I started looking at my WinALDL logs and have some questions for you guys. When accelerating, it looks like I'm running rich (about 118 BLMs), when I get to cruise speed BLMs (128), INT(128), and 02 all look great. When I let off the gas my BLMs go up to about 134 (max), but then when I step back on the gas it gets to about 116-118 on the BLMs.

I have a slightly larger cam but a mostly stock engine. I have a custom chip for this, so I'm thinking a little more tuning needs to come out of this. I do notice that it seems like I have a lean misfire when I get down to low idle (570) and it'll surge about 50 rpm while sitting.

I'm very new into scanning my ECM, so please let me know what other information I could provide to help understand what I'm reading. Should I expect to run a little rich during acceleration?

 

Well - I read it the same way you are, bit rich under acceleration (you didn't say what the air flow or rpm was, but you need to know those so that you can figure out what the LV8 is when it's rich - that's what you will have to correct for in the PROM tables).

The lean while coasting isn't such a big deal, but can be corrected. Question - is the AIR stuff still connected? EGR? Removing the AIR (or disabling it) ought to make the thing less lean at coast, probably even make it too rich there.

 

I'm going to go through another round of scanning soon when I get my cable fixed back up since I broke it. No big deal. I want to scan more throttle ranges since the most of the airflow readings were <= 24.

I kinda figured the lean during coast wasn't a big deal too. As for your other questions, the AIR is still hooked up... kind of. I have the cat capped right now so it's not doing anything there. The exhaust manifold AIR is hooked up and looks to be functioning correctly. I do have my EGR still. In fact, I just found a nice vacuum leak there. Fixing that will help out a little bit. I also noticed the MAF duct is letting air by at the TB. I'm able to get it to surge and smoke the exhaust a little when spraying starter fluid around it.

Did you have to buy a cable to get TunerPro RT to work with your 870 computer? WinALDL is working fine, but I wouldn't mind trying out the TunerPro software too. My homemade cable isn't being recognized by the software. I did install the $1F xdf file. I'm wondering if maybe I just don't have all the files I need so the software is still trying to find the ALDL cable for the 8192 baud (that's the error I see on hardware failure).

Any insight there would be great too.

 

I bought the Moates cable (USB) and adapter for the ALDL on my '85. Works fine, switched so that the 10K resistor is "on". The USB driver software that Moates sends with the cable has a "glitch" when installed with XpPro - you get an error message the First time you run the program (Tunerpro) and look for the ALDL connection. Only that first time though, after that it's happy. I've read of other folks having the same thing happen.

I have TunerproRT and WinALDL, both work fine. I do have to lie to WinALDL about the connection speed, since 160 baud isn't a choice. TunerPro configures fine and sees the cable and the ALDL stream without problems.

The $1f datastream definition file for Tunerpro is Not error free - at least you can edit the thing from within Tunerpro to fix the worst of it - some of the data bytes are wrong and you have to look in different places within the datastream to get what you want. For example - there is a paramater shown as LV8 in the $1f file - no such value is output over the ALDL. Whoever wrote That into the definition file must have been wishful thinking... I suppose I should be happy that there is Anything available for the '85 at all

Between the two programs I find I like TunerPro better - it's more user friendly and also does the binary file editing (I Also have a copy of TunerCat, for another editor). Not to mention that the TunerproRT will do the PROM emulating thing. I have an intronics emulator for that, which is also a USB connection to the laptop.

Neat to be able to run One program doing logging, editing and emulating all at the same time...

When you get back up and running with the cable I can provide a detailed summary of what I changed in the $1f file - or just send you a copy of what mine looks like, now that I've edited it. I can also go through the configuration for Tunerpro to show you how it's set up and working for me. Let me know..

 

Thanks for all the great info. I'm probably going to have to invest in a Moates cable since my home cable doesn't seem to want to work with TunerPro RT. Works perfect with WinALDL. Win some lose some.

