[ijames]

Thanks for the code check, Dennis. I thought that since they zeroed the upper byte and stored the pe-rpm/tps correction as a 16 bit number, then they must be doing a 16 bit multiply - it's been a while since I read over those subroutines, sigh. I really do want +/- 200%, since if you think about it, 0-200% is the same dynamic range as +/- 100% which is what we have now. Otherwise, I could settle for 0-400%, I guess (:-)). Personally, I set the pe-tps values to get the pe-rpm table kind of centered on zero. In my 72 lb chips I go -90% to about +85%, and I'm about to start working on a 95 lb chip for a friend. Losing the pe-tps won't hurt at all, I'll just use the pe-afr vs coolant to "center up" the pe-rpm table. Sorry, Dennis, no testing yet. I'm in the middle of relocating my maf to the uppipe and then putting on a new turbo, and somewhere in the middle of that I have to get my trans fixed, so it's going to be a little while before I can test this. That's why I tossed it out there in the first place; I was just taking tooooo long to get it tested and it seemed too good an idea not to share.