From Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Sat Jul 1 12:23:23 2006 From: Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk (Terminal Crazy) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:23:23 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Have at it! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4e3fb5fa07Terminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> Hi, I've not had a chance to look around the site yet, but any info is a godsend when you need it, so thanks for the effort. I've got a '95 LT1 but not done much yet with it, only minor mods with TunerCat. I've been into Computers, Electronics & Cars for years now but not quite into the depths you guys are going to, however I do follow (lurk) most of the threads on these newsgroups and find them interesting. What I was wondering though and havn't seen is any information on is reading the ABS data stream. Is there any software avilable to read the codes etc? or any ideas of which direction to go in ? I'm in the UK and "paid a lot" to fix the last ABS light problem. I still have no idea what it was so any info would be appreciated. TIA -- Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6 terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Lancashire England http://www.sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk/terminal_crazy/ From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Sat Jul 1 20:38:48 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:38:48 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Have at it! Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Terminal Crazy > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 12:23 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Cc: diy_efi at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Have at it! > > What I was wondering though and havn't seen is any > information on is reading the ABS data stream. Is there any > software avilable to read the codes etc? or any ideas of > which direction to go in ? > > I'm in the UK and "paid a lot" to fix the last ABS light > problem. I still have no idea what it was so any info would > be appreciated. > > TIA > > -- > Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6 > terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk > Lancashire England > http://www.sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk/terminal_crazy/ Mitch, if you go to the twiki page and click on ECM info you'll see a link to ALDL information. It's a zip file that documents most if not all ALDL streams. I don't know if ABS controllers are in there, but they may be. Take a look and let us know. --steve -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Sat Jul 1 21:38:54 2006 From: Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk (Terminal Crazy) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 03:38:54 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Have at it! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4e3fe8d85cTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> On 02 Jul, Steve Ravet wrote: > Mitch, if you go to the twiki page and click on ECM info you'll see a > link to ALDL information. It's a zip file that documents most if not > all ALDL streams. I don't know if ABS controllers are in there, but > they may be. Take a look and let us know. Hi Steve, I've had a quick look and A286 appears to be the data stream for '95 LT1 Camaro Delco V1 ABS. As it's 3.30 in the morning i'm not looking any further tonight :-) A couple of quick thoughts & questions if I may. I have an ALDL connector (TTS Datamaster cable). '95 LT1's are OBD1 with OBD2 plugs. Would the communucations for ABS talk through the same cable or would I need a different one ? Has anybody got info/links on com software for anything like this. Any other info would be appreciated. TIA -- Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6 terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Lancashire England http://www.sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk/terminal_crazy/ From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 23:09:53 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 21:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Re: '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus Message-ID: <20060702040953.91319.qmail@web60817.mail.yahoo.com> I would reccomend using a bin from a Late 80's 4.3L TBI. The egr is vacuum controlled, the engine displacement and volumetric efficiency will be very close to yours, as well as the timing tables. I asked clifford performance about using that setup on my chev 4.1L (250cid) and they said the conversion runs great without modifying anything in the prom code or fuel tables. Good luck! By the way I'm running a 7748 1bbl tbi on my bone stock chev 250 6cyl. Took some creative thought in the fuel tables but it runs really well. Still too runs rich at WOT but who can afford to run the gas pedal that hard these days? When I get everything figured out I'll upload a bin file and a txt file with all the details and instructions for the conversion. