From what I gather - Chiptorques are like tweecers in that they can modify any part of the EEC - problem is finding out what does what as everything moves around each time the catch code changes. Apparently its relatively easy to read an ecu and fiddle with fuel and spark maps as they are large and structured and are easy to see in a binary file. Other stuff is tricky, but can be messed with IF you know what to change.

So it seems chiptorque have enough unlocked to change spark and fuel maps, remove limiters, and change idle parameters in most ecu's. I have also heard about them messing with torque reduction in AU ecu's.

Most of this is just speculation and guess work though.

Yeah.
Me thinks if I want to feed my 'fiddle with factory ecu' fascination I should just get twEECer RT for the Sprint.
Cheers,
Jared

I think you're spot on mark. Furthermore, I believe that is the method which CAPA were using to tune their 'Memmaster" chips (not sure if grant had one of these supplied when he first got the blower???) but that's what i use with the powerdyne. From what I could tell, CAPA dont do it 'in house' - they ask you for your catch code, and then have some other guy that programs the chip.

I imagine it is some sort of simulator - i.e. can rig up the inputs and outputs to the EEC on a bench... play around with the code and see what happens to inj pulse width and timing advance at various load points. The tune for mine is very good when considering it wasnt done in real time on the car. Very good considering the hit and miss approach.

i don't mind samboys, they go well in the van i'm cruising in atm!

just curious here guys " has anyone actually read a EEPROM of a eec4 " whether it be a early XE the most basic right up to the last of the EEC4 and the start of the EEC5's

seems alot of smart guys on here does anyone understand micro-processors ?? programming langauges , reverse engineering the EEC4 why does every i speak to say its vertually impossible

all these piggy back chipsets are use to connect to the J3 port on the eec4 and eec5 for a purpose ie maximize the profits of the manufacturers ie tweecer , eec-tuner , diablo motors , mike wisely stuff and the list is endlee

reverse engineer the EEC ecu - how hard is to decipher all the one's and zero's

people should have a look at Kalmaker software and hardware how Ken Young has made the delco commodore ecu.
Kalmaker is sold by quite a few people under that name but don't be fooled its Ken Youngs baby , and all these people selling his stuff are just ripping him off big time can name a few guys but it might get me into legal problems so i will keep my mouth shut LOL

the software and hardware that Ken Young has developed is awsome and the delco uses a similar EEprom so I'm supprised no young Electrical Engineer Ford car buff has atempted to make a system work for fords here in Australia.

the system would have to be programmable live none of this change it and then try it to see if it works on a chassis dyno

seen heaps of guys get chips or supposedly modified EEC EEC4's by these so called gurus that modify ECU's again i will not mention names

There is no way one can do a tesktop tune of a EEC$ or a EEC5 by u telling them ur engine specs and they do the guessing changing the peramaters on ur ECU , i larf at this all the time but yet some people are getting rich from robbing blind.

thats why i said if anyone is going to takle this it has to be live tuning of the eec4 and 5 connected to ur cars engine while its running

enuff im getting excited here talking all this stuff

even the flash tuiner that some people selling which is a sling off STA in the states is not that good as its not live tuning but then there is nothing else on the market so i suppose it will have to do for now


its a PITTY Ken Young is holden orientated cuase if anyone could do it its him KEN YOUNG , i am aware a few people have approached him and he said his hands are full just doing the holden ECU's

so if anyone has a wizzard electronical engineer willing to have a go at it let him know

cheers

sorry about the spelling

yes, its not hard at all



Its not impossible, just that it changes for every ecu catch code. You could spend years reverse engineering one catch code, but there are about 30-40 catch codes for EF's alone.



Not hard, but the EEC is a stupidly over complicated ECU IMO. Look at the complexity of the A9L computers which are now fully unlocked and youll see what I mean.



Im not sure about who your referring to, but most of the desktop tuners ive heard of use a large database of dyno tunes and just match yours up. So its not going to be 100% for your engine, but not far of. Chiptorque for example made a modified HP4 program for my engine. I had several tuners look at it and they said they doubt they could get any more power out of it with a custom tune. I was a little lucky I think, but even if an off the shelf tune doesnt get you that perfect tune, it will probably be 1/2 the cost of a dyno tune so its good back for buck - especially for engines with only a few mods on them.




