S_AUJP V4 1024 vs 1026?
05-30-2008, 11:15 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 278
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: RamJet 350 running EZ-EFI 2.0
Transmission: Richmond 6-speed
Axle/Gears: 4.1
S_AUJP V4 1024 vs 1026?
If not using with the NVSRAM module, and not using a Switcher, is there any reason to go to version 1026?
I'm quite happy with 1024, but I'll change if there is a benefit.
I'm quite happy with 1024, but I'll change if there is a benefit.
05-31-2008, 07:28 PM
#2
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Browns Town
Posts: 3,178
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 86 Monte SS (730,$8D,G3,AP,4K,S_V4)
Engine: 406 Hyd Roller 236/242
Transmission: 700R4 HomeBrew, 2.4K stall
Axle/Gears: 3:73 Posi, 7.5 Soon to break
Re: S_AUJP V4 1024 vs 1026?
The change was to standardize the addressing of XDF items for use with or without the NVSRAM board. Functionality is the same.
I did sneak in one tidbit. (see item 5)
I did sneak in one tidbit. (see item 5)
Revision history and notes:
41026 V4A & B Version: 04-30-2008
1.) Corrected issue with NVSRAM usage where data tables were not located to fit in the available memory space. Checksum would fail and default
“chip” program would restore negating any changes on the fly.
2.) Version 4A created for std use.
3.) Version 4B created for use with NVSRAM module.
(confirm at Location 800A-800D to verify the version)
4.) DXF changed to allow both bins to operate from the same definition file.
File: S_AUJP_V4a.XDF
Late Error
Change Ext VE table address to "9A0" in XDF file and save.
41026 V4A & B Version: 04-30-2008
1.) Corrected issue with NVSRAM usage where data tables were not located to fit in the available memory space. Checksum would fail and default
“chip” program would restore negating any changes on the fly.
2.) Version 4A created for std use.
3.) Version 4B created for use with NVSRAM module.
(confirm at Location 800A-800D to verify the version)
4.) DXF changed to allow both bins to operate from the same definition file.
File: S_AUJP_V4a.XDF
Late Error
Change Ext VE table address to "9A0" in XDF file and save.
5.) Added Program ID function.
If ALDL location 16 is changed to read $01BA, the value at L800A will be
displayed in the datastream. Great for switcher guys to see current
program that is being run. Display will be in the NV Ratio item.
Figured nobody uses that anyway. No conversion needed. 0-15 Value
6.) Reworked the V4 Document to show changes.
If ALDL location 16 is changed to read $01BA, the value at L800A will be
displayed in the datastream. Great for switcher guys to see current
program that is being run. Display will be in the NV Ratio item.
Figured nobody uses that anyway. No conversion needed. 0-15 Value
6.) Reworked the V4 Document to show changes.
Major Note:
When converting from the original V4 to this new version, You can use the
“Difference Tool” in TunerPro to copy over your existing values.
When converting from the original V4 to this new version, You can use the
“Difference Tool” in TunerPro to copy over your existing values.
DO NOT COPY ANY VALUES FROM ADDRESSES L8998 AND HIGHER.
These items were rearranged and will certainly not be what you want.
Print screen or Export your data to a text file and manually enter your setup numbers.
There is not many and doesn't take long.
This would include:
These items were rearranged and will certainly not be what you want.
Print screen or Export your data to a text file and manually enter your setup numbers.
There is not many and doesn't take long.
This would include:
- Wide Band setup options 1 & 2
- VE Upper Table Extended to 6400 RPM (Z69)
- PE , % Change to AFR Vs. RPM Extended Table (Z69)
- Launch Mode Retard Vs Speed (Doesn’t work so don’t bother)
- U6 Channel Read (S_V4 A & B ONLY)
- TCC Coast Release Disable (S_AUJP V4 A & B ONLY)
05-31-2008, 10:13 PM
#3
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 278
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: RamJet 350 running EZ-EFI 2.0
Transmission: Richmond 6-speed
Axle/Gears: 4.1
Re: S_AUJP V4 1024 vs 1026?
Thanks, I guess I'll just stick with 1024 since I see no really solid reason to change.
06-30-2011, 08:55 PM
#4
Supreme Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: S_AUJP V4 1024 vs 1026?
Wow you guys have a lot of work into this so first I'd like to thank you for sharing! 
But even after an hours worth of reading I can't decide if I should start with the 1024 or 1026?
Tomorrow I will be helping a freind with his 5.7L cammed TPI engine he says was from a Camaro and he got a 1227730 with chip and harness from somewhere? It runs well, no codes, idle needs work, but initail data shows lean overall.
Since there has been so much work done on this I figured it would be a better start. So 1024 or 1026?
But even after an hours worth of reading I can't decide if I should start with the 1024 or 1026?
Tomorrow I will be helping a freind with his 5.7L cammed TPI engine he says was from a Camaro and he got a 1227730 with chip and harness from somewhere? It runs well, no codes, idle needs work, but initail data shows lean overall.
Since there has been so much work done on this I figured it would be a better start. So 1024 or 1026?
07-01-2011, 09:40 AM
#6
Supreme Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: S_AUJP V4 1024 vs 1026?
After several more hours research I think your right. The 1026 zip file has 2 bins. One for NVSRAM one for standard. 1024 does not. This was the most confusing part for me as I did not understand if 1026 was just updated or 1024 was just for NVSRAM...
07-02-2011, 10:26 AM
#7
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Browns Town
Posts: 3,178
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 86 Monte SS (730,$8D,G3,AP,4K,S_V4)
Engine: 406 Hyd Roller 236/242
Transmission: 700R4 HomeBrew, 2.4K stall
Axle/Gears: 3:73 Posi, 7.5 Soon to break
Re: S_AUJP V4 1024 vs 1026?
1026 for sure.
The 1024 file works but not for the NVSRAM module.
The correction was made by rearranging the additional features so the XDF file is different for the 1024 to the new 1026.
I'd like to have Moates remove the 1024 just so there are not any problems with people using new definition files with it.
Be sure to go the the "S_AUJP V4 released" thread and do the couple of edits to the definitions so all is current.
Jp
The 1024 file works but not for the NVSRAM module.
The correction was made by rearranging the additional features so the XDF file is different for the 1024 to the new 1026.
I'd like to have Moates remove the 1024 just so there are not any problems with people using new definition files with it.
Be sure to go the the "S_AUJP V4 released" thread and do the couple of edits to the definitions so all is current.
Jp
