16168625 problems
Moderators: robertisaar, dex
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:26 pm
- Location: Munhall, PA
16168625 problems
Hi I have done a good bit of work with the $OD for my V8 S10 but now I am having problems with my 1993 Chevy C1500 350 TBI. It is running the 16168625. Every time I write a chip and attempt to run it, the check engine light flashes like a strobe light. I could be wrong but I believe that means a bad prom. I really need to fix this but don't know what to do. Anyone else have this problem and fix it? I am burning my chips. 27sf512 I believe is the part number of the chip.
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:26 pm
- Location: Munhall, PA
-
- Author of Defs
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:18 pm
- Location: Camden, MI
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:26 pm
- Location: Munhall, PA
-
- Author of Defs
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:18 pm
- Location: Camden, MI
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:26 pm
- Location: Munhall, PA
Sure! Anything right now could help. Thanks. Gasforblood@comcast.netrobertisaar wrote:i could probably email you the diagrams and let you figure out if it is feasable...
interested?
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:26 pm
- Location: Munhall, PA
I did this and it seems to be working. Will it be OK leaving it this way or should I change something else too? Thanks again.robertisaar wrote:is that an E6 truck?
i seem to remember the checksum settings being wrong in a few of the XDFs i've seen for it...
just set the mask ID to AA and see if it happens again. if so, those settings need fixed.
-
- Author of Defs
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:18 pm
- Location: Camden, MI
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:09 am
1616865 Vs. 16197427
Does anyone know if the pinning between the 16168625 and the 16197427 are the same and if they would equally operate a 4.3 VIN W Vortec?
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:26 pm
- Location: Munhall, PA
I have these settings entered and it is connecting but I am getting a bunch of errors as it is connected.robertisaar wrote:i believe the correct settings are
data start: 4008
data end: FFFF
store address: 4006
store size: 16 bit
data size: 8 bit
calculation: sum(no carry)
I am also having no luck getting the history (histogram) function to work in order to tune. I have tried everything I know but it will only fill the first column as if it wasn't reading the MAP or something. Someone please help, I am at the last stage before getting this inspected and running it and now I am stuck bad.
-
- Author of Defs
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:18 pm
- Location: Camden, MI
well, those are settings to correct the XDF, sounds like you're having an issue with an ADS or ADX...
if you're using TP V5, follow what i wrote in this thread, see if it helps clear up your issues.
http://tunerpro.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2215
if you're using TP V5, follow what i wrote in this thread, see if it helps clear up your issues.
http://tunerpro.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2215
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:53 pm
There are new xdf and adx files for TunerPro RT V5 available that this issue I believe is fixed. You can get the files here:
http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Inject ... rmation-E6
http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Inject ... rmation-E6
1990 Chevy Suburban
1994 Buick RoadMaSSter Estate Wagon LT1.
1972 IH 1210 Isky Cammed Balenced 345 TBI
GearHead-EFI.com EFI Conversions and Chip Tuners!
1994 Buick RoadMaSSter Estate Wagon LT1.
1972 IH 1210 Isky Cammed Balenced 345 TBI
GearHead-EFI.com EFI Conversions and Chip Tuners!
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:53 pm
Thanks alot, that took care of that issue. I have been pulling my hair out trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. This may be a question for another thread but the VE table in the BHAR bin file for the 93 1500 w/350 truck I have been working on has values in it at almost 100%. I know is BS with a stock TBI motor. Any changes here are going to take some of the values to over 100%. Is this normal and will this be an issue? Thanks again.