WinALDL

scottyb

I don't know why you would be getting different numbers.
I don't have scanmaster so I don't know how it works.
Maybe the calibrations in this program are a little off.
You get what you pay for:rolleyes:
If you find out anything else let me know.
Could you recheck your calibration for me?
 
Update:

There is now a new version available for download that has corrected the data logging errors, mainly KR sensor logging.

Also, I have exchanged a few emails with the author. He is standing by his calculations for O2 and KR that I believe are incorrect.

Examples:
O2:
SM WINALDL
.441 .495
.453 .513
.488 .553
I took these just after a cold start, so the readings were consistant and in some cases were unchanged for a few frames. At WOT, WinALDL ALWAYS logs O2's in the high 900 (.999, and even 1.02), so I am pretty sure that is incorrect. Maybe closed loop changes conversions ???

KR:
SM WINALDL
3.0 2.29
Considering what we are talking about here, I'd rather believe the SM.

At this point, I plan to work up a quickie that converts, but the O2 conversion doesn't look to be consistant. I do have a consistant KR multiplier.

Any thoughts?
 
I plan to work up a quickie that converts
Click to expand...

Are you talking about a patch?

Seeing as that I don't have scanmaster, any corrections you make for me are very much apreciated.
I just wish I could assist you in your research!
 
Sort of a patch.

I'm first thinking of just reading the log and massaging it to suit my needs/views a little better. If I am confident that these conversions are incorrect, I'll adjust them in the same process.
 
The 2.29 for retard would be correct (data =13). The formula is data/256*45. Windaldl originally used the advance formula of data/256*90. I know Jonas fixed that.

Strange point, the ECM code uses 256 but the ALDL stream spec uses 255. Minor error.

I haven't looked at it in awhile, but the IAT temp was wrong. He used CTS formula rather than the lookup table. The IAT read backwards.

The formula for O2 volts is data *.225. How does that compare?

Terry
 
Terry, that .225 for O2 confuses me. I don't see where it relates. Please be more specific. Again this morning the SM recorded .886 and WinALDL recorded .995 in the same frame(raw 225). In the frame prior (where my knock occurred, and MAF 255) WinALDL recorded 1.003. Is this value even possible/reasonable?

Could it be that I have 2 scantools hooked up at once and they don't get along?

Scott
 
Originally posted by scottyb
Terry, that .225 for O2 confuses me. I don't see where it relates. Please be more specific. Again this morning the SM recorded .886 and WinALDL recorded .995 in the same frame(raw 225). In the frame prior (where my knock occurred, and MAF 255) WinALDL recorded 1.003. Is this value even possible/reasonable?

Could it be that I have 2 scantools hooked up at once and they don't get along?

Scott
Click to expand...

Maybe 'cause I typed it wrong? Sorry about that.

The value in mV is data/.225. That gives a range of 0-1133mV (1.133V). So 1.003V is totally in range. Rich too!

The formula of mV=Data * 4.44 is used too. There are 4.44mV per step. Gives the same result (1/4.44=.225).

Finally, I looked at Winaldl 1.09c and it looks like he fixed everything I found.

Terry
 
So the information in the 1.09c version is correct then?
Has anyone addressed the issue of making the logs readable yet?


Oh BTW, is 21.8 degrees of KR bad:eek:
(yes I know its bad)
 
Does this program update as fast as Direct Scan? Also is there enough information to be able to burn your chips? If so sounds like a great piece of software.
 
No, Winaldl is 1.25s per update. Direct scan is on the processor data bus I believe. This is just a PC based ALDL scan tool.

For free, it's worth every penny. Even for a low cost it's worth it considering Diacom is $250+ but Diacom does have more cars and features.
 
re: the O2 mV issue, I seem to remember that TurboLink reads different than the average scan tool. Reason was the assumption of the... key on/engine off mV? Something like that. The average scantool assumed 0.500 mV, while TurboLink assumed (the correct) 0.450 mV. Or something like that. So they never read the same. When TurboLink reads 800 mV, another scan tool would read 900+ mV. Sounds like the same issue here. A little mailing list archive searching would probably turn up the actual facts that I just butchered here.

John
 
Originally posted by BLACK Ttype
So the information in the 1.09c version is correct then?
Has anyone addressed the issue of making the logs readable yet?


Oh BTW, is 21.8 degrees of KR bad:eek:
(yes I know its bad)
Click to expand...

The logs import pretty nicely into Access and Excel. Also, the latest version has corrected what was an ugly import when you log both raw and sensor data at the same time.

The O2 and KR differences I have found are consistant. The part that bugs me is the inability to comfirm which one is incorrect. Many of us use a scanmaster, does this mean that we are tuning from false information?

I think I'll go visit a buddy who has turbo link and see what it records compared to my Scanmaster.
 
Well, I have been reading for years now that high .700's is a decent "target" for O2's. My setup generally has yielded O2's in the low 800's on the scanmaster. On Winaldl, these same frames are logged in the HIGH .900's.

Either I have been running unusually rich and can lean it up considerably, OR WinALDL is wrong and attempts to get the O2's down will result in a dangerous lean condition.


Also, can different chips change the conversions?
 
Well, if the program code stuffs value X into the memory location, the ALDL code pulls X from that location and stuffs it into the ALDL stream, Winaldl grabs X from the ALDL stream then applies GM's own specified conversion formula......is it wrong?

I'm not sure what the bias voltage has to do with the ALDL stream reading. The ECM reads the voltage, converts it and saves it in RAM. The bias will affect what the ECM reads but not change the ALDL stream.

I think you might be putting too much faith in the repeatability of the stock O2. You're splitting it close enough you should be using a WB and EGT.

The only other test I can thing of doing is to to connect two different scanners to the ALDL and compare the readings.

If the converted value matches the raw data using the formula I gave you then I'd call it good.

Terry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Need help identifying camshaft
Replies
12
Views
684
Cnelson6
C
B
Caspers Headlight Brightenet
Replies
9
Views
935
erikelvis
E
GNVYUS 1
Antenna Cable, Radio To Antenna
Replies
4
Views
549
GNVYUS 1
GNVYUS 1
slo-joe55
Push Rod Head Design
Replies
11
Views
755
slo-joe55
slo-joe55
N2BUICK
Name that TV cable
Replies
7
Views
929
N2BUICK
N2BUICK
Top