Max Spark limit on P59 calibrations?
Help me understand why spark advance seems to max out at 40 when base advance is 45 and there's no apparent retards in effect.
I'm running a P59 ECU with an 04 GTO calibration file.
The Max Spark Advance setting does not exist under Advance tab like it does on P01 calibrations. I don't know where to look! TIA
95-409LT4-GBFID-LS7Dwell-RTTVE-OL-SD__017.hpl
95-409LT4-GBFID-LS7Dwell-RTTVE-OL-SD__018.hpt
I looked at your file in Tunerpro, and it does indeed have the max spark advance capped at 40 degrees. Not sure why that tab does not show up in HPT. Then again, even figuring in various adder tables, the stock gto files don't go above 36* spark advance.Originally Posted by Ratssled
How did you read it with TunerPro?
Do you have a program to convert the HTP to BIN, or did you flash my file to an ECU and then read it with TunerPro?
Do you know where I can get an XDF to edit the BIN? Or would Universal Patcher work?
Thanks!
Look to the pcmhacking forums for a wide variety of XDF files for most common OS numbers. I used one to enable flex fuel and populate the appropriate tables on my GTO. I have no idea if universal patcher will show the max spark table, as I do not use it for anything that already has a good xdf available.
edit--This is your file in .bin
Last edited by gametech; 05-17-2025 at 11:32 PM.
OK, I'll go find an xdf.
Can you at least tell me if you were able to read in my custom OS using TunerPro with you xdf file?
Check my above edit. I was editing my post while you were posting. Find a 12587604 xdf by username Phoenix.
edit-- I just checked universal patcher out of curiosity, and I would not trust it with your file.
Last edited by gametech; 05-17-2025 at 11:39 PM.
Thanks for the bin! I was able to change the max advance setting to 50.
I actually found the xdf with the plugin on my PC. I forgot that I had used it to test the 04 GTO calibration before I licensed it.
May I ask what you use to flash bin files? I have a few tools, but have been using PCMHammer lately.
In theory, I use pcmhammer or lsdroid, but in reality the only thing I have used .bin files for in ages has been parameters that HPT no longer lists. I just take the .bin and run it back through the HPT tune translation tool to convert back to .hpt, and flash with hptuners. The tune translation tool is free on here for gen 3 files. I trust the hptuners software/hardware combination better when writing to the pcm vs the free hobby tools.
Last question, and thanks for putting me on the right track.
I've been entering my bin file into tune translation service, but it appears to do nothing after I click upload. Is it working as designed, or should I get a confirmation DB stating that it was successfully uploaded?
In case it matters, as I'm asking for a free bin type (P59), it wouldn't force you to purchase tokens in advance, would it?
I gave up on the tune translation service and flashed the stock OS back to the ECU because neither hammer nor droid would write the custom OS. Then used Droid to read/write the modified bin file using a bench harness. I don't think I would try it with the ECU in the car!
Spark now goes above 40 degrees, and the car is actually running a lot better with the stock OS. So, this was a blessing because the custom RTT OS was not acting right anyway, and I now have access to many parameters that HPT left out, such as multiple transient fuel tables!
I want to thank you (gametech) for your quickly defining the problem for me!
I had forgotten that even though gen3 tune translations are free, you have to have some minimal amount of tokens to sign up for it in the first place. I think I purchased $20 worth when I first used it, but have not actually had to use any of them. Sorry about the misleading info. In other news, I had glanced around the original file you posted, and it had a lot of curious changes that I am not quite sure were going to be helpful. I made no comment at the time, since that is not what you asked about.I gave up on the tune translation service and flashed the stock OS back to the ECU because neither hammer nor droid would write the custom OS. Then used Droid to read/write the modified bin file using a bench harness. I don't think I would try it with the ECU in the car!
Spark now goes above 40 degrees, and the car is actually running a lot better with the stock OS. So, this was a blessing because the custom RTT OS was not acting right anyway, and I now have access to many parameters that HPT left out, such as multiple transient fuel tables!
I want to thank you (gametech) for your quickly defining the problem for me!
Sounds ominous.
Please do tell!