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. From di_dallas at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 00:07:52 2006 From: di_dallas at yahoo.com (Tom Butcher) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 22:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060702050752.14784.qmail@web53701.mail.yahoo.com> I usually lurk, but I'll respond here. Since the vehicle in question here is a '94 GMC van with a 4L60E, I'm gonna assume that the PCM in question is either the 16196395 or the 16197427 running the $0D mask which is for the 4L60E. The heavier duty trucks used the same PCM's but ran the 4L80E and either the $0E mask in '94 or the $31 mask in '95. If you modify the transmission wiring harness for the 4L80E which has an extra sensor and run the approapriate .bin and mask, it will work great. HTH Tom Butler James-CJB006 wrote: Should one also be concerned about (in decreasing order): - line pressure tables - upshift/dnshift points - TCC apply/release points Maybe Harry's taken this into consideration, i.e., that a practical retrofit into an existing ECM might require SW mods, but it's worth mentioning. Jim -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of William Lucke Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 6:49 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e You can run a 4L80E with a 4L60E PCM. The truth table for the solenoids is different, but all you need to do is put an inverter on one of the solenoid wires, I think. Will > From: Rexdina at aol.com > Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e > > Does anyone know for sure if the 4L80e wiring receptacle and plug > would interchange with that for a 4L60e? > I have a '94 GMC van that I'd like to change from the factory 4L60e trans. > to a '94 4L80e GMC van trans. for towing purposes. > If that isn't possible, what about a stand alone controller for the > 4L80e, and how would I disable the inputs from the 4L60e to the ECM? > Thanks, and I realize this may be the wrong forum to ask these questions. > In that case, does anyone know of a good GM transmission forum? > Harry _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm --------------------------------- Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Sun Jul 2 07:52:47 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:52:47 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus Message-ID: <3FD8D6C7.6EFC19DC.DB881660@netscape.net> Something I obtained a few years ago. From 258 Jeep with Howell 7747 fuel only conversion. Cal is 454 base for 4.3 TB and injectors with non-stock cam, intake, and exhaust. This auto trans jeep would powerbrake and spin 32's with no trouble after cal was developed on the dyno. Currently on incoming as jeep024.bin until made accessible by Steve. Maybe it works for ya, maybe not. Zaphod Andrew Gibson wrote: >I would reccomend using a bin from a Late 80's 4.3L TBI. The egr is vacuum controlled, the engine displacement and volumetric efficiency will be very close to yours, as well as the timing tables. I asked clifford performance about using that setup on my chev 4.1L (250cid) and they said the conversion runs great without modifying anything in the prom code or fuel tables. > > Good luck! > > By the way I'm running a 7748 1bbl tbi on my bone stock chev 250 6cyl. Took some creative thought in the fuel tables but it runs really well. Still too runs rich at WOT but who can afford to run the gas pedal that hard these days? When I get everything figured out I'll upload a bin file and a txt file with all the details and instructions for the conversion. > > >--------------------------------- >Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp From Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Sun Jul 2 08:07:32 2006 From: Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk (Terminal Crazy) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 14:07:32 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Comm Software In-Reply-To: <4e3fe8d85cTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> References: <4e3fe8d85cTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: <4e402265f1Terminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> Ok, following on for an ABS reader, I've looked at the data streams and found 2 that seem, relevant. A273 1995 F Body Lt1 Manual Trans A286 1995 F Body ABS (Delco V1) I see that both use pin 'M' of the ALDL connector, so I presume I can use my TTS Datamaster Cable. The Master I presume is the ECM which has to be put to sleep mode 8 to allow the slave (ABS) to communicate. What I need now is some software / source to communicate with the ABS. What is available. Any links or other info that I would find useful TIA -- Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6 terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Lancashire England http://www.sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk/terminal_crazy/ From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 2 09:42:22 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 15:42:22 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan References: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net><0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf><001601c69a38$c2bd9bd0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0ad201c69a39$d3891e70$020101c0@gandalf><003801c69a47$2b8d16a0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0b1301c69a8e$48aae270$020101c0@gandalf><003301c69aa5$819c8e00$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0bc201c69ae0$9ad35210$020101c0@gandalf> <000801c69af8$47101100$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP> Message-ID: <0fa501c69de5$bce78940$020101c0@gandalf> Been bashing my head against