X2J vs. B9B with SCT chip...

[Shoaz]

Not sure how true that is. From what I have heard and seen, all EEC4s for SHOs are pretty much physically the same. The only difference is the operating code in the ROM.

The ancient wisdom is that the EECs went through the usual revisions common among such devices: different processors, increased clock rates, etc. The functionality of the units is the same, but the implementations are different.

 

[Off Road SHO]

The ancient wisdom is that the EECs went through the usual revisions common among such devices: different processors, increased clock rates, etc. The functionality of the units is the same, but the implementations are different.

And if anyone should know about ancient wisdoms, SHOAZ should, so you had better listen up and pay attention.


<shuffles away as fast as possible>


Tom

 

[DVJ38]

Nick, who tuned your 97 SCT chip? He may have some answers to your questions.

Edit: Sho dude? Doug Lewis? Not sure if that was him, I can't remember.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

The SCT chip only replaces the calibration side of the PCM logic, and thus must be programmed for the specific processor catch code.

Hopefully whoever is doing the tuning has access to a SNEEC-IV to datalog, otherwise it will take a lot longer to tune the car properly.

My preference is to tune the car with TwEECer RT on the dyno since it doesn't require repeatedly installing and removing the chip to re-flash and has datalogging. Then once all the parameters are set, burn those values to an SCT chip and be on your way. (Most shops won't be able to tune this way, but being that we specialize in SHO's, we've found it to be a real timesaver and just overall a better way to tune the EEC-IV cars.)

EDIT: Oh, and if you can get one, use an X2J PCM. They seem to be the least problematic when running a chip.

 

[nik97]

I see what you mean. I'm not super savvy when it comes to tuning so this is all valuable info to me. This guy has been tuning GM and Ford for a long time and has done many, many fox body Mustangs using SCT software so he may have a method if tuning an eec4 'Stang is similar to tuning an eec4 SHO.

 

[Lupo]

I see what you mean. I'm not super savvy when it comes to tuning so this is all valuable info to me. This guy has been tuning GM and Ford for a long time and has done many, many fox body Mustangs using SCT software so he may have a method if tuning an eec4 'Stang is similar to tuning an eec4 SHO.

No matter how good he is, there is a learning curve involved if he has never tuned a SHO ECU.
Also, the tuning method he uses (SCT?) is only as good as the functions that he has mapped out for the ECU

 

[SHO NUT]

Yes. I don't have the LOS. The B9B and B9B1 are the same PCM, different minor revision.

The B9B series has a more aggressive spark than the XJ2 at lower load/rpm but less aggressive at higher load/rpm. Same KS logic parameters.

Some injector delay differences between the two too.

Do you have proof of this? I've compared the two, and don't recall a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong ...

What are the different V6 PCMs? I know there is a difference in clock speed between the mtx and atx based on the MAF calibration numbers. My software does not give the actual clock speed though.

V6 MTX processors are 15 MHz. V6 ATX processors are 18 MHz.

 

[SHOZ123]

Assuming when I open a stock PCM code that the values are indeed stock with the SCT software, yes there is a difference and yes I can get you a screen shot or text file of the differences between the two.

 

[SHO NUT]

Assuming when I open a stock PCM code that the values are indeed stock with the SCT software, yes there is a difference and yes I can get you a screen shot or text file of the differences between the two.

No, that's fine for now, I just wanted to check if you were referring to first-hand information or not. It's an oft-repeated claim that there are calibration differences between the MTX years, but I haven't found any, so I was curious if you had found something that I didn't know about (or overlooked), or were just repeating something. The code itself is obviously different, of course, but the changeable settings have been the same for what we've seen so far.

I'll pull the raw binaries and compare them at the byte level and see if they differ for the two spark tables (altitiude and sea level) and the WOT spark function. Perhaps I missed something.

Here the are the raw binaries that I (and a couple others at my request) have pulled from stock EEC's.

http://www.shonutperformance.com/SCtuner.htm

Your point about 'the apparently stock files' is a valid one. The 'stock' files that came with the SCtuner software were not stock at all - they were reverse engineered Superchips files, from what I was told. This is one of the reasons why we were so pleased that the SCtuner could read the raw stock binary right from the EEC - so we could see what stock really was. As noted above, the 'stock' files with SCtuner were not stock, and I now know that the 'stock' files that Vadim used for his Chipmasters LPM software were not stock either. In fact, he didn't even have access to the MTX MAF function - all his programs that included the Mark VIII MAF function started with a 'stock 80' file that had a manually constructed 80 mm MAF function already patched in.

