Transient Ignition Retard Tables from RomRaider

[Td-d]

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.

[jeebus]

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.

[jeebus]

Originally Posted by Td-d

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.

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

[Td-d]

Originally Posted by jeebus

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

From the raw disassembly of A01C:

ROM:000CECF8 Table_Transient_Ignition_Retard:.data.w 7 ; DATA XREF: sub_6F170+6Eo
ROM:000CECF8                                         ; ROM:off_6F340o
ROM:000CECFA                 .data.w h'18
ROM:000CECFC                 .data.l flt_1184B0
ROM:000CED00                 .data.l flt_1184CC
ROM:000CED04                 .data.l byte_11852C     ; = -9.922
ROM:000CED08                 .data.l h'4000000
ROM:000CED0C                 .float 0.3515625
ROM:000CED10                 .float -50.0

From Tunerpro:

[jeebus]

Originally Posted by Td-d

From the raw disassembly of A01C:

ROM:000CECF8 Table_Transient_Ignition_Retard:.data.w 7 ; DATA XREF: sub_6F170+6Eo
ROM:000CECF8                                         ; ROM:off_6F340o
ROM:000CECFA                 .data.w h'18
ROM:000CECFC                 .data.l flt_1184B0
ROM:000CED00                 .data.l flt_1184CC
ROM:000CED04                 .data.l byte_11852C     ; = -9.922
ROM:000CED08                 .data.l h'4000000
ROM:000CED0C                 .float 0.3515625
ROM:000CED10                 .float -50.0

From Tunerpro:

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.

[Td-d]

Originally Posted by jeebus

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.

[jeebus]

Originally Posted by Td-d

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?

[Td-d]

Originally Posted by jeebus

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.

No problem, it is pretty dry stuff!

Originally Posted by jeebus

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

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

[ft_sjo]

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.

[Td-d]

Originally Posted by ft_sjo

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

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

Originally Posted by ft_sjo

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

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.

[jeebus]

Originally Posted by Td-d

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.

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.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by jeebus

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.

[ayau]

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".

[dsgerbc]

Originally Posted by ayau

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.