again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Decipha's custom GUFX strategy covers all 89-93 foxbody ecu's including the 88 mass-air california ecus.
canuck1
Posts: 67
Joined: 2021 Mar 31, 17:29
Location: Victoria, BC CANADA
Vehicle Information: QH, TunerPro RT 5, GUFX_220418.xdf, A9L2_220405, DECIPHA_220505.ADX, 395w, AFR 195CC Renegade heads, Comp XE274HR cam, Siemens-Deka V 80lb/hr (shorties), Mass-Flo-EFI style 4bbl throttle body with GM maf on top. Custom long tube headers, sidepipes, 5 spd manual.

Re: again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Unread post by canuck1 »

OK, here goes, one last question.

offset is a range of (voltage) values and cranking typically pulls my little battery down to under 10v (bounces between (more than 9v, less than 11v).

There is a considerable difference between my old offset and the new one at that voltage range (from .44ms at 9v, .37ms at 10v up to .32ms at 11v).

If I shoot for the 10v middle and add .37ms to the .42ms that worked for me before (25% higher than the calculated pw considering engine and injector size), that would take me up to .79ms cranking pw for ECT 160 and above.

Am I doing the math right? It does seem like I'm a bit short on fuel while cranking but am a bit nervous about adding that much more. Am I at risk of doing damage by adding that much more pw and potentially overshooting the mark?

Sean
decipha
Posts: 4956
Joined: 2021 Feb 15, 12:23
Location: Metairie, LA
Vehicle Information: Work Truck
'19 F-150 3.3L

Re: again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Unread post by decipha »

yeah dont add that much

use the difference at 14v which is typically nominal
Motozoic
Posts: 29
Joined: 2021 Feb 27, 14:58
Location: Tucson, AZ
Vehicle Information: '89 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L: A9L2/Tweecer RT
'79 Ford Bronco 400: A9L2/F3V2
'00 Merc Mountaineer 5.0L: READ0/QH currently
'66 Mustang 289: some EEC-V, not determined yet
'08 Buell XB12Ss: DDFI3/TunerPro RT
'09 Buell 1125CR: DDFI3/TunerPro RT

Re: again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Unread post by Motozoic »

Sean,

I'm in the midst of transferring my older A9L2 tune to the A9L2_220405 and am having issues with cranking PW. I am curious if you ever encountered this:
FNCRKMUL_FAR.png
I may have made a mistake of patching my bin file with this and now I've got some problems.
FNCRKMUL.png
decipha
Posts: 4956
Joined: 2021 Feb 15, 12:23
Location: Metairie, LA
Vehicle Information: Work Truck
'19 F-150 3.3L

Re: again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Unread post by decipha »

anytime you run in to that remove the patch and then re-apply it and do a compare to the file to see whats changed

the cranking pw multiplier function is probably modified from the patches base values.

the cranking pw ect modifier function cannot be copied from an old tune to the new a9l2 since its completely revamped.

just simply apply the arbitrary cranking pw correction to the base a9l2 values for your engine size and injector size differences from stock 302 and 19 lbers.
Motozoic
Posts: 29
Joined: 2021 Feb 27, 14:58
Location: Tucson, AZ
Vehicle Information: '89 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L: A9L2/Tweecer RT
'79 Ford Bronco 400: A9L2/F3V2
'00 Merc Mountaineer 5.0L: READ0/QH currently
'66 Mustang 289: some EEC-V, not determined yet
'08 Buell XB12Ss: DDFI3/TunerPro RT
'09 Buell 1125CR: DDFI3/TunerPro RT

Re: again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Unread post by Motozoic »

When I go to apply the patch, I get the following error:
PatchApplyFail.JPG
decipha
Posts: 4956
Joined: 2021 Feb 15, 12:23
Location: Metairie, LA
Vehicle Information: Work Truck
'19 F-150 3.3L

Re: again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Unread post by decipha »

impossible to know whats going on without the file being posted
Motozoic
Posts: 29
Joined: 2021 Feb 27, 14:58
Location: Tucson, AZ
Vehicle Information: '89 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L: A9L2/Tweecer RT
'79 Ford Bronco 400: A9L2/F3V2
'00 Merc Mountaineer 5.0L: READ0/QH currently
'66 Mustang 289: some EEC-V, not determined yet
'08 Buell XB12Ss: DDFI3/TunerPro RT
'09 Buell 1125CR: DDFI3/TunerPro RT

Re: again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Unread post by Motozoic »

decipha wrote: 2022 Jul 16, 00:25 impossible to know whats going on without the file being posted
That’s what happens with the stock A9L2_220405.bin file posted on your GUFB thread.
Motozoic
Posts: 29
Joined: 2021 Feb 27, 14:58
Location: Tucson, AZ
Vehicle Information: '89 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L: A9L2/Tweecer RT
'79 Ford Bronco 400: A9L2/F3V2
'00 Merc Mountaineer 5.0L: READ0/QH currently
'66 Mustang 289: some EEC-V, not determined yet
'08 Buell XB12Ss: DDFI3/TunerPro RT
'09 Buell 1125CR: DDFI3/TunerPro RT

Re: again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Unread post by Motozoic »

So what I've got working at this point, is simply modifying FN348 and also modifying FN306, which is labeled as being "depreciated." Car runs great, but Mike you may want to take note of the issue described above. I've confirmed the same results on 3 separate computers running TunerPro RT and the currently posted A9L2 bin file.
decipha
Posts: 4956
Joined: 2021 Feb 15, 12:23
Location: Metairie, LA
Vehicle Information: Work Truck
'19 F-150 3.3L

Re: again with FN348 Cranking Pw ECT questions

Unread post by decipha »

yeah just the last value multiplier of 0 at the top of the crank pw multiplier is what shows as the error since the patch was with it at 1

makes no difference
Post Reply