tomic

I want to check that I'm not running out of pulse width at higher RPMs. I saw in BMmonteSS's "free tune up" thread there's a patch for other bins to log PW instead of PROMID. Is there such a patch for the 7747?

RBob

iTrader: (1)

I thought it was in that same thread. If not it is around here someplace. Did you check the tuning guide book sticky for these ECMs?

RBob.

tomic

BMmonteSS gives the locations for XJ's bin, which is not in a 7747. Someone else asks about the same patch for the 7747, but the question doesn't ever get answered (I looked twice!).

I did searches for it, but I will look again in the tuning book sticky.

I'm sure it's one of those its-right-here-somewhere items.

Ronny

iTrader: (1)

I thought it was duty cycle % ?? Maybe same difference?

tomic

FOUND IT. Thanks for the hint!

For the record (and end this thread) for the $42 bin for the 7747 (747, 1227747 :-), to put injector pulse width into the ALDL data's PROMID slot, follow this post from Rbob:

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/post...16-post31.html


Thanks a million Rbob!

tomic

(Comes back sheepishly hanging my head) OK, I can't figure out how to edit the binary. I'm puzzled by the patch address given, $D4E7. I'm an old 8080 CP/M programmer so hex, tables, relative addr etc are not the problem.

I know that the bin is 4K long ($1000) so addresses relative to the bin start/EPROM start are $0 - $fff.

So what is $DFE7 (etc) relative to? TunerPro RT's hex editor shows addresses relative to image start, 0.

RBob

iTrader: (1)

Drop the D off the front of the address. The result will be the physical address within the EPROM. Once the EPROM is placed into the ECM the address is in the $D000 block of memory as accessed by the CPU. This is the virtual address of the location.

Note in the hac that all tables and calibration parameters start with $D, as in $D438.

Also note that when you start looking at other ECMs, this virtual address can be different. Both the $8000 block and $C000 block are common starting points for the EPROM.

RBob.

tomic

I thought it was that, EPROM base relative vs. CPU address space.

OK, thanks, the patch is in and working. The reason for this is of course to make sure I'm not hitting 100% open (as per your excellent observation in the "free tune!!!!" thread).