It is a massive undertaking. Think about how long tweecer has been available and how many ECU's are unlocked. It will be great if someone does it, but its just so much easier just to swap the ford ecu out for something that is designed to be retuned by the owner.

What I think would be a much better product would be if somebody took a board like the MS2 and fitted it into an EEC case with the standard ford connectors and worked out some base tunes - plug and play programmable ECU without the headaches.

[/quote]

Chips that were provided by CAPA were only for standard engines running standard CAPA kits. They know the specs of the engine, they know the way the blower/FMU work together. Works nicely on mine, anyone at AFF dyno day could tell that the fuelling was fine.

I conceed there is probably a few more kw in it - but i assure you the tune is fine and didnt have to pay dyno $$$ whilst it was tuned - only to verify the settings were ok.

there is a screenshot of the Caledit here
http://www.tweecer.com/images/ce3.jpg
http://www.tweecer.com/images/ce1.jpg

gives some idea of how complex the inner working of the EEC really is. Trying to find were all those variables are in a binary file wont be easy.

LOL stockstandard some good imput there


I have eectuner simliar to tweecer and i have sucked some of the binary files

guys just standard engines all u can do is just cleanup the very rich mixture Ford and other manufactures have when u go wide open throttle and maybe adjust ignition timing just to squeeze a few more kwatts out of a stock standard engine

I'm talking highly modified engines where there optinum fuel and ignition maps need major calibrations and idle settings and so on

we have a perfectly good micro processor in our cars that can do more than woth than a aftermarket programmable ECU can but we cant full re-programm it to function correctly ( optinum performance ) cause we have no way of fully correcting the calibration

stockstandard have u read a stock map and a chiptorque map that he has modified and compared files , im sure u will be amazed what he has done , thats all i can comment on at this stage

do a file compare see the differance

as far as a desltop tune PMSFL i wouldnt waste my money on one but remember thats my opinion .

doesnt matter who the guy is whether its JOE BLOW there desktop tune will not be optinum performances , yeah may make the negine seem better but run it on a dyno and logg all the datat before and after u will be supprised .

the piggyback type ( signal modifiers ) that people get on there cars that fool ur cars ecu in think its doing somehting else so the factory ecu makes the correct adjustment is again not the proper way of tuning ,

the annoying part about the piggyback ecu's that some well know tuning place has francises on is that ur locked into there workshop facilitys and u cant make the adjustment urself cause they dont give u the software and little black box to interface with the laptop again all boils down to they want ur money ( always have to come back to them )

how long will it take to read a binary file with all the ones and zeros and manually work it it ??? LOL , remember all the codes will follow suit , even if there is a revised code im sure it will still follower the same path.


stockstand if u get a chance LONG SHOT HERE just to statisfy ur curiousity here plug a aftermarket ecu onto ur car and tune all the load points example is a 3D wolf statrt from 1000 rpm to what ever ur engine revs out to and still makes power say 6000rpm if its capable off in increments of 125rpm from light throttle to wide open throttle over 12 load points in just 1000 rpm and to go to 6000 rpm we are talking a total of 550 plus load points just for fuel and then repeat the same process for ignition timing i bet ur u will have more power better throttle reponse than wot u will get from a desktop chip someone sells u over the counter

now over a 1000 load points how long will this take on a chassis dyno or a engine dyno ???

im sure theses guys that do desktop tuning dont do all that LOL

very interesting topic

brb cheers

will give more imput just have a think about it


cheers

This is the path that tweecer seems to follow - unlock through brute force. They dont get far quickly, and surprisingly each ecu seems to be unique as far as the 'layout' of the bin files (although some do seem to be the same). Personally I havent looked at bin files for similar structures so I dont know.



Im sure they dont

Most off the shelf chips not based on dyno tunes I expect are tuned along the lines of "add a few degrees more timing here and there, pull some fuel out here, add more there". More of gut feeling tuning than precision, but it can still work and give power increases. I wouldnt use one on a highly modified engine either though!