I was cruising around tonight trying to log some data and noticed I threw a code 42 and 43 when messing with the WOT and higher throttle settings to get more data. Should I be concerned about this or is it expected since spark retard is disabled due to the resistor installed? I'm working with the guy tuning the chip right now on this, but the more I learn the more it makes me want to run out and buy a chip burner and eraser. It's kind of addicting I must say.

Tonight I noticed it was running rich in almost all cells.

 

Also, assuming you're on the 6870 still, do you burn 2732A chips or did you mod your ECM to take a different type of chip? Also, if you do burn your own chips and not just emulate, what hardware have you found to work best to both erase and burn?

I'm assuming emulating chips is much like the emulation I do in IT work everyday... meaning you're simulating the chip but not having to burn any... right? If so, that sounds like a cool way to do it cause you won't have to go through chips. Or am I misunderstanding it?

 

You can't accelerate without adding fuel and it won't slow down unless you take it away. Air pump has absolutely nothing to do with it (unless it's broken and with a 128 at cruise, it isn't). Your numbers are normal - if you want to tune acceleration, you'll need a wideband and exhaust temps. Monkeying with what you got is a good way to mess things up.

 

SunCr... I actually did more logging last night to find out that I'm actually running rich pretty much at every throttle position. I'm finding it difficult to reduce my FP with the stock diaphragm for some reason, so I'm messing with that right now to see what I can do to aid there.

 

It'll save time if you look through my post in the "sticky" at the top of this forum - I go through what I have and use for hardware and software for chip burning and emulating. I think it's still the last reply to that sticky..

In a nutshell, though - I have an X-tronics (Intronics) pocket programmer 2 for burning and an X-tronics pocket Romulator for emulating. The Romulator just plugs in where the PROM chip would go - takes a cheap pin type adapter at the socket to adapt the 28 pin cable down to the 24 pin socket for the 2732 chip. Works fine.

The ECM is stock, still using 2732's, I found a couple of tubes of new ones last year, so I have a stash. With the romulator there really isn't much trial and error though - no need to edit/burn/drive/repeat.

I have a cheap UV eraser for the chips - I think I got it at Radio shack, several years ago. I have found that I can generally erase and reuse a particular chip half a dozen times or so before it won't erase clean any more..

Emulating is the way to go. Drop the ECM down to dangling on the floorboard, remove the chip. Set the laptop up on a piece of plywood (call it a mobile office ) across the passenger seat, connect the romulator (USB to the laptop). Connect the Moates ALDL cable (also USB to the laptop) for monitoring the thing to see what I'm achieving. Connect a power adapter to the laptop - I Hate when I'm having all this fun and I run the laptop battery dead...

Run TunerproRT. All in one program, ALDL monitoring, .bin file editor and drives the Romulator too. All at once. Neat. Go drive it!

Cool thing about the Romulator - you don't even have to shut the engine off when making a change to the file - you edit what you want, save the file then click the button to Upload to the emulator. It stumbles for just a brief second and picks up where it left off with the new version of the file. If you are sitting at Idle (and I Hope you aren't playing with the laptop while actually going down the road..) and any of the edits changed Idle stuff (injector pulse widths, idle speed, etc.) then it'll sometimes actually Stall when the new file hits the emulator. Key off, key on and start it back up, no problem.

Once I'm happy with changes to the .bin file, or give up in disgust that I haven't figured out how to do whatever it is I set out to "fix", Pull everything back out of the car. Burn the edited .bin file onto a chip, install it and go. Easy.

Also - the Romulator does have a battery backup in it, not much but Something. It'll work for about a half hour or so without being connected to the laptop - not enough to get me to work (ask me how I found That out..), but enough for a quick spin to try something out, Without going through the effort to put the laptop into the car. Otherwise you do need that USB laptop connection to power the Romulator. Comes in handy to carry that last good PROM around in the car while driving it with the emulator hooked up....

Check out Craig Moates site for some of the stuff he has available.. I use his ALDL cable and adapter. If I had to buy it again I might try his emulator hardware instead of the Xtronics. The xtronics has been fine, Moates stuff seems like really good quality...

