The default integer value for rom1 in the GUFB/A9L is 8192 but according to the pid description it states to set to 0. Should this truly be set to 0 and if so why is 0 not the default value?

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

It's not a genuine parameter, it was introduced as a hack to get around the rom checksum routine in s/w that doesn't recalculate the checksum when parameters are changed. Do not change it if the s/w you use calculates the checksum.

So for others that may stumble upon this in the future QH/Tweecer Users with Binary Editor should leave this set as is.

_________________
1989 GT - 25th Anniversary 5.0, Vortech S-Trim, TFS Trackheat Heads & Intake, TFS Stage 1 Cam, FRPP 1.6 RR, 75mm TB, Pro-M 80mm, Anderson Power Pipe, FRPP 42#s, GS-340/255 lph pump, Anderson 1-3/4 shorties, 3" Borla Exhaust, Tremec T-5, 3.73-31 spline, MSD 6AL2, complete-lowered suspension A9L, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4, BE, EA, Innovate LC-1/XD-16.

1992 LX - 25.1c Chassis, Vortech Blown Renegade 317, Lentech Trans, TRZ Backhalf,A3M1, Moates QH/SL v1.6/1.4 BE, EA

correct, if you have a strategy that the developer actually took the time to locate and calculate the checksum correctly then there is no need to disable it

SCT and many others use the 0 approach because they simply can not calculate a correct checksum due to the lack of having the full binary, they could have done it correctly on the eec-iv stuff but i guess since it was outdated at the time of their inception it just wasn't cost effective, the newer 2 bank and 4 bank ecu's checksum can not be calculated by most tuning software since their chips only contain partial bits of the calibration, they 'bypass' pats and other information which is served up from the stock eeprom, thats why you can get a mail order chip from diablo or SCT for example and not fail PATS

for example, its like only writing 2 banks on the chip instead of all 4 and just serving the other 2 from the stock calibration in the ecu, thats similar to how those chips function

From what i have seen SCT and others do not calculate the checksum because they do not put the entire cal on a burnt chip. Maybe i should say not all of the time do they use the entire calibration. For example the Tweecer can be in "4 two bank" mode and only emulate bank 1 and 8 on a four bank processor. This saves space on the tweecer and thus they can not calculate the check sum because they do not have the other two banks of info. This is one of the main reasons i did not do this in BE. In BE you use the entire calibration, none of this using of 2 of the 4 banks stuff.

The Spanish oak stuff is totally different.

_________________
Car Info
EEC Analyzer & Binary Editor
Other Photos

Yes it very common with SCT. Most guys running SCT will almost always be showing a DTC because of it. Usually 15 on our FoxBodys. Gives most the illusion that the ECM is loosing power or is toast.

_________________
89 Coupe- Canfield 195's, Holley Systemax II, CI cam, 24# Inj, 05 Slot MAF, 75mm TB
BBK 1 3/4 LT's, 3"Exhaust, 3"Spintech's, T-5 Trans, QH 1.4, AEM WB, BE/EA: A9L-GUFB

Very true code 15 is bad EEPROM, false indication but has no affect on operation.

_________________
Car Info
EEC Analyzer & Binary Editor
Other Photos