Im not convinced that you need to tune down to a 125rpm resolution either. My MS2 has "small" 12x12 spark and fuel maps and uses interpolation to fill in the gaps (I have rpm points set at approx every 500 rpm and 12 load points between 20kpa and 100kpa with a few extra grouped around the idle and cruise area). I honestly thought that this was too small to tune an engine properly and intended on expending the maps to 24x24 myself. Now I have tuned it in, I cant see why I would want more. If there were sharp edges in the maps, higher resolution would certainly help round it out, but my maps are very smooth.

I downloaded the EMS 8860 base tunes for comparison. EMS has used about 20x20 bins to tune these engines which at first glance looks much more detailed. Looking at the values closely though, the majority of the values in those bins are virtually linear, and in the high rpm little changes. Also looking at the ignition maps, only 12x5 section of the table is in the rpm and load range of a NA I6, the rest of the points cover boost. Similar story in the fuel maps

It seems to me like more tuning points will just mean more work and very marginal gains. Maybe Ill see things differently with more experience (I am still very much a amateur efi tuner).

You are right about custom tuning, even though I suspect I am still a little down on peak power compared to the chiptorque, the real time tuning I have done has given very impressive improvements in low-middle range and partial throttle.

OK , just be careful when u say linear progression , its not the case ????


the 3D wolf has a feature of 125rpm , 250rpm and 500rmp increments for tuning load points

the higher resolution at 125 rpm load points actaully doesnt follower a linear path all the time.

if one wants to tune in 500rpm increments so be it but i can assure u there is a differeance rather than just filling in the gaps with a linear number in the load point box by a calculated linear progression is still not the proper way

example do that and then run the car can on the dyno at a load point a see the differences , its just a case of modifying a few load points and coomparing dyno figures u will be suprised


and

yes LOL turbo cars are a different animal all together when it comes to tuning

cheers

By linear, i mean that in many of the bins the values are 1/2 the difference between the values on either side (or VERY close to it). If the ECU was interpolating values, you would get the same tune with/without those bins.

Also, my VE maps changes WOT fueling by less than 1% between 4000 and 6000, yet AFR is a rock steady 12.8. I would get exactly the same tune for my engine by moving all the bins under 4000rpm.

yes by linear i mean half the value , when engine speed increase cylinder fill decrease cause u get less time to fill the cylinder , so at high engine speeds it doesnt follower that path

doing a full drop of 0.1 % is a method employed VE's is another kettle of fish all togther

cheers

That's cool - you certainly know your stuff and i wouldnt doubt that. The desktop tuned CAPA unit is based on a LOT of testing on dynos/real world.

Once they get it right, they simply replicate the tune - on the assumption that my standard engine with blower is the same/similar to the standard engine with blower they developed the tune on....

As ive alluded to - the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is jammed firmly into the bottom of the EEC5 in my car. Its desktop tuned and it works nicely.

give u a example now , is ur crankangle sensor ( distributor ) in the exact same posistion as all the tunes Mr CAPA has done on all the dyno work in his workshop the same as urs ??? thats just one example ???

so " they simply replicate the tune " is a very trickie word ???


1 or 2 or 3 degrees advanced or retarted will make a huge differance ??

" As ive alluded to - the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is jammed firmly into the bottom of the EEC5 in my car. Its desktop tuned and it works nicely."

do u have some wide open throttle readings of a dyno of air/fuel ratio settings at 3500 rpm , 4000 rpm , 4500 rpm , 5000 rpm and upto what ever ur redline is on ur engine , these readings i would love to see at a steady state test not a ramp up and ramp down , woul be interestesing

guys that case 1 or 2 kwatts tests at different airfuel mixture settings to see where max kwatts and torque is produced and different engine respond differently doesnt matter if there the same car and engine one would have to be on a strict production line to reproduce identical results

I'm not saying these desktop tuners don't make a differance but im can say with confidence there not 100%

race teams spend hours apon hours on engine and chassis dyno time tuning and changing things

alot of people think a few hours on the dyno and everythings is done

race teams perform a whole race session on a engine dyno and not to mention how many engines dont live to tell a tale



cheers

Last edited by FPV_GTp on Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.