Ramanstud

I'm still trying to see if I can actually use TunerCat and I'm having difficulties... Can anyone email the $6E (`89) and/or the $32B (`87-88) file definitions to see if I can actually read several .bin files I have laying around... I'm trying to see if it's my chip reader, the software, or just my prom that's all FUBAR'd. :lol:

email to jesjhami@indiana.edu

TIA

Black87c4

That would be a big no-no, tunercat would be more than happy to get you new files if that's the problem. I have bins that you can get to test if tunercat is the problem, doubt that it is tho. http://www.efi-tuning.org/broadcast_codes

Should be abtd and arap for auto


[Modified by Black87c4, 9:16 AM 2/2/2004]

scorp508

$20 each at http://www.tunercat.com and they are super fast at emailing them to you.:yesnod:

tjwong

I have been using TC for a long time, and I can assure you that you can use it for the 6E and 32 and 32B ECM definitions. If you want a freebie BIN editor then you can try these:
http://tunerpro.markmansur.com

Or try Winbin at:
http://www.passtimeracing.com/eric/Cars/EFI/index.htm

Both of the above will edit the 6E files as there are definition files available to use with them. But I have found that unless you have the correct ECM definition neither one of the above can correctly edit a 32 or 32B BIN. It will open it but when I compare what I see with Tunercat which I know is correct I see errors. And I don't have a 32 or 32B definition for either TunerPro or WinBin.

Ramanstud

Yeah, TC seems to be pretty handy- but I think I got the $32 bin (not the $32B) for what is supposed to be an `86 BIN file. However, when I load it all I get is garbage (for instance, a 1.26 AFR among other things). So obviously I have the wrong def. file.... I want to experimentally see which "year" the BIN file is that I have without arbitrarily dropping $40 for the fun of it. (BTW, I have a -7165 ECM and a prom that Ski_dwn_it modified, but I'm left guessing as to how that will change things- is it a different year, or is the BIN file corrupted, etc)...

I am also trying out TunerPro, but again the BIN file comes up half and half (half the values make sense, the other half don't). But TunerPro only has one definition file that supposedly spans the `86-`89 TPI ECMs? I want to eventually get to a non-cold start `89 setup, I just don't want to spend all kinds of money on ECM definitions that I might not actually need... :nonod:


[Modified by Ramanstud, 12:51 PM 2/2/2004]

Black87c4

email me your bin

Black87c4

I responded to your email, you sent a 32K file, should only be 16K

Bluevette85

Try setting the start address of the chip reader to 04000. This should give you the bin file that is programmed on the chip.

Ramanstud

Good call! THat's what our problem turned out to be (but I found out the hard way). Unfortunately, even when I do that the chip reader still wants to save it as a 32K file??? Don't ask me why... but at least I've found the problem! :D

Thanks all for your patience and help.
Jesse

Bluevette85

Are you using the Autoprom? Saving the file as 32k is a known problem.
Pocket programmer saves it as 16k

Ramanstud

No, I'm using some taiwanese impersination of the Pocket Programmer- I'd actually have to look at it to see the "brand name." It seems to work fine and supports most chipsets, but one caveat is that it creates the same about of buffer space as the chip memory- so on a 27C256 I get 32K of space (on a 27C128 I get 16K), and no matter how I set the start and ending addresses it always gives me a 32Kb file (abeit with 16Kb of blank space in the bin). So I have to manually remove that when I copy it.

I've been using notepad to cut out the dead spot (I have a system), and it's consistant in that the .bin file is now readable by Tunercat under the $32 def file.... but again there are still crazy numbers in a few select spots so I'm beginning to think that my stock .bin contains errors. For instance, maximum spark advance has a 4 digit number, though now the injector constants are correct. There are a few other things that don't make sense, but I've copied the memcal over and over again, and I keep getting the same numbers. Whereas if I open "verified" and original BIN files from the net, they all are pristine.

As soon as my eeproms show up in the mail, I will write a known bin file and then pull it off the chip again to see if they compare. That way I'll know for sure if the data acquisition process is reliable or not...

:banghead:

Black87c4

you have to use a hex editor if you do that, notepad would foo-bar it.

Black87c4

I just sent you your bin, it's fixed and all values look to be normal, tunercat didn't complain about it either.

Black87c4

Why is your spark advance in WOT set at 89 degrees at 3200 and 4200 rpm?

Ramanstud

Thanks for the troubleshooting- mind if I ask what kind of hex editor you're using? I did a quick search on yahoo and didn't see anything promising, but I'll look again.

As for 89* spark advance- that's the file Jesse gave me (or whatever permutations the transfer and digital juggling have left us with), so this is why I'm trying to get a good copy of it. I'd like to know what I'm working with. :D

EDIT: I just opened up the one you sent me and a lot of the constants are still erroneous, so I think something is still amiss as far as my getting what's actually on the prom... I need to get my 29C256 eeproms in so I can test the read/write functions on my programmer.



[Modified by Ramanstud, 12:06 AM 2/3/2004]

tjwong

I got his file working as well but I didn't see that eroneous 89 degrees of timing. What map did you see it in? Was it the main spark advance? I used Tuner Cat with the $32 ECM definition to open the file. It all looked fine to me. Nothing out of the ordinary at all.

I compared it to a stock GM BIN for the same 86 Auto vette and the only timing changes I seen was at 600 RPM which where it was raised 6* across the board. And at 800 RPM at two points at 128 and 144 LV8 values it was raised 3* then after that the stock map takes over. At 800 and 1000 RPM across the board it was 1.1* less timing than stock other than the two 3* changes in that same RPM range. Pretty much all the rest of the main spark map is bone stock.

Black87c4

All i did was split the last 16K off of the bin, it actually looked like the bin was doubled, at the 16k mark there was all the vector info, etc and at 32k it was all there again, didn't to any compares, just split the last 16k off. Didn't even look at the first part.

tjwong

Yes, the BIN was "stacked" that is why it appeared doubled. The original 165 ECM uses a 27C128 chip with a 16k file and Ski who did the chip used a 27C256 or 29C256 flash chip, and when you use a 256k chip you have to stack the bins or double them in order for the ECM to read it.

Black87c4

Yes i know this, i use that same chip. That's why i took the last 16K of the chip. I split it off with winhex and loaded it with tunercat (32). Didn't alter anything, that's how it looked, didn't try anything else.