Yeah, I figured the EF ones would be very = different.

The complete difference of the chiptorque and catch code, = would indicate to me, they have a generic tune for that catch code, and they = just load it up for everyone with a matching car. (e.g. all manual I6 EFs = would run from code from any other manual I6 EF). Saves them cracking the = details on all catch codes. I know my EL would start and run, on any EL = auto I6 BIN I tried.

As for creating the XDF. That IS the hard part for = sure.

For the speed limiter, I knew what it should've been = (180), and from looking at XDFs from American Fords, they seemed to store the speed directly as a single byte value. Easy, search through the BIN for = a matching byte (0xB4) and some trial and error. Initial trials had me = setting it to 120, and hitting the highway, eventually I found the right = byte.

For RPM limiters, again checking the US XDFs revealed the = rev limiters are stored as a 2-byte integer which is the desired limited = divided by 4. Again knowing the stock rev limiter (5800), I searched for it's = byte code (remembering to divide it by 4, giving 1450 or 0x05AA) . Again some = trial and error, setting rev limiter to 3000 proved = successful.

I found comparing a stock one with an XR one to time = consuming as the differences are huge, most of the file is = different.

But good luck to you, hopefully you have some more will = power than me, and better luck with your car. (I ended up destroying a = gearbox, and engine in two separate occasions) and gave it up.

But ask questions, I've still got to help out Joe = (Crescent Motorsport) one a job he's got. But not having to much luck. Need = to build a EL I5 manual bin with a 6700rpm limiter. I'm having little = success with it, and with no ELs around to test on, it's going = poorly.

Chris

From: Jason Bolger [mailto:jbolger@techcore.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 July 2007 11:49 PM
To: data_mine
Subject: Re: EF EEC-V

Hey Chris,

Thanks for the BINs. Using yours as an example I used TunerPro's = splitter and now have the 56k bank which the EEC actually uses. Attached in = case you need it.

Optimistically I tried your XDF on my bin without luck.

One thing I noted was if I split the chiptorque bin in the same way, all = 4 banks of the chiptorque were identical -- a good start in narrowing it down. It seems to have a different amount of padding or different addressing compared to the stock bin -- they look similar, but not the same. This could be the slightly different catch code confusing = the issue?

So, i guess my next question is - how did you go about creating that = XDF? Was it trial and error or did you use a tool to help you along the = way? Comparing a stock and XR6 bin would be a good start as long as they = lined up apart from major tables, but it seems if my chiptorque is any kind of = example it might not be that easy.

Enough for now... need sleep for the day job.

Cheers for your help.

Jason

data_mine wrote:

Here's my BINs, TunerPro XDF (definition), and some modded ones, =
the naming

should be =
obvious.

The XDF has =
worked on all my EL bins. (there's also an EA =
bin).

As you may notice =
I spent the most time playing with the bin from a =
97

Fairlane Concorde (XR6 engine), as it provided =
the best base to get my EL

running with the big cam =
it =
had.

Chris 
-----Original =
Message-----
From: Jason Bolger [mailto:jbolger@techcore.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, 24 July 2007 9:01 =
AM
To: fm@datamine.tk
Su=
bject: EF EEC-V

Hey =
there,

I found the EEC =
itself needed to be in the car (powered) to get a =
stable
read - otherwise it would flake =
randomly.  Could be an issue with the
BURN1 =
not supplying enough current for the Aus EECs (given its =
only
running off the USB port).  I had to =
solder the J3 connector on the F2A
for it to get a =
good contact with the Chiptorque - the F2A's PCB =
isnt
as thick as the EEC so the Chiptorque's =
connector wasnt seating
properly.  I tested =
each a few times and diff'd the outputs to =
get
these stable =
reads.

Attached are my =
bins - the EEC catch code is 4DCC - but the chiptorque =
is
labeled 4DBG as I said in the PM.  I cant =
explain why they're so
different - only can guess =
that Chiptorque move the tables to a =
common
location for all of their chips to make life =
easier - but that would
mean they knew were the =
tables were referenced =
from?

Any assistance =
would be a great help.  I would like to start from =
the
chiptorque bin for obvious reasons but if its =
easier to work off the EF
I will.  Might even =
be easier if I move to an AU =
EEC.

Cheers,<=
/pre> 
Jason