Mail failure

[Msg Recipient]

TO: diy_efi                                                    DATE: 02/08/99
                                                               TIME: 11:04
SUBJECT: Mail failure
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[008] Unable to deliver mail due to mailbag contention.
Message was not delivered to
  KOHLERNET/GENERATORS/NassJeff (KOHLERNET/GENERATORS/NassJeff)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Date: 1999-02-08 11:04
   From: diy_efi [MCI:diy_efi \ EMS: INTERNET \ MBX:
diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu]
     CC: KOHLERNET/GENERATORS/NassJeff
     To: diy_efi [MCI:diy_efi \ EMS: INTERNET \ MBX:
diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu]
Subject:  Re: Newbie ALDL question

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MCI Mail date/time: Mon Feb 08, 1999 12:01 pm  CDT
  Source date/time: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 10:58:09 -0600
-------------------

Bill, a lot of it depends on what ECM you are talking to.  I think a lot
of the P4 ECMs have to be commanded to send data.  You might try
different resistors across the ALDL A&B pins to force different modes,
although you don't want to drive in some of those modes.  Last time I
checked at www.lindertech.com they still had MPSI scanners for
reasonable prices.

--steve

Ervinc90 at aol.com wrote:
>
> I have been reading the archives on aldl for about a month or so.  I went
> ahead and built the ALDL interface that was posted which contained: a max232
> chip 9 resistors, 4 diodes, 6 capacitors and a voltage regulator.  I have
> downloaded the gcar2.exe and the pcmcomm program.
>
> My question is this: Why am I not receiving continuous data in the monitor
> mode with the gcar2 program on a 386 with dos 6.2?
>
> I have gotten spurts of data while checking for the connection with the ecm
> and noticed that everytime I turn the ignition on and off a set of 00 appear
> on the computer.  ( this leads me to believe that the max 232 chip is seeing
> something??)  I have double checked the circuit several times and even
rebuilt
> a second from scratch.  I have tried this on a 91 corvette (ecm: 1227727)
and
> a 95 chev c1500 (don't recall the computer).  I also noticed another
interface
> diagram which utilized a 74ls07 instead of the transistors and resistors.
Is
> this somthing worth trying?  I am a metallurgical engineer that knows a
little
> about circuits, but not enough to figure the problem out.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Carson