Without knowing the details of the build, it may make sense that cylinder volume is changed to approximately a 408 motor. Even with aftermarket fans and a/c, it is hard to believe that the airflow differences in your file would accurately reflect engine load unless all the airflow is skewed somewhere. And the unrealistically high VE numbers lead me to believe that some numbers are skewed, likely in the fueling. The 107lb injector value seems odd for an NA motor, and there would be no reason to put e10 stoich all the way across the table for stoich values when flex is turned off anyway. The injector bank assignments have values swapped that would indicate this is not an ls motor, or perhaps has 180 degree headers if it is. Overall there are just a ton of changes that would not normally be needed in the engine tuning, but yet only 1 minor change to 1 table in the transmission section. Most, but not all of these changes could be accounted for by someone making tweaks to a really unusual combo, but they looked more likely to be experiments in "what does this do" that never got changed back.
Very true about the unrealistic VE. I'm just getting started with the P59 tune and so I have yet to get above 75kPa or 4,000 rpm. I keep expecting the values to come down, and they are.
I've had three different PCM's and three different size injectors on this build so far as I try to sort it out. I'd like to end it here! My new goal is to tune it on pump gas, then enable Flex fuel to see how it runs on E85, which is new to me.
I went from an EE tune on an 8051 PCM to a P01 with an 02 Camaro calibration to this 07 Van P59 PCM with the 04 GTO cal. It started with 30# Bosch red tops, then FID500's, and now FID1000's in the P59. I got both sets of FID injectors characterized with good GM data. I was originally told to use FI-Clinic data for the FID's before I had them characterized. Hmm, a thought, I'll ask FID what they should flow! All of the injector data is in GM 4-bar non referenced format, and of course my fuel system is GM 3-Bar vacuum referenced from the mid 90's. No biggie right, as long as you convert it properly. I just purchased a new Walbro 450 pump and I have an adjustable FPR at the rail. Should I go 4-Bar and disco the vacuum line? I do NOT want to continue tuning without an accurate foundation! BTW, the VE in the old EE tune maxed out at 92%, so yeah, it currently ain't right!
As for the build, not an LS! It's a Gen 2 LT1 (the oddball SBC), 4" stroke, 4.035" bore, 12:1 SCR with ported LT4 top end with twin 58mm TB in a 95 Impala with a 4L60e. It has a Torque Head signal kit and I rewired the harness myself. Most of the fuel around here is ~E8 so I plugged in 14.22 AFR, plus it'll be in CL anyway. Currently running 94 octane pump gas, but no octane booster. Once the airflow and a best effort on spark is done I'll add the flex fuel sensor and enable it the tune.
It is a street strip car that is more strip than street at the moment, but it does have a good A/C! The E85 idea is to see if it will outperform octane booster. I just don't want to use that stuff!
Sorry for the long post. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. Thanks!
Here's the current (standard OS) tune.
95-409LT4-GBFID-OL-SD__021.hpl
If you have the proper data conversion for the 3 bar referenced system, I would leave the fueling as is. The only reasons to change it would be unavailability of properly converted data, lack of fuel injector, or lack of fuel pump. It sounds like you have none of these problems. I forgot one other reason. I run an a1000 external at 4bar instead of 3bar simply because it is not as loud at higher pressure, lol. The lt1 with lt4 top end explains the transient fueling changes, odd idle airflow modifier changes, basically most of the "odd" changes that I flagged when I first looked at the tune. I am curious if the knock sensor settings you have will end up working or not. People seem to have very mixed results getting those sensors to work right on swap engines. Good luck with the process and enjoy.
Never had an issue getting knock sensors to work with them myself. Not sure why others claim they do not.
I absolutely do want knock management!
I just tuned another 24x LT1 with a P01 using 96 LT1 knock sensors. They work fine, but I had to up the knock sensor level a bit to eliminate false knock. It has a very loud valvetrain that needs new and better rocker studs.
There are two 96 LT1 knock sensors in this engine now, plus one flat response sensor plugged into a Plex Knock Monitor for spark tuning. I plan to find out where the real knock level is at low rpm and then program around the false knock if I can.
I was just about to say that I wish HPT would allow me to change the center frequency, then decided to look in TunerPro and there it was. The 12587604 calibration, and probably many others, have knock sensor hardware settings for center frequency and an additional filter level setting. I found that the flat response sensors in my BBC worked best on the second harmonic at around 10k.
Looks like I need to spend a few bucks on the translation service because I may be using it a lot.
Reply With Quote