Tom, I was asking about your stock tune idle RPM. If I recall you said you set them 725. I thought that was a bit high. Let's talk timing. My less aggressive top end timing gave me a better ET and MPH. My lower end timing 0-400 is set to 6 BTDC for ease of cranking even though I have a PMGR starter. From 400-1200 is 16 BTDC regardless of engine load. I had this number higher and the car made more power. However the wheel spin out of the hole was crazy and couldn't get the car to hook. I also found with less timing at idle speed the more air (higher IAC count) is needed to maintain my 650 RPM idle speed which resulted with a smoother idle. My theory on that is the Crossfire intake has poor fuel distribution and that more air helps with the distribution. I agree with the 13 PSI of fuel pressure. But not for the additional fueling but for better atomization. With a TPI fuel pump and setting to 13 PSI caused me to lose power and a rich WOT. I'm using the moates tuning system which I know you hate and Tunerpro software. I'll admit it's difficult to work with. But I believe that I've got a pretty good handle on it now and I'm happy with the results.

 

You are correct about Moates. I ditched that system a long time ago and IMO, the EBL is the only way to go when it comes to CFI ECM replacement. I have never had any issues with the EBL. I can not say the same with the Moates Ostrich that I used for a lot of years in the beginning. Besides, there are NO batteries to replace with the EB and is not an interface unit like the Ostrich, but a Flash ECM. The EBL again IMO is a solid performer and you also use TunerPro to edit the tune bin.

My tune was completely optimized to be used with our settings for a bone stock motor which are slightly higher which works just fine really. Everybody has their opinion of what things need to be set at and this is the way we went. It would be hard to compare my tune with yours, the reason being yo are in FL and probably near sea level and your DA is probably really good most of the time which makes a huge difference in performance. You may even get negative DA days which would be even better. The higher you go in elevation the slower you go with the same tune.

I'm assuming you used a WB O2 to do your tuning, right? What is your target AFR at WOT and what is your actual AFR? Just curious.

 

Tom, I now know why you hate the Moates tuning system so much. The Ostrich was one of his first systems. It's been a long discontinued and has been superseded by the Autoprom which is what I use.
Good DA in Florida? HaHa, DA here sucks! Yeah it's sea level but it's also a peninsula in the tropics. You need a moisture wicking t-shirt just to take the dog out for 5 minute walk in January.
Yes I used an Innovative lm-2. I'm not sure of what you're asking. My my targeted WOT a/f is 12.5. My actual a/f is 12.6 WOT. Here's what I did. I started with a fuel table from a 350 TBI. The 350 TBI has similar size injectors as the CFI does. I then adjusted the base pulse width using an algebraic equation to match the CFI injectors and fuel pressure to match the TBI injectors. I then adjusted the 100% line in the fuel table until I achieved 12.6 at WOT. Then I smoothed out the table down to the 80% line. I'm guessing 80% is where the ECM ignores the O2 sensor and goes into open loop. This is where the difficulty I have with tuning. If I could only speak to the people who originally designed and program the ECM I would have a better understanding of what does what. Nomenclature doesn't always accurately describe that setting. It's not like a carburetor where you turn the screw and you know exactly what it's changing. Sometimes you change for one thing but you're actually changing something else. It also seems that GM had different software engineers for every different ECM. A individual who knows one type of ECM like the back of his hand can be totally lost with another ECM of GM's I'm using a heated O2 sensor but because it's located nearly 5 ft downstream of the exhaust port it still goes back into open loop during idle. So I had to play with the fuel table in that region also. I forget what my actual a/f at idle is but it is richer than 14.7. I think the CFI intake needs a richer than stoichiometric for a good idle because of its poor fuel distribution characteristics.
​​​​​

 

Yes, you are correct. I VERY much hate Moates products and I think their customer service sucks even more. Not sure what Moates product you are running, but the Ostrich 1 is discontinued, the APU1 AutoProm is discontinued and the Ostrich 2 is what Moates is selling and it does use a battery. Wait until that battery starts to get low or dies on you. You will be dead in the water and it could be at a very bad time while driving. I HATE Moates products and nothing but a huge PITA! It's an emulator or "interface" if you will. I don't want an emulator, I want an ECM direct connect that I can use an USB port to talk with the ECM, just like any modern setup. The EBL Flash II is a VERY reliable product.

I would think that during the winter in FL that the weather would not be so humid like in the summer and your car will run as good as it will run then with good air. Been to FL in the summer, it sucked with the humidity, much like Houston in the summer. Sorry about the "target" AFR, I just figured you knew what I meant, but I should have said PE Commanded. Thought it was odd that you are at 12,5 commanded, but 12.6. 12.6 is only a starting point and feed the motor what it wants for max performance.

Was also wondering how you calculated your BPC vs VAC table and how you set that up? That is huge for CFI to get that right. Anyway, enough about Moates, I think their product is crap, but that's just me.

 

I would recommend Ben Watson's book "How to Tune & Modify Chevrolet Fuel Injection". There are just a few references specific to CFI but it still will give you lots of good information on how the fuel injection system works. You can pick up a used copy on Amazon pretty cheap. This will teach you things like what's BLM or crossover counts. I never really needed any of that to fix the issues on my car (reading @Buccaneer 's old posts were pretty much all I needed) but I really found it interesting anyway.

 

On a scale of 1 to 10 how you would rate that book? I've bought a few of those automotive books over the years and most of them are only good for lining the bottom of a bird cage.

​​​​​For the record, I don't have a bird.

 

Depends what you are looking but for me this one is a 10. So far I have liked all of Ben Watson's books. He does a good job of making this stuff seem very simple and is entertaining to read. If you are looking for advice on modifications it isn't that great since it's outdated.

 

Thanks

 

Tom, I just read your entire post. At first I only read the first paragraph because, Well I thought here we go again, another Moates rant. I didn't know that the Autoprom was discontinued. Anyway I only emulate when tuning. After I finalize the tune I programed two new prom's. One for the car, the other for my spare ECM. BTW the Autoprom has a replaceable battery.
I left the PE alone, I find all those numbers arbitrary. The only thing I look at is the A/F throughout the RPM range by monitoring the Innovative lm-2. There's no BPC or VAC (or at least none that I see) in the 99xdf file for the 1614299 ECM in the Tunerpro software. I know I'm conservative on the A/F. I'm also a analog Man living in a digital world. This is why I was curious about the quarter mile times of your tunes. All I'll say about my tune is it may have been done incorrectly, but getting a DA corrected 14.62@92 MPH at Gainesville raceway with just headers running through a single high flow cat, right off the street, over 20 MPG, starts right up, drives great, nothing to hurt the motor, and no stinky exhaust fumes, what more could I ask for? Marc

 

I almost forgot, the PE adder for spark advance you asked about, that number is included with my 34 degrees @ 4400 RPM's. Spark table + base is 31@4400 RPM, plus the 3 degrees of PE.