PCM 12593358 Cax File Check

[405HP_Z06]

Joecar,
Would you look at the .cax file I made for OS 12593358? It appears to be correct, but I would like another set of eyes.

Thank You,

[joecar]

Aaron,

I don't know if the addresses and strings are correct or not, but the format appears correct.

Joe

[405HP_Z06]

Thanks Joe, I compared the same tables between HPTuners and EFILive and all of the values looked the same except for one table. The one table that was different appeared that the factor was different, resulting in different values.

[MICK]

Currently I'm having a few dramas with my service provider and my network is down.

I will check this out for you soon as I am back up and running.

Cheers

Mick

[MICK]

Aaron,

This will get you right on the mark.

There is four parameters I disabled from the set but the bread and butter is there and the scalers are very close.

Joe, could you look at this file and review and add to the supported list of files.

Cheers

Mick

[405HP_Z06]

Thanks MICK and Joecar! :fluffy:

[joecar]

Mick,

I added 12593358...

I found that the descriptions in this file have been edited...

do you like these descriptions, or do you like the original descriptions...?

If you like these newer descriptions, I can bring the other 5 files up to the same edit
(all the cax files should have the same format/look/feel/descriptions).

Joe

[hquick]

Who edited the descriptions?
Are those edits correct....if so...they look good.
I'm trying to find out some more 'generally' accepted info on these tables/parameters. That should help us with more accurate descriptions.

[405HP_Z06]

Who edited the descriptions?
Are those edits correct....if so...they look good.
I'm trying to find out some more 'generally' accepted info on these tables/parameters. That should help us with more accurate descriptions.

I edited the descriptions. As far as I know, they are correct.

[GMPX]

As long as you guys keep this legit (eg no copying others work) then we can leave it open, this isn't a warning, just a reminder :)

[hquick]

I'm getting info on how to adjust which parameters and maybe that can be put in the table descriptions.
All info will be stuff we can use...no proprietry info...my own writing.

[hquick]

Don't know if this is generally 'known' info but it's fairly basic (which is what I personally need :hihi: ) Hope this helps a few of you. I've been playing with the tables but really didn't understand them. I have managed to fairly dramatically reduce lean tip in.

1) when seeing lean tip in...Impact factor should be increased. A lean tipin is caused by more fuel impacting on the port wall than what was predicted.


2) When seeing a rich 'tip-out' (decel) spike....Impact factor should also be increased. More fuel is in the "puddle" on the port wall than what was predicted.

3) When should I adjust the boiling time constant and which way for which condition?

Change your boiling time constant only if you are finding that the period of transient compensation (the parabola of fuelling adjustment) is either too short, or going on too long.
As a general rule boiling constant should only be adjusted as a last resort as it will also effect the way impact factor works, which sometimes results in chasing your tail trying to get it right again.

A good way to learn this sort of stuff is to make the numbers really big and see what happens. Then make them really small, and observe what happens. There is no danger in doing this with transient fuel (unlike spark!).

[Biggsy]

Don't know if this is generally 'known' info but it's fairly basic (which is what I personally need :hihi: ) Hope this helps a few of you. I've been playing with the tables but really didn't understand them. I have managed to fairly dramatically reduce lean tip in.

1) when seeing lean tip in...Impact factor should be increased. A lean tipin is caused by more fuel impacting on the port wall than what was predicted.


2) When seeing a rich 'tip-out' (decel) spike....Impact factor should also be increased. More fuel is in the "puddle" on the port wall than what was predicted.

3) When should I adjust the boiling time constant and which way for which condition?

Change your boiling time constant only if you are finding that the period of transient compensation (the parabola of fuelling adjustment) is either too short, or going on too long.
As a general rule boiling constant should only be adjusted as a last resort as it will also effect the way impact factor works, which sometimes results in chasing your tail trying to get it right again.

A good way to learn this sort of stuff is to make the numbers really big and see what happens. Then make them really small, and observe what happens. There is no danger in doing this with transient fuel (unlike spark!).


Thanks for explaining that, I was too afraid to play with the figures as I didn't know what they did.

