timing. That is set @ 6*. I mean what is the distributor supposed to be set for when using this chip.
I've found one mention that says 10* but then they said that their car actually ran better @ 8 instead.
With distributor set at 0* right now there's 24* @ idle. Hypertech had 22*. 10* @ the distributor sounds a bit high to me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Or are you saying that since it says 6* that, that is what I should set the distributor to with the EST disconnected? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok.. I don't have access to an lg4 bin, but checking the l69 bin it says 6* initial in the bin and I've found base timing should be set to 6*. I'm thinking that's where the timing tables are programmed to start.
So I need to bump my static timing up from the lg4's 0* to the l69/zz4's 6*.
I thought that setting was for telling the ecm the amount of timing to add once it took over timing control when you start. But it makes sense that you're actually telling the ecm where you set the distributor. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, base timing is where the ECM is physically expecting the distributor to be. GM moved it around a bit from one engine to the next. The LG4 and L03 were both straight up, the TPI cars got varying amounts of advance.
*2 of idle timing can help a lot. GM was way too conservative in this area IMO. Stock TPI cars idled at 20*, mine with a stock cam was much happier at 24*, yours may like even more.
Also consider that the Hypertech timing may have been too curved at idle and just above which causes it to hunt a bit. IME you want all the idle cells to have exactly the same timing to keep it smooth. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Twilightoptics Hardcore (12sec Club)
Joined: 13 Jan 2004 Posts: 9191 Location: Auburn , WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
What Aaron said.
However, I wouldn't bother changing your base timing. Just change the value in the bin to 0º. Then the computer knows the distributor is in at zero, and will adjust accordingly. _________________ A redline a day keeps the carbon away! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Too late.. its set to 6* now. But this seems to be a major piece of the puzzle. Idle went up to 1125 after setting timing.. so I backed it back off to 900. Drop it in gear and it idles fine at 700 now.
Chip is completely stock ZZ4 bin at the moment. I need to get back under the car. Have to do another governor adjustment and hook the TCC back to the ECM and give that a try.
Trying not to burn another chip until my ZIF socket arrives. All radioshack had for sockets when I made my adapter were regular dip sockets. I mangled one of my 2 blank chips trying to insert it.
Funny how you can read things 2 ways and it makes all the difference which way you choose. No wonder the Monte SS guys weren't having much luck @ 10* ! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alphius Peanut
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 2429 Location: Grand Mound
1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Already covered, but yes, the base timing is what you set the distributor to so your timing tables actually mean what they say. If your base timing is 6* and you set your distributor to 10*, then you'll always be giving the engine 4* more timing than the table calls for, e.g. 24* when the table says 20*. With the capability to burn chips, you'll always want to match them up and set your actual desired timing in the tables.
The idle instability in gear makes a lot of sense if you were running 6* less timing than called for. Low timing at idle makes the engine very susceptible to load change such as putting it in gear, which you saw. Like Aaron said, most SBCs I've tuned seem to like 20+ degrees at idle, more if the cam is bigger. GM was always conservative on idle timing, likely to help keep the cat warm in my opinion. _________________ 84 Camaro Z28 - LS1/T56
85 Silverado - Low and Slow |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|