the $58 Fan code... The 749 circuit diagram clearly shows just one Fan line, which turns on the fan at full speed (i.e. not via an in-line resistor) when the ignition is on. If the Fan line is active and the ignition is off, then the Fan is driven at low speed, via a resistor. According to my understanding of the fan code, and observation via simulated CTS inputs, while bit 4 of FMDBYTE1 (V5 cooling fan request) is OFF (which is how it stays in my installation), only the Hot Fan ON/OFF thresholds are used to activate and deactivate the Fan line. I see no distinction between the 1st time hot flag and the Fan ON flag. If the V5 cooling Fan request is ON, then the (non-Hot) Fan ON/OFF thresholds can be used to activate and deactivate the Fan line. The V5 cooling Fan request never gets turned ON in my installation and I don't know what could turn it ON. I haven't fully got my head around the Fan code because there are some status bytes that come into play, mostly when the V5 cooling Fan request is ON, which I don't know the meanings of ($0029, $002C, $0032, $0033). Also $0102 and $0178 are used - which I think are Fan timers. I can only assume that my Fan flicking ON and OFF a few times, as (real - i.e. not simulated) CTS approaches the Hot Fan ON threshold is due to sufficient noise to defeat the ON/OFF hysteresis, and that the 1Hz ALDL log isn't showing all of the dips. It should take only one value below Hot Fan OFF to turn the fan off. I will see if I can temporarily improve the CTS ground to see if this goes away... Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Peitzsch" To: Sent: 28 June 2006 22:17 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan > > So, since my fan goes straight off when I turn the ignition off, would I > > be > > right in deducing that the $58 code goes through all the motions of > > controlling 2 fans, but the code for the 2nd (high) one achieves nothing > > on > > the 749 h/w, but _does_ work on my 727 h/w? :-) > > That is how I understand it. You also need to be sure that the high side > power source for the fan relay is on battery power, not ignition switched > power in order for it to be able to stay active after ignition-off. > > > If this is right, then it's probably worth me trying to find the #1 fan > > pin, > > to get the ignition off running. Shame there seems to be no cross > > reference > > for this! I guess I just check the quad driver pins... > > This is the cross reference I use: > > http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/triplugecm.html > > You can also see the '727 pinouts for fan control here: > > ftp://ftp.diy-efi.org/pub/gmecm/manuals/1227730/90-7727V8TPI-6.jpg > > > BTW: I'm also observing my fan flicking on then straight off a few times > > as > > the engine temperature rises to the high fan ON temperature that I've set. > > The CTS is a little noisy (mostly +/- 1 C, with occasional dips of 6C !); > > but, looking at the plots of CTS vs. fan ON, there isn't a 100% > > correlation > > between the CTS spikes and the fan state transition. I'm still trying to > > understand the code (not helped by not knowing what half of the zero page > > locations, particularly statuses, mean), but I've been wondering whether > > the > > $58's high fan control logic isn't as sophisticated as that for the > > control > > of the low fan (i.e. high fan has no delayed start up - which might reduce > > the likelihood of the 'flicking'). If the $58 only ran on h/w that didn't > > use the high fan logic, then GM may never have noticed this behaviour, or > > didn't care(?) > > > > Having said this, I'd expect the natural hysteresis of the ON/OFF > > thresholds > > to avoid this kind of 'flicking' problem... > > > > I also plan to look at my CTS wiring. I 'cheated' by wiring the GND side > > to > > chassis. This massively added to the CTS noise when I had had bad engine > > grounding (now fixed), but still may be adding some. I'd be interested to > > see others's CTS plots to compare noise. > > This is a very bad practice. Sensor grounds should always observe proper > "star" or "single point" grounding technique. The correct sensor ground pin > to > use on a '727 is C10, as shown here: > > ftp://ftp.diy-efi.org/pub/gmecm/manuals/1227730/90-7727V8TPI-2.jpg > > -Scott > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 2 10:34:37 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 16:34:37 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan References: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net><0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf><001601c69a38$c2bd9bd0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0ad201c69a39$d3891e70$020101c0@gandalf><003801c69a47$2b8d16a0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0b1301c69a8e$48aae270$020101c0@gandalf><003301c69aa5$819c8e00$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0bc201c69ae0$9ad35210$020101c0@gandalf><000801c69af8$47101100$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP> <0fa501c69de5$bce78940$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <0fac01c69dee$2d437250$020101c0@gandalf> > I can only assume that my Fan flicking ON and OFF a few times, as (real - > i.e. not simulated) CTS approaches the Hot Fan ON threshold is due to > sufficient noise to defeat the ON/OFF hysteresis, and that the 1Hz ALDL log > isn't showing all of the dips. It should take only one value below Hot Fan > OFF