 

yes, you will have a "simulated" chip in place of the original that allows storage of info(bin file) which is connected to a ribbon cable and interfaces to the ecm. This gives the ability for tuning (loading bin file changes) w/the car running etc. If you choose after monitoring, the changes that have been made (stored both on laptop and the "simulated chip"), you can then burn/install a real chip.
The Moates emulator (apu-1)works great and also allows chip reading and burning. I have worked the 165 and 727/730 ecms and I like using the moates gp-1 (for the ecm), which has a zif socket (real nice when chip changing cable removal etc.) and using the 27sf512 chips. I highly recommend his products. You will however need to look at compatability for the 870 ecm.

As suncr pointed out, all wot throttle tuning should be done w/a AFR Meter. Even when you become real familiar w/NB 02 numbers through comparing w/an AFR Meter, I would still suggest using a meter.

 

You know, I read this yesterday and skipped over it as obvious - but in reality it isn't technically correct.

It Would be true for a Diesel, which has no "throttle" as such - no inlet air restriction used to regulate power, speed or anything else. On a Diesel everything is controlled by how Much fuel is introduced into the combustion chamber, and When.

On a four stroke cycle gasoline powered engine (including direct injection) - an Otto Cycle engine - the Power level is controlled by throttling the inlet air. The amount of fuel metered in to go with that air, however it's done, is Not what controls anything. Not directly.

Now, obviously, the Air/fuel Ratio needs to be maintained within a range that will Burn under compression, and beyond that requirement the control of the air/fuel ratio needs to be precise enough to result in a "benign" combustion process. Meaning no detonation, no excessively high combustion temperatures, minimize harmful combustion byproducts (emissions), etc.

The amount (and the chemistry) of fuel Matters, but does not in and of itself Control anything. More fuel added will not necessarily mean more power output (acceleration), while more power Can be achieved Without adding more fuel.

 

You lost me so it's back to Physics class - particularly on how a 4 stroke makes more power without the fuel to match the load. I suppose if someone invents a varible compression engine, that might just do it - but the only thing I've seen is a 6 stroke and the fueling is the same. Emission certification is at idle and cruise, not accel or decel. Keep it lean (and 14.7 to 1 is lean) when you push the throttle and it'll pop, buck and certainly not go anywhere (unless it's going downhill) and that's true whether it's carbed or injected. The numbers posted (initially) looked perfectly normal and splitting hairs over it seems benign given that we didn't get the Cells, CTS or Load Varible, TPS, etc. Now that there's a problem, more needs to be looked at.

 

Just a heads up to all that have helped and are following along... I was able to drop my fuel pressure and it made a world of difference. I'm almost dead on in all cells and just running a bit lean at low airflow now. Today was a good day. :-)

 

Good deal - I assume by "mapp gas" you just heated the spring on a regulator and lowered the rating a bit. And thereby allow yourself to get the fuel pressure down where it should be.

Also - you ought to try disabling the AIR and then looking at those low load BLM's again - I'll bet that will richen it right up..

And...for SunCr That would actually be Thermodynamics, not Physics. But I know what you are saying and we are really just debating semantics. We are on the same page..

I have read about automakers (GM, I think) playing around with Gasoline powered engines that run "unthrottled" like a diesel, with direct injection. And without a Spark ignition system - again like a diesel. In reality with no spark system it Is a diesel, just using a much more volatile fuel...

The idea is to bring the efficiency gains (diesels have Much lower "pumping" losses) of an unrestricted intake tract to a gasoline device. The problem is the control system and how fast the measurement/correction for fuel delivery has to happen with varying loads (order of magnitude more complicated than for diesel fuel, apparently, given the emissions requirements). It'll be interesting to see if all of the control issues can be worked out and the things make it to market before the whole electric/hydrogen/fuel cell evolution renders it irrelevant.

Sort of like all the work GM did back in the late 60's developing their own Wankel engine - that was Supposed to go into both the Vega and the Chevette (and was going to be sold to AMC - intended for the Pacer..) until the whole Emissions thing got going. When OPEC turned off the tap in '72/73 it was the last nail in That coffin.

