OSE 12P V112

For discussion and distribution of custom code and hacks
kojab
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:52 am
cars: VT V6 supercharged in a corolla
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by kojab »

VL400 wrote:Adjust "VE Learn Params - WideBand 0v AFR" and "VE Learn Params - WideBand 5v AFR" to suit your wideband. And in your logging software the equ is X/10.
VL400 just found those settings. Will make some changes. Only thing I am not sure at this stage is do I have to make changes to my logging software for this to work . I hope not as it worked ok wth V100.
Are you saying the equ X/10 is what my logging tool is using now or that it must be changed to X/10.

Thanks
kojab
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:52 am
cars: VT V6 supercharged in a corolla
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by kojab »

antus just become a member on that side and I will make the download available to you.
User avatar
VL400
Posts: 4991
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:54 pm
cars: VL Calais and Toyota Landcruiser. Plus some toys :)
Location: Perth, WA
Contact:

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by VL400 »

Yes you will need to change your logging tool, in the early releases the AFR conversion was done by the scan tool (ECU just sent the raw analog value). The ECU now calculates AFR in usual GM format so it can be used for more than just logging. The TP calc is X/10 (same as target AFR) in all releases after 1.04.
Yortt
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:11 am

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by Yortt »

I have migrated the 4 cylinder G200 version 100 to version 111 into BLCF and have started to populate unpopulated maps.
"EST-Coolant advance verses boost map and temp" is filled with -20.04 I expected to see all zeros as is the case with "charge temp advance verses boost map and temperature" is this correct?

Thanks
Yortt
User avatar
VL400
Posts: 4991
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:54 pm
cars: VL Calais and Toyota Landcruiser. Plus some toys :)
Location: Perth, WA
Contact:

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by VL400 »

Yep should be all zeros, will have to manually fill it in - TP can fill the entire table using the tools just above the table data. The -20.04 is due to a scalar bias term (called "EST params - Coolant Advance Table Bias Term") that is user configurable so cannot easily set the table to default values. The migrate tool just populates the table with 0 so when displayed in TP and is minus the bias term you get odd values.
Yortt
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:11 am

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by Yortt »

VL400 wrote:Yep should be all zeros, will have to manually fill it in - TP can fill the entire table using the tools just above the table data. The -20.04 is due to a scalar bias term (called "EST params - Coolant Advance Table Bias Term") that is user configurable so cannot easily set the table to default values. The migrate tool just populates the table with 0 so when displayed in TP and is minus the bias term you get odd values.
Thanks a lot will do!
Yortt
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:11 am

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by Yortt »

VL400 wrote:Yep should be all zeros, will have to manually fill it in - TP can fill the entire table using the tools just above the table data. The -20.04 is due to a scalar bias term (called "EST params - Coolant Advance Table Bias Term") that is user configurable so cannot easily set the table to default values. The migrate tool just populates the table with 0 so when displayed in TP and is minus the bias term you get odd values.

Another thought this 20.04 is the number I have seen in standard GM programs which represent zero so if i zero this table is it possible it will add 20.04 degrees? just thinking out aloud.

Thanks
User avatar
VL400
Posts: 4991
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:54 pm
cars: VL Calais and Toyota Landcruiser. Plus some toys :)
Location: Perth, WA
Contact:

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by VL400 »

Other XDFs have not been done correctly so appear as 20.04 and get all out of whack if you edit the bias term independant of the table. The 12P XDF has a bias term applied (as all other XDFs should have) so when your entering 0 in the table using TP you are not really entering 0 - its actually 20.04 (or whatever the bias value is, TP handles this for you). GM did it this way so the table can have signed values ie negative and positive.
User avatar
antus
Site Admin
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:34 pm
cars: TX Gemini 2L Twincam
TX Gemini SR20 18psi
Datsun 1200 Ute
Subaru Blitzen '06 EZ30 4th gen, 3.0R Spec B
Contact:

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by antus »

I suggest starting with the v111 g200w tune I posted in the custom 12p tune thread the other day. Its more up to date, and has a better (smoother) VE table and the right AE multiplier. I'd be interested to see what you come up with if you are going to boost your engine. I'am thinking i'll boost mine some time in the next 6 months or so, and would be keen to pick it back up again from where you leave off.
Have you read the FAQ? For lots of information and links to significant threads see here: http://pcmhacking.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1396
Yortt
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:11 am

Re: OSE 12P V111

Post by Yortt »

antus wrote:I suggest starting with the v111 g200w tune I posted in the custom 12p tune thread the other day. Its more up to date, and has a better (smoother) VE table and the right AE multiplier. I'd be interested to see what you come up with if you are going to boost your engine. I'am thinking i'll boost mine some time in the next 6 months or so, and would be keen to pick it back up again from where you leave off.
I hear what you say and I have not decided yet if I will start with your na VE or transpose the VE from the code 59 I already have running which may be a problem given the modifiers that apply to the code 59 VE. The application is for an FJ20T in a Mazda 808 with and auto and stall converter runing 25psi on E85 so the VE will be considerably different.
Post Reply