EFIDynoTuning Forum

KEG0 attached.

That's why I thought LAMAVE might be a better value to use.

Merry Christmas everyone :D

LAMAVE is scaled the same as LAMBSE.

90% of 0x8000 is 0x7333 so your example values need a little adjusting.

LAMBSE is clipped to a maximum of 0x8000 to prevent lean excursions so I would expect LAMAVE to not exceed 0x8000 too.

Out of curiosity have you datalogged LAMBSE to see how stable the value is when using a fuel with a different stoichiometric A/F ratio to petrol. Or seen how long it takes to stabilise when a different fuel is added to what is already in the tank? I think these behaviours are important for how you need to determine the nominal stoichiometric A/F ratio.

LAMAVE might be a better value to use instead of LAMBSE.

Regarding code thrift, whilst my prior comment was a bit tongue in cheek, it is worth considering keeping any additional code as short and concise as possible. For example, at 0xA310 if you change it to a jump to quit if in open loop you can omit the return instruction at 0xA313 and fall through if in closed loop.

A 0x42 already holds 0xAA just load 0xAA into 0x43 instead of the 0xAAAA into 0x42 and save a state time :D

There are KAM addresses used below 0x074D so you may find addresses above 0x07B7 are used too.

There's an eec-v list on the eecanalyzer website. There also used to be a eec-iv and eec-v list on the internet but I cannot find it any more.

The strategy is essentially the program the ECU runs. It can be used on just a single type of vehicle or several dozen.

An eec-iv is perfectly fine for your application. The main issue is the finding DIY tuning hardware (now Moates have closed) and a definition to suit the strategy your ECU uses. For the latter it is best to find what strategies are supported and then select an ECU that uses one of those.

The different firing order of the VW and the Ford engines is not a problem, just rearrange the injectors and HT leads to suit.