The rush job replacement was the infamous Vega aluminum 4 cyl we all remember so well, and the equally junky Chevette 4 (debatable which was the worst ..), while AMC made do by stretching the nose of the Pacer design to take the old Rambler 258 straight six. If only...

 

No Chevette here - but there was a Pacer - a couple of Pintos too.

Poster needs to provide some new data. Idle or Cruise that pops rich BLMS means the O2 is sensing lean. If he can confirm that we can post the laundry list of things to look for, but fuel pressure shouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

I went ahead and ran the same exact trip as I did pre-fuel pressure change. Only idled at stop signs, the rest were accelerations at different throttle settings as well as cruise. I attempted to run the car as close to the same conditions as possible (outside temp, engine temps, etc). Adjusting the fuel pressure brought the BLMs back into + or - 1-2 from 128 with most spot on at 128. The car, overall, ran better except for at idle where it was running lean and during light throttle acceleration.

Pre FP changes
Wide Avg
RPM \ MAF 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216
400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
800 121.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1200 122.2 115.0 114.3 128.0 0.0 128.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1600 120.6 115.5 113.9 113.0 0.0 111.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 118.7 116.6 113.0 115.0 0.0 113.0 128.0 0.0 0.0
2400 121.7 113.0 113.7 113.0 0.0 113.0 113.0 0.0 0.0
2800 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.0 0.0 0.0 113.0 0.0 0.0
3200 121.7 0.0 113.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 116.7 0.0 0.0
3600 113.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 111.0 0.0 0.0
4000 113.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.5 128.0 0.0
4400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4800 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5600 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Post FP Changes
Wide Avg
RPM \ MAF 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216
400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
800 136.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1200 138.2 129.1 0.0 0.0 126.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1600 136.0 129.4 127.0 130.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 134.8 128.3 126.7 127.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2400 128.0 128.0 127.4 127.3 129.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2800 126.0 0.0 0.0 127.3 127.0 130.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3200 126.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 128.0 130.0 130.0 0.0 0.0
3600 136.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4800 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5600 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 

Actually... the BLM numbers that would bother me would be the trend I think I see for it trying to become leaner as the air flow increases (BLM numbers getting bigger). It's not terrible, but I think I would dial the FP back up just a couple of lb. and see if it isn't better - more consistent or going the other way.

Without a WB O2 sensor you don't know what it's going to be doing after it switches into WOT mode. My thought on that is to have it at least trending rich before it gets there, it ought to be safer that way.

Might make more Power trending lean, at least until detonation starts. But it's flirting with disaster to do it without knowing what the numbers Really are...

I have tried (in the past) delaying the transition to WOT mode (the table in the .bin file is %TPS vs. RPM to enable WOT) with the idea that at least the feedback loop is there and the A/F ratio stays in the range where the O2 sensor is accurate. Which is good, but - not allowing that A/F ratio to go richer (the table in the .bin file is %change to A/F ratio at WOT vs RPM) chops the legs out from under the torque curve. You really feel the loss of power when you hold the A/F ratio at 12.7 with the throttle opened up.

Where I'm at Now is letting the WOT transition happen more or less where the OEM chip does it, then manipulate the %change to the A/F ratio. Without a WB O2 it's all seat of the pants, which is Not the way to do it - I know. I am starting rich, richer than it could Possibly need, and dial it back in small steps till it Sounds and feels "right".

Sort of like playing with the main jets and power valve in a carb, only with the Mouse in your hand instead of a screwdriver

 

That's what I was concerned with too. I like the fuel trim at most of the curve except how it tends to attempt to lean out initially. And speaking WB 02, I was actually thinking of driving it up north to Ed Wright's place and let him let it romp on the dyno here in a few months to get a good dialed in tune. I figure I can get it pretty damn close with a custom chip and then let him do the fine tuning since I live some what close.

Thanks for all of your input on this, it definitely is helping me learn more about these computer controlled EFI systems. Hope you have a good Christmas!

 

And a merry Christmas to you as well.

I'll agree that this "tuning" stuff is certainly a learning experience. It has been an interesting ride this last couple of years to get where I am now.

I can hardly wait for whatever is Next