Knock Sensor readings - What is a normal ? V6 3.8L

['quipt4it]

You don't need to go overboard.
One item should do.

[JohnDee68]

You don't need to go overboard.
One item should do.

I tend to..lol
I am thinking after comparing these files (images x 3 attached), that I might need to flash my current PCM with the 92108760.BIN file. But alter two things. 1. The VATS set. 2. The Injector base Rate to be 163.13 MSEC/GRAM.
Then see how that goes. As it seems that either the way I have the ADX setup in TunerPro that the MAF Readings are all zero which could be what they may be in the PCM ? I don't think it could hurt flashing the BIN at this stage?

['quipt4it]

I was actually going to comment on how thorough your posts are
The Base Injector Rate I am seeing on my TunerPro screen is 361.33 (?).

['quipt4it]

I just inserted VXV6_BD A v1.33.xdf into TunerPro and I got your figure of 163.13 MSEC/GRAM.
You have to use the compatible XDF and ADX that you downloaded in the zip file folder. You have been using an Enhanced bin.
Find the XDF from your downloads and use that, ie the VX_V6_$BD_Enhanced_v0.9e.zip

[delcowizzid]

Use all the files from the enhanced download file for vx. Flash the advanced bin onto the ecu and start fresh see if the knock goes away

[JohnDee68]

Use all the files from the enhanced download file for vx. Flash the advanced bin onto the ecu and start fresh see if the knock goes away

I will try that later in the week, only because i require the car working for the next few days and cant be without it during that period.
The thing with the knocking, is I don't believe there is engine knock, I believe it's a software issue.

['quipt4it]

...Now in the TunerPro the Base Injector Rate (not exactly sure what that is) is set to 361.33 Msec/GRAM.
Is that maybe meant to be set to 162 rather than the 361.33 ?...

This is where you are getting confused.
When you did those compare bins, from the img. (circled) it shows you were using the incorrect XDF.

The correct figure for the tab should be 361.33 when using the enhanced bin and matching XDF.
This is also why your Compare Bin figures were also skewed, as you were using an incompatible bin for comparison with that XDF.
Your tuning (and likely all your subsequent thoughts) were based on using figures from the incorrect data because of this.
It looks as though you have too many bins, XDF's etc.
Delete the ones you don't need.

[JohnDee68]

Quipt4it,

Yeah, I have begun from a new set of the downloaded files, though I return to the same issues regardless.

With respect and appreciation to all, It is a shame that I am forced still to be dealing with a car that is near 20 years old, as it would have been good to be able to scrutinise while also work in joint efforts with the development of the XDF’s developers back in the day. With the comeback of the Series, maybe I can get on the next wave..

Anyway I am not saying that there isn’t a chance I am confused, even possibly wrong or using the wrong XDF to transpose the data from a BIN file. Though that image you circled being the Base Injector Rate. That was from the VX_V6_$BD_Enhanced_v0.9e.XDF which returns the Base Injector Rate from address location being 0x70A3 from any BIN file it reads as does VXV6_BD B v1.33.xdf. However using the VXV6_BD A v1.33.xdf it returns values from address location 0x70A1 resulting in a different value altogether yet being still for VxV6. All these XDF’s are for the VXV6, though how can it be looking at different addresses within the chip to expect the same values? Something isn’t correct and I don’t think it is me. I believe it is an oversight in the assignment of addressing as it needs to be better matched to the chips in the varied PCM’s. What is the difference of the VxV6 XDF files for anyway, I’m presuming it is in reference to the car PCM Chip versions? Maybe there isn’t currently a XDF that’s correct for my later version PCM chips?

Can we maybe clarify this then so I can tell if I am misunderstanding the application setup, or if it is issues in the VXV6 XDF’s please?

I understand this, that a BIN file is the sequential data (or part of) which is from the chip of the PCM. This data resides at its assigned individual address location within that chip. The specific address location is where the programs inside of the PCM (and TunerPro and other scan devices) will access specific or individual addresses from that chip. As TunerPro retrieves the data from specific addresses, it then calculates the values before transcribing the values to be placed in it’s own corresponding fields that TunerPro makes easier for the user to understand. TunerPro does this by use of the XDF’s. TunerPro then also has the additional feature where users can use the data gathered by the XDF and display it in things like tables, graphs and displays like dash layouts, this is done within the ADX file.
With the utmost respect and credit to the people who have and are developing XDF’s and ADX for TunerPro, many who are on this forum. There leaves the allowance for the XDF to be reading the wrong address locations as it is really just educated guesses to the specific location to what the addresses are for. I fully understand and consider a few things here.
1. The designers or programmers of the XDF, without having the manufacturers engineer chip mapping address locations which describe exactly what they are for, at best the XDF developer can use a GMH scan tool to monitor the changes of vehicle tuning as they change data within a specific address of the PCM chip. This was and is as I understand it how many if not all the XDF’s have been and are done.
2. Now, if mapping isn’t 100% accurate, then the whole system is not reliable and can therefore be the cause of one or more issues. Maybe and it’s just a thought, could it be related to why most people using the VXV6 XDF’s are experiencing things like around the 12L/100km or worse with their VXV6’s ? It would make sense if it isn’t properly mapping the PCM data address locations.
I am still also unclear as to what the term MSEC/GRAM actually refers to with the Injector’s Base Rate. Any idea, then I can see if my addressing is correct or not.
Presuming that it is meant to be grams/millisecond, then based on the BOSH 02 280 155 777 injectors being rated at 162 gram/min (162 mL/min) to 219.85 cc/min (219.85 mL/min). Then 361.33 mL/min is way too high. So the figure around the 163.13 mL/sec which is from the addressing location 0x070A0 is more likely correct.

['quipt4it]

Presuming that it is meant to be grams/millisecond, then based on the BOSH 02 280 155 777 injectors being rated at 162 gram/min (162 mL/min) to 219.85 cc/min (219.85 mL/min). Then 361.33 mL/min is way too high. So the figure around the 163.13 mL/sec which is from the addressing location 0x070A0 is more likely correct.

Lowering the base injector rate will increase the amount of fuel through the injector. This has some useful info:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=894&p=10547&hilit=injector#p10547

[delcowizzid]

Scrap all old files flash the full enhanced bin onto the ecu it has the correct xdf for it in the zip folder it should run just like a stock ecu and all settings will be displayed correctly. Don't use it to copy anything out of any other bins there's 2 versions of vx and vy bins each using a different xdf for the different os and then the enhanced it modified and requires its own xdf