New Trick!
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,204
Likes: 6
From: St Marys PA
New Trick!
Guys,
I have been doing some research and found a good way to get your blms at idle on right or real close the first try.
You all probably had the same problem as I did, especially if you messed with your MAF sceens, fins etc.
All I did was record the g/sec at idle in park. And then while the car was in drive.
For example in park they were at 9.8g/sec and the blms were at 150
in drive they were at 11.8g/sec
I just went into the MAF table 1 and in the location corresponding to 192 counts put the in park idle 9.8g/sec
then goto 256 counts and insert the 11.8g/sec
I then just adjusted the next on 320 to be between the 11.8g/sec and the already entered value.
Bingo the blm at idle are now 128 +/- 3
If you wanted to you could fine tune them closer, but this will definately get you really close. I have also found the tip in is better when your a tad on the rich side.
As stated above I picked this up reading and don't claim to be a genious or anything. Just a nice and quick way to get the blms close at idle. Which I found was the worst ones to get right.
Let me know if it works for you guys too.
Good luck!
I have been doing some research and found a good way to get your blms at idle on right or real close the first try.
You all probably had the same problem as I did, especially if you messed with your MAF sceens, fins etc.
All I did was record the g/sec at idle in park. And then while the car was in drive.
For example in park they were at 9.8g/sec and the blms were at 150
in drive they were at 11.8g/sec
I just went into the MAF table 1 and in the location corresponding to 192 counts put the in park idle 9.8g/sec
then goto 256 counts and insert the 11.8g/sec
I then just adjusted the next on 320 to be between the 11.8g/sec and the already entered value.
Bingo the blm at idle are now 128 +/- 3
If you wanted to you could fine tune them closer, but this will definately get you really close. I have also found the tip in is better when your a tad on the rich side.
As stated above I picked this up reading and don't claim to be a genious or anything. Just a nice and quick way to get the blms close at idle. Which I found was the worst ones to get right.
Let me know if it works for you guys too.
Good luck!
Burning Brakes
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,199
Likes: 1
From: NewCastle IN. USA
Re: New Trick! (Warlock)
well ski,
if it will make you feel better I printed it out for reference later :D
I should be trying to burn my first chip this week or next week maybe, so the info will come in handy soon. thanks
RJ
if it will make you feel better I printed it out for reference later :D
I should be trying to burn my first chip this week or next week maybe, so the info will come in handy soon. thanks
RJ
Race Director
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,597
Likes: 237
From: Bartlett Illinois
Re: New Trick! (ol,RJ)
How did you know to go to the 192 counts,
then the 256 counts..
I actually did something similar to this last year in my MAF set-up.. before swapping to the MAP
then the 256 counts..
I actually did something similar to this last year in my MAF set-up.. before swapping to the MAP
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,204
Likes: 6
From: St Marys PA
Re: New Trick! (-=Jeff=-)
The first couple of counts are not used, except when the car goes to stall. Then the ECM references those count values.
Its pretty straight forward. With the stock chip or whatever you are using now. You BLMs are probably way off. Even if all the other cells are on at 128. Mine were. Here is what you need to do.
1. Take a paper and pencil to your car with you.
2. start the car and get scanner connected.
3. Allow car to reach operating temp. Record the MAF g/sec with car in Park.
4. Then with foot on brake pull car into D. The record the MAF g/sec (should be slightly higher then P value)
5. Shut car off and program new chip with the P-value in count 192 and the D value in 256 for MAF table 1. The values should be pretty close already.
6. Try new chip setting and allow a bit of driving for them to settle. BLMs at idle for both cases should be very close. They may need tweaked a bit, but you will be 128 +/- 4 BLM.
I was just joking with the comment before. I know it took me a while to figure this out and just thought it might help some others. :cheers:
Its pretty straight forward. With the stock chip or whatever you are using now. You BLMs are probably way off. Even if all the other cells are on at 128. Mine were. Here is what you need to do.
1. Take a paper and pencil to your car with you.
2. start the car and get scanner connected.
3. Allow car to reach operating temp. Record the MAF g/sec with car in Park.
4. Then with foot on brake pull car into D. The record the MAF g/sec (should be slightly higher then P value)
5. Shut car off and program new chip with the P-value in count 192 and the D value in 256 for MAF table 1. The values should be pretty close already.
6. Try new chip setting and allow a bit of driving for them to settle. BLMs at idle for both cases should be very close. They may need tweaked a bit, but you will be 128 +/- 4 BLM.
I was just joking with the comment before. I know it took me a while to figure this out and just thought it might help some others. :cheers:
Racer
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 399
Likes: 1
From: Toronto Ontario
My '165 $6E MAF tables tell the ECM that x volts corresponds to y g/sec . If modifying the MAF ( del screens, fins etc) throws this table off, then to re-calibrate it, I would think that one would require a calibated reading of what the actual mass of the air is. For example, I would think you could install a stock MAF in series ( mechanically) with the modified MAF. At a given RPM/Load, look at the voltage output of each, and calibrate the modified MAF based on the stock MAF table. Where are the counts that you're referring to?
I "recalibrated" by MAF tables by trial and error. For a MAF with screens removed and fins ground down, here's my table that gave me 128 BLMs:
Volts g/sec
2.19 47.75
2.2 44.96
2.01 41.56
1.92 37.92
1.83 34.47
1.74 31.40
1.65 28.57
1.55 25.84
1.46 22.51
1.28 17.92
1.1 14.33
0.91 11.44
0.73 9.27
0.55 6.93
0.37 5.04
0.18 3.74
Note that the corrections are subtle but worked perfectly in my combination (383 CID). I'm only listed MAF Table #1 and 2 because that's where my problems existed. At WOT, the MAF reading is close to if not pegged and any minor error in calibration won't significantly change the WOT AFR. I'm not saying this will work in your combinations. I've supplied the table for experimental purposes only and hopefully it's helpful to someone.
I "recalibrated" by MAF tables by trial and error. For a MAF with screens removed and fins ground down, here's my table that gave me 128 BLMs:
Volts g/sec
2.19 47.75
2.2 44.96
2.01 41.56
1.92 37.92
1.83 34.47
1.74 31.40
1.65 28.57
1.55 25.84
1.46 22.51
1.28 17.92
1.1 14.33
0.91 11.44
0.73 9.27
0.55 6.93
0.37 5.04
0.18 3.74
Note that the corrections are subtle but worked perfectly in my combination (383 CID). I'm only listed MAF Table #1 and 2 because that's where my problems existed. At WOT, the MAF reading is close to if not pegged and any minor error in calibration won't significantly change the WOT AFR. I'm not saying this will work in your combinations. I've supplied the table for experimental purposes only and hopefully it's helpful to someone.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Burning Brakes
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
From: Lakeland fl
Im just curious, did this result in a better idle for you? I recently read on TGO that 128 BLM's at or near idle may not be desireable. Someone posted that with their WB hooked up, 128 blms= +/- 17:1 AF ratio. Others chimed in stating similiar, stating that the magical 128 may not be good for idle quality. Fudging one way or another may result in a better idle. Have you tried being off 128, and what were your blm's prior at these idle speeds?
Team Owner
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 27,818
Likes: 8
From: CT
It's funny, my car idled LIGHT YEARS better with the stock ECM than the DFI. I'll never understand that, but if the stock system we're still in there, I could link this to the new owner.
Think this process would work on my S4?
Think this process would work on my S4?