to turn the fan off. I will see if I can temporarily improve the CTS > ground to see if this goes away... Well the results of that test seem pretty conclusive:- - with CTS grounded to chassis (same point as Fan ground!!!), CTS value flicked about and the Fan kept flicking ON and OFF; - with CTS grounded to engine, CTS value was much more stable and Fan came ON once only, and stayed on until the CTS value dropped. So, I shall be grounding my CTS to pin C10, as it should be... (my excuse for the bodge in the first place was that I originally just lashed up the CTS to experiment with the ECM controlling my fan, and I didn't want to mess about with my nice TPS ground (already connected to pin C10) for the sake of an experiment!) :-) Robin From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 11:19:36 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Have at it! Message-ID: <20060702161937.60731.qmail@web60814.mail.yahoo.com> Mitch- GM has always used the same aldl for all of their communications (Thank goodness!) Although the abs will use different pins than the ecm. A good wiring diagram should help you there. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 2 13:00:44 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:00:44 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan References: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net><0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf><001601c69a38$c2bd9bd0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0ad201c69a39$d3891e70$020101c0@gandalf><003801c69a47$2b8d16a0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0b1301c69a8e$48aae270$020101c0@gandalf><003301c69aa5$819c8e00$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0bc201c69ae0$9ad35210$020101c0@gandalf><000801c69af8$47101100$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0fa501c69de5$bce78940$020101c0@gandalf> <0fac01c69dee$2d437250$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <0fcd01c69e01$76712400$020101c0@gandalf> > So, I shall be grounding my CTS to pin C10, as it should be... What a difference! NO NOISE on the logged CTS value, now! Why didn't somebody tell me that there shouldn't be any noise? I assumed some noise was normal! :-) Robin From Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Sun Jul 2 13:01:38 2006 From: Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk (Terminal Crazy) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:01:38 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Have at it! In-Reply-To: <20060702161937.60731.qmail@web60814.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060702161937.60731.qmail@web60814.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4e403d52cdTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> On 02 Jul, Andrew Gibson wrote: > Mitch- > GM has always used the same aldl for all of their communications I'm Not sure I follow you. Upto 1994 the used the OBD1 plug but 1995 Camaro's went to an OBD2 plug but still used OBD1. > (Thank goodness!) Although the abs will use different pins than the ecm. > A good wiring diagram should help you there. Well that's what I would have expected, but the 2 datastream papers said they use pin 'M' to read data. ATM I'm attempting to write to/from the serial port on the laptop. Once I can communicate with the ABS/ECM modules, I think i should be able to get something working. I certainly know more now than i did at 3 o'clock this morning :-) Thanks for the reply though. -- Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6 terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Lancashire England http://www.sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk/terminal_crazy/ From mrgrimes1 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 13:48:55 2006 From: mrgrimes1 at yahoo.com (Darrin Garrett) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 11:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] sound card crankshaft signal generator Message-ID: <20060702184855.92612.qmail@web33414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have written some software that uses a sound card from a PC (Win XP ) to generate 24x (LS1) and 24x (northstar) crank signals. This signal levels are not correct but the timing and edges seem accurate. Its has a fairly easy to use GUI. I was going to add the DIS output too, but have not done this yet. All signals will need to be conditioned with external opamp circuits, which I have not done yet and don?t know when I will get to it. Especially the reluctant signal types, ( DIS and Northstar 24x). I am also adding a feature that will allow you to record the output and play it back. And one more thing all of this is useless unless there is a synchronized cam single supplied as well, which I hope to get to with the addition of a second < $20 external or internal sound card. I do not have an LS1 or DIS engine/system so they are of no use to me, but thought some of you could use this on your engine simulation bench, for free of course when it is some what finished. Any takers? --------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. From craig at moates.net Sun Jul 2 23:21:41 2006 From: craig at moates.net (Craig Moates) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:21:41 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] OBD2 project References: Message-ID: <007701c69e58$2f5db9a0$0201a8c0@antec> Sounds like a good thing! Best