 

[SHOZ123]

This is with the SCT Advantage 3 software, I'm not familiar with the SCTuner software.

Here is a screen shot of what SCT says is the stock sea level spark tables for the two processors.

 

[SHO NUT]

This is with the SCT Advantage 3 software, I'm not familiar with the SCTuner software.

Here is a screen shot of what SCT says is the stock sea level spark tables for the two processors.

It appears you have the altitude and sea level tables transposed for X2J and I don't know what table you are using for B9B1. I first thought it was just that one was altitude and the other was sea level, but even that is not a perfect match.

Here's what we have for the SCtuner (settings are the same for the TwEECer, I just haven't bothered getting screenshots yet)




I'm not sure if that's B9B or X2J (I need to check the SCtuner software, but I know they are the settings for TwEECer X2J)

IIRC, I've been told before that the tables were reversed in the SCtuner software, but I'm 99% certain I went and set the Base table to 10 degrees for all values, datalogged, and found that my PT timing was all 10 degrees, proving that was the correct table. It's an easy way to test it, even without datalogging - anyone can tell when the car is running a fixed timing of 10 degrees.

The SCT stuff for the EEC-IV SHO appears to have a few settings that don't map to the correct memory locations in the calibrations. I.e. you can make a change, but you are not changing the right data to do what you are trying to do.

 

[Toolman]

Tuning noob here, but what does making changes to either one of these tables benefit? Am I doing potential harm to my setup by running the stock setup?

 

[SHO NUT]

Tuning noob here, but what does making changes to either one of these tables benefit? Am I doing potential harm to my setup by running the stock setup?

You can better-optimize your spark advance for your fueling (octane) and engine changes that affect VE (which changes the required advance - required spark advance is inversely proportional to VE - and proportional to RPM). While it's true you can just adjust the PT spark scalar, this gives you 3D control over the adjustment, and allows you to fix ping that only occurs in one area of the load map.

For a blower car, you probably need to knock down the spark advance at high load, since the EEC just uses the highest load entries when you see boost at part throttle. Otherwise you may ping/detonate at high load, part throttle, since the EEC is programmed for the correct spark for 90% load ... not 130% or so that you might get with PT and low boost. A good place to start is to map your WOT spark curve into the highest-load values of the table. Then you run the same (safe) advance as WOT once you get any boost at all (i.e. high load >90%)

 

[nik97]

Tuning noob here, but what does making changes to either one of these tables benefit? Am I doing potential harm to my setup by running the stock setup?

Is your turbo car running stock timing or did I misunderstand?

 

[SHO NUT]

Is your turbo car running stock timing or did I misunderstand?

He probably (like me, and anyone else that didn't take time to adjust the part throttle timing table like I suggested above ) is running the stock timing table for part throttle.

Everyone adjusts the WOT timing curve to account for boost, of course, that's easy.

 

[SHO NUT]

Alright, I've done my research. Here are the links to the 8 tables I can personally view the raw .bin files for (I've used SCtuner for the screen shots, since it's the only one that I can use to display non-X2J settings).

http://www.shonutperformance.com/B9B_Base_Spark.gif
http://www.shonutperformance.com/B9B1_Base_Spark.gif
http://www.shonutperformance.com/L0S_Base_Spark.gif
http://www.shonutperformance.com/X2J_Base_Spark.gif

http://www.shonutperformance.com/B9B_Altitude_Spark.gif
http://www.shonutperformance.com/B9B1_Altitude_Spark.gif
http://www.shonutperformance.com/L0S_Altitude_Spark.gif
http://www.shonutperformance.com/X2J_Altitude_Spark.gif

Here is Ransom's B9B file, which differs from what I've found http://www.ejhayes.fcps.net/Documents/Junk/SparkTables.xls

Here's what I found - there are 4 unique spark tables in the MTX cars. The tables that I feel are 'real' base tables are the first 2, and the second 2 are the ones I feel are 'real' altitude tables.

