TTP MIN & TTP MAX possible issue

UNISA JECS · Post by **UNISA JECS** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:17 am

Hey Matt I was comparing some my S13 KA24DE.bins with both the KA24DE .ADR and SR20DET.ADR and I found someone that I wanted to bring to yoru attention not sure if its a big deal but i'll say the SR20DET .ADR makes more sense to me.

Heres a screen shot:

UNISA JECS · Post by **UNISA JECS** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:22 am

Im not sure if im right but it seems to me that the TTP MIN and MAX are somewhat of a range adjuster to the Target Pulsewidths, moreless giving "leeway" to the ECM to add or subtract fuel from the Target Pulsewidhts.

UNISA JECS · Post by **UNISA JECS** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:29 am

While im here might as well make another suggestion to see if we can make better since of teh TTP MIN and TTP MAX.

Ok I realize there is a step or graduation to the Target Pulsewidth as RPM increases, it does not appear to me that this is applied in the TTP MIN and TTP MAX maps (thats assuming that the middle "value" is actually for pulsewidth), is there away this can be done to make it make more sense?

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:42 pm

When I added Calums changes to our B13/S13 KA address files... these got changed

from 0390 on TTP min to

TTP_MIN,&H0A00,16,1,16,1,TTP MIN

added 0390 instead to

Q_OFFSET_RPM,&H0390,16,1,16,1,Q Offset RPM table pw vs temp

now I dont know exactly why he has done this (see XDF) but this change was put in the latest address file pack

If you reverse the change it will show up the same as S13/S14/S15 SR20 which I believe probably looks more correct.

I should have a look at the code here, and probably good to query calums XDF file about this also