Vette 165 vs F-body

[Mike Rolica]

Ummm ok???? The reason I ask is cause I'm running a 355 alum headed TPI.
Figured the vette tables would be closer than camaro (since camaro used cast
heads)  Figured that a vette bin would be the place to start editing instead
of camaro chip if there was no problems running the a vette config. (prog
table locations are a bit different)  Also there is already a Dissasembly of
the bua on the Ecmguy's page, making it much easier. The fans on 89 camaro
are controlled by the ECM.  Well all I can do is try.
Mike Rolica
EXT. 260
 :-)


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Daniel Ciobota [SMTP:dciobota at hiwaay.net]
	Sent:	Friday, November 12, 1999 1:22 PM
	To:	gmecm at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
	Subject:	Re: Vette 165 vs F-body



	Mike Rolica wrote:

	> Is there any reason that anyone could think of as to why I could
not use a
	> vette Bin in my 165ecm rather than the stock 89 camaro one?

	I believe the tables are different... especially if yours is a 305,
the fuel
	tables at least are different.  The 89 vette also had the computer
controlled
	electric fan, not sure if the camaro did.

	> I see no real
	> differences in the wiring harness.  Also seen something in the
archives
	> about using a 02 sensor.  Said something to thew effect that
single wire is
	> good for iron man. But a three wire is better for tubular
headers??? Can I
	> use a three wire? How?

	I know there are people here who have rigged up a three wire sensor,
but you
	may not need to, especially if you buy the "shorty" headers
(essentially, just
	tubular manifolds).  I have a set of hedman long tubes on my vette
and have had
	absolutely no problems with the single wire o2 so far (it's welded
on the
	driver side collector).   Of course, outside temps have not dipped
below 30deg
	so far, so ymmv.

	Daniel