PROM Bugs

[CSH-HQ]

>CSH-HQ wrote:
>> 
>> With the mention of code bugs, has anyone used one of the "fixed" codes, and
>> was there much any difference?.
>>   "Could" it just be a failsafe device, like the odd man "vote".
>> If it affected emissions why would they let it not be cured?.
>> An ego deal?.
>> Maybe a legal "error" for a court fight?.
>
>Recently, GM did recall most (all?) 1993 3.1 V6's because of an
>emissions problem.  One of the PROMs where I found bugs is for the 93
>DOHC 3.4.  It's very likely that the 3.1 and 3.4 use the same ECM with
>the same program (but different calibration data).
>
>The bug might not normally affect emissions.  The garbage data picked up
>by the buggy functions may contain values that are "safe".  There might
>be a measureable emissions failure only once the engine wears or sensor
>values drift.  Even then, it might require a full emissions
>certification process to detect.
>
>The sad thing is - I've written a program that does 90% of the work to
>find these bugs.  I haven't needed to read and understand every line of
>code.  This does not say good things about GM QA.

Would this also, indicate that such "bugs", can run in a simulator just fine?.
Why, is it a sad thing?.
Bruce
>
>PS, does anyone have a PROM dump for a '93 3.1?  I've got dumps for
>older 2.8/3.1's, but nothing as new as '93.
>
>-- 
>Ludis Langens                               ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com
>Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies:  http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/
>
>