EFIDynoTuning Forum

Yes, you're right, I do have a lot of catching up/learning to do. I'll check that all out - maybe it'll teach me something :).

For now, yes, I'll probably run the FBFG2 tune, but at the very least, I want to keep the FBGI0 tune 'on the back burner'. Maybe as I read and learn, I can iron it out. The Fuel pump is the biggest annoyance on the FBFG2 tune though. Any ideas why the it work 95% on the FBFG2 tune, but 100% on the FBGI0 tune?

Ultimately, my plan is to drop a DOHC motor built on a Teksid block in (possibly supercharged), and when that happens, real tuning will need to be done. Biggest holdup for that is lack of headers (C heads in a MN12), and fuel rails that'll support the FRPS and fit a 03/04 Mach1 intake and can be set up as a return system. But for now, stock tuning with some shift schedule massaging is fine.

To be honest, I haven't driven it with the FBGI0 tune. But just starting is noticeably different. The last tune you posted doesn't have as much of the 'runaway' that the original version had, but it stumbles on startup, whereas the FBFG2 version fires up smooth. If the FBGI0 tune is set up for premium and a hot cam, then 87 and a stock cam would likely not work too well without changes. I didn't realize it until just now, but the FN036 table has 30 rows, going from 0 in row one and both columns for both tunes, to 5.120 in both tunes for 'IMAF' but 44.828 in the 'lbs/min' column for the FBFG2 tune and 40.858 for the FBGI0 tune. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'they come out to the same value when you interpolate them', but my guess is you mean the ECM can calculate values in between rows of the table, so for example, 1.944 IMAF on the FBFG2 tune would calculate out in to between 1.875 & 2.0 (rows 15 & 16) on the FBGI0 tune? If that's correct, the only question there is would the 4#/min difference at the top end make a difference in how everything's calculated?

I'm not exactly sure what spark tables would need to be modified, but I looked at FN2200 (Borderline knock), which appears to be the only one referenced in your 'minimum values' list, and they're definitely different. At .500 and 2000 RPM on the FBFG2 tune, it's 17*, but on the FBGI0 tune, at the same cell, it
s 28*, but I also noticed on the FBFG2 tune, the RPM columns go from 500 to 6000 in 300RPM steps until the 2000 column, then increase steps from there until 6000, but the FBGI0 tune goes from 750 to 5400 - will a copy and paste from the FBFG2 tune work with the column differences? I also looked for 'Dashpot', and lots of differences there, which may not mean anything specific - is there one specific table or value that is the 'key to it all' that would need to be changed?

And I'm ashamed to say I haven't figured out how to get Tunerpro to log data from the QH :(.

So I've been fiddling with this in my 'spare time', and my original PTP2 tune runs the car noticeably better (except for the fuel pump behavior). Comparing the tune I've been running to a stock PTP2 tune, the attached image shows the only changes. The driveline in my car, from MAF to downstream O2 and crank pully to transmission output shaft is 99-04 Mustang GT, so any stock Mustang GT tune should tune should run right. In poking through the FBGI0 base 'PTP2' tune posted, there are a lot of differences - MAF, IAC, etc. Take FN036 in the attached images - quite different. Any ideas? Shouldn't a stock, auto trans FBGI0 Mustang GT tune match a stock auto trans FBFG2 PTP2 calibration and run the car the same?

Ok, I got it to where BE will load the def and it'll write to my F3 chip. BUT, the only concern I have is the 'System- Checksum'. After I got it happy with the Functions, when I tried to write, I got a 'missing ROM_TO'. There was 'ROM_TO' in the 'config' tab next to 'ChecksumStore', and upon research in the CBAZA strategy, I found that it's a scaler, so I added the appropriate scaler, copied from the CBAZA definition, and after doing so, it would write to my F3 chip. If it doesn't actually write anything to that address. no problem, but if it computes the checksum and writes it into that address, that could be an issue without the correct address there.

And this may be a dumb question... I know TunerPro and BE hav differnt ways the files are laid out, but I can't imagine that they're different once written because no matter who is doing what, the PCM is always expecting specific data in specific locations... If I wrote a tune to a chip with TunerPro and then read it out with BE using the 'blank' strategy def, would that put it in the right format for BE?

jsa wrote: ↑2022 May 07, 05:55

Cougar281 wrote: ↑2022 May 06, 13:21 'Blank Strategies are not allowed'.

BE now requires a minimum number of scalars, functions and tables in the definition. 22 of each I believe.
Those could be generic entries or actual known S/F/T.

Thanks, yes, Clint also said the same - I'm on the road to figuring that out - it took a little trial and error and I managed to get over 22 scalers and tables. Turns out I had to modify the 'PID', 'Key' and 'Parameter' entries for each to get unique entries. But the wall I hit was functions. I tried copying functions out of the CBAZA.xlsx definition included with BE, but when I try to load it, I get 'Input string was not in a correct format.Couldn't store <ACT> in Level Column. Expected type is Single.'. If I try to load the CBAZA definition that I copied the functions out of, it's fine. Any ideas?

Also, I assume it doesn't matter what's there valid or not, as long as BE likes it in terms of reading or writing? As long as none of the values are changed, then there won't be any issues?

That's a real low thing to do. But on the bright side, your strategy definitions are awesome. They seem to be amazingly complete and yours even was able to solve the stupid fuel pump issue that Adams could never solve (Maybe that's different and now his could, but I've been quite happy with Tunerpro since coming over to it) - even your 'ancient' FBFG2 definition was able to get it 'working' to where the PCM could actually control the pump, even if it wasn't 100% like stock and ran whenever the key was on - was still better than grounding the relay so it would get fuel.

Would you happen to have a XLS/XLSX strategy definition 'laying around' in your archives that'll work with the latest BE and the FBFG2/FBGI0 strategies that has just enough info to allow BE to read/write to the PCM using a J2534 device? BE has a '4bank' strategy that actually looks like you wrote, but when I tried to write to my J3 chip for grins, I got a message stating 'Blank Strategies are not allowed'.

v3 seems better. Seems to stumble a little on startup, but it's not trying to run away like it was. As the car is essentially a 2004 Mustang GT in every way the PCM is concerned about, a stock Mustang GT tune should run it fine, and the PTP2 tune was very lightly touched. I did notice that there were some differences between the original PTP2 tune and the MGZT one, such as the MAF tables. Problem is comparing the two is 'tough' since they're different strategies, so somethings are in different places so a straight compare won't work as you'll get gibberish. I'll poke around the tunes and see what I can find, I don't want to suck up lots of your time. You've already been a huge help.

I just loaded up the 'Cougar281_ptp2_v2b.bin' that I somehow missed yesterday evening, and that one works properly, aside from the goofy idle on startup that all of the FBGI0 tunes have been exhibiting on my car - Basically, when it starts up, it starts at an elevated idle, within is normal, but before it settles down to a lower idle, the FBGI0 based tunes continue to increase the RPM almost like it's trying to run away (not sure how high it gets because it seems my aftermarket tach driver is dead - tach is just sitting at like 2200RPM), before settling down to the lower idle. Load up my original FBFG2 based tune and it fires up and idles like it should. Probably something small somewhere. I'll have to poke around and see if I can find anything. Thanks for your help!

Sorry, not sure how I missed that.. BUT.. the 'Cougar281_ptp2_v2b_dtks.bin' is working well - seems essentially the same as the MGZT tune with the six parameters changed, and I'm game to try the 'Cougar281_ptp2_v2b.bin' and change things to see what exactly is the issue, however, what is 'DTKS'? Like I said, I searched the tune for that and got nothing back, so I don't really know what I should be looking at and changing.