[hquick]

No worries!
You know....I don't know if that 'basic' info is considered top secret by others....but I've scoured the net and HPT forums and I can't find that info ANYWHERE!
Found HEAPS of threads with people asking but every thread went around in circles and NEVER laid it out! :nixweiss:

[5.7ute]

IMO rich tip out is caused by more fuel evaporating off the wall & entering the cylinder. So boiling time needs to be adjusted for this condition. Raising these parameters should decrease the amount of fuel injected & therefore reduce the rich tip out.
Note that the reduction in map (increased vaccuum) will also cause the fuel to evaporate faster off the port wall.
What I think is going to be the real trick is getting a good baseline for the transients at a set airflow/ect/map, & being able to dial in the modifiers. The other thing is are the modifiers at a set airflow or delta airflow? The scan tool links I have set up are for actual airflow & could be incorrect.

[MICK]

Mick,

I added 12593358...

I found that the descriptions in this file have been edited...

do you like these descriptions, or do you like the original descriptions...?

If you like these newer descriptions, I can bring the other 5 files up to the same edit
(all the cax files should have the same format/look/feel/descriptions).

Joe

I think what we have is ok for now but I agree that we will edit the parameter information as we become to understand more. I'm open to any and all views currently. Should list the parameters out in a word doc and thrash out our best options.

Mick

[5.7ute]

I think what we have is ok for now but I agree that we will edit the parameter information as we become to understand more. I'm open to any and all views currently. Should list the parameters out in a word doc and thrash out our best options.

Mick

Good idea Mick. Until we start doing some major testing everything is just a best guess at this point.

[joecar]

I think what we have is ok for now but I agree that we will edit the parameter information as we become to understand more. I'm open to any and all views currently. Should list the parameters out in a word doc and thrash out our best options.

Mick+1... I agree.

[joecar]

Aaron,

This will get you right on the mark.

There is four parameters I disabled from the set but the bread and butter is there and the scalers are very close.

Joe, could you look at this file and review and add to the supported list of files.

Cheers

Mick
Mick,

12593358.cax has . (dot) in front of B9006 and B9007... is that intentional...?

---> see post #5 on previous page showthread.php?t=9147 (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=9147)

Thanks
Joe

[MICK]

Mick,

12593358.cax has . (dot) in front of B9006 and B9007... is that intentional...?

---> see post #5 on previous page showthread.php?t=9147 (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=9147)

Thanks
Joe


Joe,

That's how I disabled those 2 parameters as they did not look right, I think?......:) I need to go over this one and 12205074 to tidy them up. I'm going to look at the scalers a little and fine tune them, they need to be a little more consistent. I am on it.

Cheers

Mick

[joecar]

Joe,

That's how I disabled those 2 parameters as they did not look right, I think?......:) I need to go over this one and 12205074 to tidy them up. I'm going to look at the scalers a little and fine tune them, they need to be a little more consistent. I am on it.

Cheers

MickMick,

Ok I was sanity checking just in case the dots had crept in
(I have plenty of experience in the field of characters creeping in... :hihi:).

Cheers
Joe
:cheers:

[MICK]

Joe,

Over the weekend I did some work on the base files improving the Factor Scalers, including Imperial Values and generally fixing a few errors. I found another supported OS. Can you have a look over these files and add the LC. If your happy you can update the files thread.


There is one more OS I see that I could support in the 2001, 2002 family, OS: 12209203 but I don't have a base tune file to work off so if any one has one it would be cool if you could post it.

I had a good look at the 2003 family of OS this weekend, starting with OS: 12593058. These jumped up in file size from 512kb to 708kb and the code has moved around quite a bit so I will need to change my plan of attack here. I found a few tables that are possibilities but really need to start working in binary format to make some break through. It would not surprise me if the tables changed in there appearance and there were a couple more that are included in the code.

This is the direction that I would like to head in, will keep chipping away at it.

Cheers

Mick

[joecar]

Mick,

Ok, I'll go thru those and I'll integrate and post.

Thanks,
Joe

[joecar]

Ok, I edited/merged lean cruise into those, and I made all files have uniform format (the numeric content did not change, of course)...
I'll post these updates to the cax updates thread.



Mick,

I made the files uniform since this makes it easy to see the numerical differences;
if these are ok, then please use these for any further work.

showthread.php?p=79912#post79912 (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?p=79912#post79912)

Thanks,
Joe
:)