regards, Craig Moates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ravet" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:35 PM Subject: [Gmecm] OBD2 project Hi Craig, welcome back... > A couple new projects rolling on my bench right now, here's > the short list: > - 16x8mbit RT emulator for GM LS1+LB7+V6 etc (this is my > favorite project right now!) > - Honda-based all-in-one internal emulator/datalogger > - Ford-based 16-program chip module > - Integrated/modular Ford NVRAM-based RT emulator / RAM > shadower/datalogger > - Some wireless stuff via Bluetooth/BlueRadios > - Standalone handheld datalogger/storage/display box for GM OBD1 > - Some RC5 stuff for remote control / keypad substitution > - Some OBD2 stuff, including some ISO 'spoofing' for OBD1/2 > conversions Been pretty heavy into VHDL/CPLD logic as well as > the 8-bit Atmel AVR stuff for a while now. Kinda enjoying > doing new circuit layouts and firmware developments when I > can find the time. Sounds like you've been keeping busy. Just today, I got the PCBs back for my project. It's a USB to VPW board, that you can use to do scan tool functions or reflash OBD2 GM computers. I haven't bought the components yet, so still have to do that and then test. The firmware should be working, though, I was able to write and test it on a PIC demo board that I bought. It'll connect to a PC via USB and to a PCM via the DLC and J1850 protocol. I'm going to test the hardware and write some simple software to demo it. Then I'm hoping that others will pick up the ball and create scan tool software that works with it (or existing software ported to work with it). The circuits and layouts will all be GPLed when it's working. Hopefully this will pique some interest among some of the software types on the list... --steve -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From craig at moates.net Sun Jul 2 23:25:51 2006 From: craig at moates.net (Craig Moates) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:25:51 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Stoich AFR and constants table References: <19545426.1151575595705.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps01.sth.basefarm.net> Message-ID: <008501c69e58$c4953020$0201a8c0@antec> Per, You can use the TunerPro or TunerCat software to make changes on the fly without interrupting your ECM operation. No resets needed if you've got a decent emulator hooked up. There's several out there (I know I make a couple of em). I believe the stoich AFR will impact the target AFR which the ECM tries to achieve based on the switch points of the O2. It should impact both the learned fueling and the 'open loop' fueling. Anyone care to corroborate or refute? Not sure what you mean by bad readings on the ALDL. What did you see? Best regards, Craig Moates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Per Lonnborg" To: ; Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:06 AM Subject: Ang: [Gmecm] Stoich AFR and constants table Hi again, I don?t seem to have got any answers regarding the (1) "Stoichiometric AFR" constant in 1227747/AMUR, and (2) my thoughts about changing constants values on the fly(driving) Perhaps Craig can help me out with the on-the-fly tuning part? /Per >----Ursprungligt meddelande---- >Fr?n: perlon at passagen.se >Datum: 2006-jun-26 11:12 >Till: >?rende: [Gmecm] Stoich AFR and constants table > >Hi! > >I have 2 questions: > >1. I am doing some testing with ethanol fuel (E85) in my ?747 TBI 350, and I wonder if anyone knows how the "Stoichiometric AFR" constant >affects the fuel metering? > >Does it for affect for example affect MF tables without not needing to alter the actual tables? >(I changed AFR from 14.70 to 9.90 which is the AFR for ethanol with 15% gasoline) > > >2. Can you change values in the Constants Table on the fly (driving), for example using Moates G2X TBI-Type Switching Adapter or Tuner Pro >Emulator, without upsetting the ECM or does it need to be resetted (power on/off)? > >It seems to me that when I switched to the 9.90 AFR .bin and then went back to the 14.70 .bin on the highway, I got totally wrong ALDL- >readings. > > >/Per Lonnborg > >350 TBI ?747 Chevy Monza > >Stockholm, Sweden >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From matt at n0x.net Mon Jul 3 00:27:15 2006 From: matt at n0x.net (Matt Teagarden) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:27:15 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] sound card crankshaft signal generator In-Reply-To: <20060702184855.92612.qmail@web33414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060702184855.92612.qmail@web33414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44A8AAB3.3080902@n0x.net> Heck yea! Send me the details, plus whatever you have done so far.. Thanks! Matt Teagarden Darrin Garrett wrote: > I have written some software that uses a sound card from a PC (Win XP ) to generate 24x (LS1) and 24x (northstar) crank signals. This signal levels are not correct but the timing and edges seem accurate. Its has a fairly easy to use GUI. I was going to add the DIS output too, but have not done this yet. All signals will need to be conditioned with external opamp circuits, which I have not done yet and don?t know when I will get to it. Especially the reluctant signal types, ( DIS and Northstar 24x). I am also adding a feature that will allow you to record the output and play it back. And one more thing all