#1 is the X2J/Josh B9B BASE, and B9B1/LOS Altitude SPARK (Except Josh B9B Base/B9B1 Altitude for 850/90 is 2)


#2 is Ransom's B9B base spark. I've asked for his .bin, but don't have it yet, so I can't post a screen shot.
http://www.ejhayes.fcps.net/Documents/Junk/SparkTables.xls

#3 is Ransom B9B and Josh B9B ALTITUDE SPARK


#4 is Josh B9B1/TD LOS Base and X2J Altitude SPARK


The above are summarized here:
http://www.shonutperformance.com/MTX_Spark_Table_Comparison.xls

As you can see, some cars swap the altitude and the base spark tables. I believe this is an error, i.e. it should be the same base table for all cars, and the same altitude table for all cars. The exceptions here are Ransom's B9B base table, and Ransom's B9B altitude table (Same as my B9B1 Altitude table) and I don't know why they are different. I'm 99% sure I tested the X2J base by setting all values to 10, and noted that the car ran at 10 for PT, proving that is the correct base table for X2J. I'm not going to bother installing an SCtuner on my B9B1 to do the same, as the point is moot, X2J is the one to start with.

My summary .xls file also includes the maximum value for each cell, which is probably safe to try.

Which is best? I don't know - remember that more spark is not always better.

Enjoy!

 

[nik97]

Damn, that's a lot of info. Thanks for going through it. Is it fairly common for a tuner to modify only the WOT table as you mentioned? It is not uncommon for my car to see 4-7 lbs of boost at approx. 60% throttle. Only when the engine begins to really move some air(around 5K), does the boost pressure drop to around 5 lbs part throttle or not.

Should I attempt to have the majority of part throttle/load timing adjusted(time consuming, I imagine) or simply control my right foot?

 

[SHO NUT]

Damn, that's a lot of info. Thanks for going through it. Is it fairly common for a tuner to modify only the WOT table as you mentioned? It is not uncommon for my car to see 4-7 lbs of boost at approx. 60% throttle. Only when the engine begins to really move some air(around 5K), does the boost pressure drop to around 5 lbs part throttle or not.

Should I attempt to have the majority of part throttle/load timing adjusted(time consuming, I imagine) or simply control my right foot?

Most tuners only touch the functions and scalars, since they are the simplest to play with and take the least time. I would recommend (at least) adjusting the maximum load row in the spark table to match your WOT spark function that you've tuned for boost. This way when you get PT and lots of boost, you are running same timing as the WOT function, which is optimized for boost. This way you don't spend much time 'tuning' that table row - you just use your work in the WOT spark function.

For fueling, make sure the tuner stays out of the WOT fuel multiplier function - leave it at 1.0 for simplicty - that's really just for quick adjustments and is confusing to most people. The correct way to get a base tune is to adjust the injector scalars until the fueling gives you readings at the WB and NB sensors matches the commanded fueling, then fine tune that with the MAF curve to get it perfect (don't make large changes in the MAF curve from the get-go, that's a hack also and messes up the calculated load ..). Once your commanded fueling produces the same numbers on your WB and NB, then adjust the commanded fueling in the base fuel table (used for both PT and WOT) to get your desired fueling to get max power/safety. The idea is if you command 12:1, you get 12:1 at your WB. Then subsequent tuning is much easier - if you need more fuel, then set your high-load base fuel table row to 11:1 or 11.5:1 or something and GET 11:1 or 11.5:1 under boost- that makes the most sense. (your numbers for best power/safety will differ, of course ..).

If you want to get really tricky, you can re-scale your table load axes to go from 0-150 instead of 0-90. Then you have finer control of the fueling and spark under VARYING boost conditions - not just one value for any boost at all. But that's a lot of work.

Oh, and don't forget to turn off adaptive learning at high load so your power tune won't get messed up by small errors in the driveability (base) tune.

 

[nik97]

^ I will probably print this and see if he can decipher it because If I try to repeat it, it will likely make things more confusing. I assume this is nomenclature understood by anyone with EEC tuning experience... On that note, I have a good bit of faith and I have heard a lot of great things about this tuner so I hope he can find his way around this unique situation. As I mentioned before, he is well versed in SCT and EEC4.

Josh, thanks again for you valuable input.

 

[SHOZ123]

As I posted I am not familiar with the SCtuner software. Personally the WOT table would be redundant with the SCT Advantage software and would be zeroded out.

Could very well be the tables are screwed up in the SCT software though. Again it would be moot as it would all get changed anyway.