Transient Ignition Retard Tables from RomRaider
 

I know a lot of folks have been wondering just what was done for the 01C rom. It's not subtle!

Here are the transient ignition retard tables from ZA1JA00C and ZA1JA01C (USDM) factory ROMs as read by Ecuflash and RomRaider betas. This table contains the only difference between the roms (which share a nearly common definition) according to RR.

Many thanks and mad respect to the RR and Ecuflash crew!! (I am merely a happy end user).

Edit: updated definitions, but still alpha. Thanks Td-d!!


http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/...H/tables-2.jpg

How does the timing on the newer rom differe in layman's terms?

Also, if Subaru/Toyota isn't willing to flash early adopters to the latest rom, can you just buy an ECU and have the latest rom included?

The newer tune pulls timing during hard redline shifts where the old tune doesn't. Cars tuned to the edge of knock can experience "shift knock" due to transients that the air/fuel/spark delivery system can't keep up with. The transient retard system provides a way to compensate this and keep the engine knock safe. It's a very good capability to have.

That said, looking at these tables, I question the "hole" that remains between 3800 and 5600 rpm.

As far as flashing a rom with a new table: no problemo, and this is what I would do if I had an 00C car (no ECU replacement necessary, it's simply software). As far as flashing a rom with a different definition, well, you go a little slower here. Some WRXs (for instance) go through a few different roms with different definitions on identical hardware, and in these cases I've flashed a different generation rom over another -- usually because I didn't have a complete definition of the rom that was on the car. Scared me to death the first time I did this, but no issue. As long as the ECU hardware or anything attached to it hasn't changed functionally, it can probably be done (check twice, flash once, and for heaven's sake get a better opinion on it than mine).

I have no earthly idea why Toyobaru has any reluctance to flash 00C cars. This is dirt simple and fast to do with RR and ecuflash, it ought to be just as fast for a dealer.

Yeah no kidding. Something isn't right there.

All I see is, aside from the lower left square. They subtracted 20 across the boards.

I've just been looking at these same tables in tunerpro. 00C matches, 01C varies from the RR table (there are a bunch of 90 degree offsets).

Looks like there will be some revisions to the definitions.

Have you driven a car with the 01C calibration + RR? For me it feels like a lot of ignition retard on throttle tip in, makes the car bog sometimes on quick throttle input

Basically, it sparks later during rapid throttle position changes to ENSURE that there is no knock. The cost is that it also feels like the throttle is "laggier", and gives the feel of older drive-by-wire systems.

This helps prevent DI seal failure; the older tune is the cause we lost multiple STOCK engines.

@Ralph Spoilsport

If this stuff interests you, then have a search for @mad_sb 's discussions on the topic. Tables have been previously shared and explained.

My car has 01C from the factory (05/13 USDM) and I haven't modified anything. Throttle response is okay, for a stocker, it does not bog. I made a lot of mods to the DBW tables in my WRXs (which were horrible off the lot!) for driveability and I expect I'll do likewise for the BRZ once I figure things out to my satisfaction.

[...] Stuff deleted pending RR definition update

I had the 00C calibration on my car from the factory, ran a 00C ecutek calibration from visconti, and most recently an 01C ecutek calibration from fa20club.... the tip in throttle stumble is only there on the 01C calibration for me, throttle response on the 00C calibrations was always far better at least for me

Just to update those who may not be following the RR thread closely:

Link is up: https://raw.github.com/TD-D/SubaruDe...R_ZA1JA01C.xml

I've added Transient Ignition Retard ECT, RPM, Load, and TPS Threshhold tables - above (RPM and Load) or below (ECT, TPS) these threshholds, the retard table does not kick in.

@DJCarbine -- I think the fact that there is only this one definition change between 00C and 01C is going to trip people up. I'm looking right now at an 01C stage one tune done by one of the pros, which when opened in RR using our 01C definition shows a TIR table that has 20 degrees too much retard everywhere.

http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/.../bad_table.jpg
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/data:...AASUVORK5CYII=

I can confirm that the scaling is incorrect on the OFT for A01C (offset at -30, should be -50). Need to direct Shiv to this thread.

I really don't understand why they won't flash 00C cars. I have an 00C car and I bought OpenFlash primarily so I could correct this issue.

Are you sure about that? It looks ok to me...

From the raw disassembly of A01C:
From Tunerpro:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2020.56.40.png

does it matter if the offset is at -30 when the table values are appropriate? Or am I missing something here?

The offset for shiv@vishnu 's 00C and 01C bins is the same, but so are the values in the table.

That's exactly the point. Let me demonstrate it by how the ecu actually uses the values from the tables.

In 00c, the value of the first cell is 0x39. So to get the 'human readable' decimal version, convert 0x39 to decimal = 57, then multiply by the multiplier (0.3515625) which equals 20.0390625, and then add the offset (-30) which equals -9.9609375.

Now, with A01c, you want the table to also pull 9.96* at that cell. So you put in 9.96, which using the incorrect scaling as per above would translate back into 0x39. Except, the way the ecu is reading it now, is 0x39*0.3515625*-50 - so actually, you have told the ecu to pull 29.96*.

So yes - asking the ecu to pull 30* as opposed to 10* makes a big difference.

ok, now I see what you are talking about. I apologize for misunderstanding before. 01C actually uses -50 in its conversion of the cells for the transient ignition retard table, however Shiv's definitions have -30 in the conversion because that's how it WAS done in the 00c ECU...so while the table looks correct in 01c, it's actually 20 degrees off everywhere. GOT IT.

WHY THE CRAP WOULD THEY CHANGE THE CONVERSION in the later ECU? And is it really just for that table alone?

No problem, it is pretty dry stuff!

No idea, really bizarre - I've disassembled well over a hundred roms, and this is the first time I've seen this.

Why wouldn't they change the definition? It's their prerogative, they don't own the 'community' anything.

As to why, though, who knows. Maybe something else hooks into it that required it.

Sure - I don't recall anybody even vaguely insinuating otherwise.

Not likely. There is very little churn within Subaru ecu sub models of code, let alone scaling. And these two roms have the calibration in identical ROM locations, bar this one change.

Has anyone verified this through datalogs between shifts? Not that I don't believe it, but it would be lovely to see 100% proof of it before people start tweaking the definition.

There are logs showing a knock detection during shifts, I can't find it at the moment but it's somewhere in this forum.

Bring this thread from the dead. Just an FYI, both Scion and Subaru have posted a TSB to update people to the ZA1JB01C calibration file. I just got mine updated. It feels like the initial throttle has a little "lag".

Did your dealer update you or not? Mine appears to have left me on ZA1JA00C after doing the RPM drop TSB.

Yup, they updated it.

Thanks. Gonna call tomorrow and see what the hell happened.

I took a glance at the 'Transient Ignition Retard Engine Load Threshold' table in RomRaider today and noticed that it's currently set at 0.05 g/rev. This is both on a stock ZA1JA01D rom and OFT Stage 2 UEL. The description says transient ignition retard is disabled above this threshold. Wouldn't this effectively mean that transient ignition retard is disabled all the time? According to my logs, if the engine is running, it's pulling at least 0.1 g/rev. What am I missing here?

Should be disabled below - thanks for alerting me to the error in the description.