of this is useless unless there is a synchronized cam single supplied as well, which I hope to get to with the addition of a second < $20 external or internal sound card. I do not have an LS1 or DIS engine/system so they are of no use to me, but thought some of you could use this on your engine simulation bench, for free of course when it is some what finished. > Any takers? > > > --------------------------------- > Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > From mrgrimes1 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 01:20:52 2006 From: mrgrimes1 at yahoo.com (Darrin Garrett) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] sound card crankshaft signal generator In-Reply-To: <44A8AAB3.3080902@n0x.net> Message-ID: <20060703062052.52445.qmail@web33414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Well like I said it does not have a cam signal so you would not be able to use this until I implement it. The cam signal needs to be synchronized to a specific cylinder, I guess I could make in configurable to be any of the cylinders, because I do not have the over lapping wave forms for the DIS and 24x crank shaft signals. I have a USB external sound card at work and I will bring it home to see if I can add the cam signal. Basically how it works it I dynamically create an audio stream representing the discrete wave form every 40ms using a GUI control as the input for RPM and stream this audio out the sound card. The signal level is about -1V to +1V peak to peak and I need to run this through a comparator circuit to change the levels to 0VDC to 5 or 12VDC for the hall effect type sensors ( LS1 and Northstar 24x 2001 and newer). for the reluctant sensor types I will run it through a 555 single shot circuit that fires on every negative edge. I was not going to do all this work if no one was interested. Heck yea! Send me the details, plus whatever you have done so far.. Thanks! Matt Teagarden Darrin Garrett wrote: > I have written some software that uses a sound card from a PC (Win XP ) to generate 24x (LS1) and 24x (northstar) crank signals. This signal levels are not correct but the timing and edges seem accurate. Its has a fairly easy to use GUI. I was going to add the DIS output too, but have not done this yet. All signals will need to be conditioned with external opamp circuits, which I have not done yet and don?t know when I will get to it. Especially the reluctant signal types, ( DIS and Northstar 24x). I am also adding a feature that will allow you to record the output and play it back. And one more thing all of this is useless unless there is a synchronized cam single supplied as well, which I hope to get to with the addition of a second < $20 external or internal sound card. I do not have an LS1 or DIS engine/system so they are of no use to me, but thought some of you could use this on your engine simulation bench, for free of course when it is some what finished. > Any takers? > > > --------------------------------- > Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Mon Jul 3 11:29:32 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > [mailto:davesnothereman at netscape.net] > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 7:53 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Cc: Steve Ravet > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus > > Something I obtained a few years ago. From 258 Jeep with > Howell 7747 fuel only conversion. Cal is 454 base for 4.3 TB > and injectors with non-stock cam, intake, and exhaust. This > auto trans jeep would powerbrake and spin 32's with no > trouble after cal was developed on the dyno. Currently on > incoming as jeep024.bin until made accessible by Steve. > Maybe it works for ya, maybe not. > > Zaphod Move to uploads, JEEP024.BIN --steve -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From darrenfreed at gmail.com Mon Jul 3 16:39:28 2006 From: darrenfreed at gmail.com (Darren Freed) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:39:28 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning In-Reply-To: <007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec> <004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec> <007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> Message-ID: I've changed the code quite heavily (96 v6 pcm), including experimenting with a SD only, full 200 kpa VE table in 5 kpa increments, among a host of other things. I really think that the 68332 based pcms (particularly 96 - 97, because of the edge connector availability) are the way to go. Also, the stock code is very good, in my mind. I'm actually back to a MAF based program (more stockish) because the engine idles so much better with a MAF sensor in place. my .02, anyway... Darren On 6/30/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > To clarify, I haven't done anything yet with the CPU code itself. > Haven't changed anything on the BDM, and haven't played with the TPURAM > stuff. > > Yet... > > Best regards, > Craig Moates > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Craig Moates" > To: > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:08 AM > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > Darren, > > > > The entire content of the Flash is emulated via the 2-bank RAM. So it > boots from 'ROM', but boots from the 'RAM' of the emulator. > I > > could also have set it up so that the emulator only kicked in when > certain addresses