BB Logging beta update: May 19, 2008

[Chevy366]

Tried the JAW wide-band and get "Controller Not Found" message .
Made sure cable is correct and that it was selected in V2 as well (LC-1 works and just changed controller to JAW) .

The serial on the JAW is working correctly (serial 2 , 3 , 5) , because I can use it's software and it registers correct data .

This is how I have the Serial to RJ25 (12) cable pins assigned :

DB9 RJ25 (12)
5 > 5
3 > 1 Switched rather than using Null Modem cable .
2 > 2

[Blacky]

FlashScan could be misinterpreting the JAW data.

In the next update I have added the serial data to the trace capture. After the next update is available (in a day or two), please retry connecting to the JAW and then save a trace file and send it to me. Then I can see what data is being sent/received on the serial connection.

Regards
Paul

Tried the JAW wide-band and get "Controller Not Found" message .
Made sure cable is correct and that it was selected in V2 as well (LC-1 works and just changed controller to JAW) .

The serial on the JAW is working correctly (serial 2 , 3 , 5) , because I can use it's software and it registers correct data .

This is how I have the Serial to RJ25 (12) cable pins assigned :

DB9 RJ25 (12)
5 > 5
3 > 1 Switched rather than using Null Modem cable .
2 > 2

[Chevy366]

FlashScan could be misinterpreting the JAW data.

In the next update I have added the serial data to the trace capture. After the next update is available (in a day or two), please retry connecting to the JAW and then save a trace file and send it to me. Then I can see what data is being sent/received on the serial connection.

Regards
Paul

Thanks , will do .

[02Z06]

Tried the JAW wide-band and get "Controller Not Found" message .
Made sure cable is correct and that it was selected in V2 as well (LC-1 works and just changed controller to JAW) .

The serial on the JAW is working correctly (serial 2 , 3 , 5) , because I can use it's software and it registers correct data .

This is how I have the Serial to RJ25 (12) cable pins assigned :

DB9 RJ25 (12)
5 > 5
3 > 1 Switched rather than using Null Modem cable .
2 > 2

If the RJ25(12) is the FS2 cable, then the following worked for me:

DB9 RJ12

5>5
3>2
2>1

I made the switch using an old serial cable M/F so I did not need to tamper with the FS2 cable.

[Chuck CoW]

Excellent work! I'm now trying to get my head around the "Dynamic" section in the E38 Fuel group. It's early days yet but the excitement is growing.

It did prompt me to remember something that I worked out way back in January and may have forgotten to pass on.

In the PE tables, B0156 provides a TPS% level to enable PE. I found that measured TPS% was vastly different to the PE% displayed in the table. I had all sorts of troubles trying to work it out so I started remapping the measured TPS% vs TuneTool TPS%. The results showed that there was a logarithmic offset between the 2 values, as shown in the attached image.

While there are differing thoughts on weather PE should be controlled by TPS%, MAP or both, there is a question as to what other TPS% settings may be effected by this offset?

Simon.

Hey Simon....Having seen what you're looking at, I'd say that the one that is smoother is "filtered" or smoothed because the pcm is quite quick in these vehicles and rather than have guy operating the throttle (whose had too much coffee and might be shaking and vibrating a bit) I could see the "coffee guy's" erratic throttle transitions resulting in unwanted throttle transitions which could be avoided by "filtering" the TPS measured voltages.

Follow?
Chuck CoW

[swingtan]

I'm not sure I follow Chuck.....

If you are referring to my image, the "smoother" ( yellow ) line is simply a logarithmic trend line of the data I had measured ( green Line ). Given this was back in Jan, when it took nearly 3 min to do a calibration flash on the car, I didn't do all the possible settings. But the trend line seemed to match up very closely. So a tune setting of 4% TPS is actually 27% TPS when measured by the PID ETCTP. If you want to control PE via MAP pressure with a low TPS% setting, then this table is very handy.

My original query was really regarding B2009 as it's another TPS% setting. Given the differences I found in the PE tables, I was wondering if this setting also would suffer from the offset. If it did, it would make fine tuning the wall wetting a bit "hit and miss".

I'm pretty sure that Dynamic fueling in the E38 is tightly coupled with the MAF though. I tried some tests with turning off wall wetting with the MAF disabled and there was no discernible difference measured AFR's. Once I turned wall wetting back on and re-enabled the MAF, there was a difference.

[hymey]

I have mine set at 6% simon which equates to 30% throttle, but when the car is idling Throttle is at 15% and WOT is 88%, but WOT is 100% when logging the alternate Throttle pid.

When will the update become available to repair the e38 pids.(to save going into hex edit each log)

Cheers

Joel

[Chuck CoW]

I'm not sure I follow Chuck.....

If you are referring to my image, the "smoother" ( yellow ) line is simply a logarithmic trend line of the data I had measured ( green Line ). Given this was back in Jan, when it took nearly 3 min to do a calibration flash on the car, I didn't do all the possible settings. But the trend line seemed to match up very closely. So a tune setting of 4% TPS is actually 27% TPS when measured by the PID ETCTP. If you want to control PE via MAP pressure with a low TPS% setting, then this table is very handy.

My original query was really regarding B2009 as it's another TPS% setting. Given the differences I found in the PE tables, I was wondering if this setting also would suffer from the offset. If it did, it would make fine tuning the wall wetting a bit "hit and miss".

I'm pretty sure that Dynamic fueling in the E38 is tightly coupled with the MAF though. I tried some tests with turning off wall wetting with the MAF disabled and there was no discernible difference measured AFR's. Once I turned wall wetting back on and re-enabled the MAF, there was a difference.

TPS is very important..... I've been playing with the throttle with Ross a while ago and if you mess with loging throttle enough, there are a number of things happening like you described....

What I was saying was that you should not just assume the throttle parameter you're logging is the one that the pcm is using....I'm quite sure the actual pedal TPS is filtered and when you studs the tps stuff, there seems to be more than necessary.... They're doing LOTS of stuff with the different TPS values....

Chuck CoW

[hymey]

Will the dma e38 pids be a permanent fix(in hex edit) for the next update?

Cheers

Joel

[Blacky]

Will the dma e38 pids be a permanent fix(in hex edit) for the next update?

Cheers

Joel

They should be ok in the next update.
Please let me know if they are not.

Regards
Paul