were accessed and let the ROM kick in when > > other areas were being used, sort of flip-flopping back and forth. That > would prevent the need to change lookups and what-not, but > > you'd have to make the swap pretty fast and avoid contention. I guess > the same is true for what you were thinking of, assuming > you'd > > be sharing the same data bus as the Flash. We do that with some of the > Ford applications and it works well. However, there's not > > that much room left in the RR architecture now. The CPLD is just about > jamb-pack full, especially with the trace functionality > ;^). > > > > Best regards, > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Darren Freed" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:21 AM > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > Craig, > > > > > > That's some very cool stuff. That's basically where I was headed, but > > > you're way ahead of me! My plan was to have only the cal data in the > ram, > > > but that would require changing all the lookups in the code to point > to the > > > ram rather than rom - a bit tedious to say the least, but not > impossible. > > > > > > So does yours boot from ram or rom? > > > > > > darren > > > > > > > > > On 6/29/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > > > > > > > Steve, > > > > > > > > Yes, that's right. You can disable the onboard flash nicely that > way. I've > > > > done that already, where you force the ROM CE high and > > > > you can essentially throw the whole onboard Flash into high > impedance > > > > mode. Then you can apply your own bootstrap RAM/etc to shadow > > > > the ROM code and act as an emulator. That way you don't even have to > > > > remove the Flash chip to achieve the RT emulation, just disable > > > > it by forcing the flash CE high. > > > > > > > > I looked into doing something via dual port, but it ended up being a > bit > > > > prohibitive in terms of architecture/availability/cost. I > > > > ended up going with parallel battery-backed SRAM with decent logic > in > > > > between for effective gating/muxing. > > > > > > > > Here's a couple of pics of the present (and past) implementations: > > > > www.moates.net/images/rr2/ > > > > That stuff all goes right off the pads of the flash location, not > the edge > > > > connector, but it could be done on the edge connector as > > > > well (install a little more tedious I suppose). > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Steve Ravet" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:50 PM > > > > Subject: RE: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as shadowing goes, one of the pins on the expansion connector > is > > > > a ROM disable signal. You could add a dual port RAM to the > connector, > > > > copy the flash contents to the RAM, and get on the fly tuning via > the > > > > second port of the dual port. I don't know about accessing CPU > internal > > > > memory, though. > > > > > > > > --steve > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > > > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:29 PM > > > > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > Darren, > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like some very nice and interesting stuff. I'd love to > > > > > open a dialogue and help where I can. I've spent some time > > > > > probing many of the edge connections to determine what is > > > > > connected where and how they behave on the scope. One of my > > > > > present interests is to develop an easy-to-use internal > > > > > interface which would use some of the existing edge connector > > > > > terminals to access RAM data within the CPU of the PCM. This > > > > > could, in practice, allow high-speed data acquisition > > > > > separate and apart from the DLC/OBD2 protocols. I'd started > > > > > chasing the possibility of having external RAM to shadow the > > > > > content in some way if the address or data lines were common > > > > > with the Flash bus. However, a serial solution, even if a CPU > > > > > code patch had to be applied via BDM, would be ideal I think. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Darren Freed" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:03 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup - connected it to the edge connector. I used CS8 for the CE > > > > > > signal and CS9 for the OE signal. Both of these chip selects > > > > > aren't used in the stock code. The SRAM is addressed to > > > > > $B0000 and the address lines are connected as in the efi332 > > > > > project (ie leaving A1 not connected). It worked well - no > > > > > troubles at all. I just need to work on the PC software now, > > > > > to make it more user friendly. Unfortunately I'm over in the > > > > > UK now for a year, away from my ECM bench. So everything for > > > > > the next year will be PC programming stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > On another note, I've been looking at the DLC routines > > > > > quite abit in a > > > > > > variety of V6 and V8 code, from '96 to '04. It seems > > > > > pretty well conserved throughout, which is good news in terms > > > > > of developing an interface and programming for > datalogging/reflashing. > > > > > Although my SCI stuff works well for me, its not particularly > > > > > useful to anyone else (I suspect). > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: Steve Ravet > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 0:06 am > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > [gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Darren Freed > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 1:12 PM > > > > > > > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm one step closer to on the fly tuning with a GM > > > > > OBDII pcm. > > > > > > > > I've added an additional 16k sram and am able to write > > > > > to it and > > > > > > > > read from it with SCI(ALDL) type comms - ie modify > > > > > tables on the > > > > > > > > fly. This is similar to what is done with the > > > > > > > > efi332 project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren, where (physically) did you connect the SRAM? To the > edge > > > > > > > connector? Did you use an unused chip select output, or did > you > > > > > > > replacean existing item in the CPU memory space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any > > > > > attachments > > > > > > > are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not > the > > > > > > > intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately > > > > > and do not > > > > > > > disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any > > > > > purpose, > > > > > > > or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From elecauto at ice.co.cr Mon Jul 3 17:04:04 2006 From: elecauto at ice.co.cr (electronica del automovil) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:04:04 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Original File Chevrolet Cavalier Message-ID: <001001c69eec$9a8e3800$2101a8c0@daniel> Hello members: I am looking for the original ECU file of Chevrolet Cavalier 2.2L 1998, ecu number: CKPD SER NO 16228016 If any of you can give me a copy I will be very gratefully. Thanks, Daniel From craig at moates.net Mon Jul 3 18:25:41 2006 From: craig at moates.net (Craig Moates) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec><004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec><007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> Message-ID: <0a3601c69ef8$001b3960$0201a8c0@antec> OK, So if the right stuff was put into the 'stock' code, I guess the PCMs CPU could be asked to do whatever you tell it to. Including providing internal RAM content to an external port via imbedded serial routines? So you're just modifying the Flash-based external code and not changing anything that is stored on the CPU itself? Best regards, Craig Moates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Freed" To: Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 4:39 PM Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > I've changed the code quite heavily (96 v6 pcm), including experimenting > with a SD only, full 200 kpa VE table in 5 kpa increments, among a host of > other things. I really think that the 68332 based pcms (particularly 96 - > 97, because of the edge connector availability) are the way to go. Also, > the stock code is very good, in my mind. I'm actually back to a MAF based > program (more stockish) because the engine idles so much better with a MAF > sensor in place. > > my .02, anyway... > > Darren > > > > On 6/30/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > > > To clarify, I haven't done anything yet with the CPU code itself. > > Haven't changed anything on the BDM, and haven't played with the TPURAM > > stuff. > > > > Yet... > > > > Best regards, > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Craig Moates" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:08 AM > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > Darren, > > > > > > The entire content of the Flash is emulated via the 2-bank RAM. So it > > boots from 'ROM', but boots from the 'RAM' of the emulator. > > I > > > could also have set it up so that the emulator only kicked in when > > certain addresses were accessed and let the ROM kick in when > > > other areas were being used, sort of flip-flopping back and forth. That > > would prevent the need to change lookups and what-not, but > > > you'd have to make the swap pretty fast and avoid contention. I guess > > the same is true for what you were thinking of, assuming > > you'd > > > be sharing the same data bus as the Flash. We do that with some of the > > Ford applications and it works well. However, there's not > > > that much room left in the RR architecture now. The CPLD is just about > > jamb-pack full, especially with the trace functionality > > ;^). > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Darren Freed" > > > To: > > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:21 AM > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > Craig, > > > > > > > > That's some very cool stuff. That's basically where I was headed, but > > > > you're way ahead of me! My plan was to have only the cal data in the > > ram, > > > > but that would require changing all the lookups in the code to point > > to the > > > > ram rather than rom - a bit tedious to say the least, but not > > impossible. > > > > > > > > So does yours boot from ram or rom? > > > > > > > > darren > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/29/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Steve, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's right. You can disable the onboard flash nicely that > > way. I've > > > > > done that already, where you force the ROM CE high and > > > > > you can essentially throw the whole onboard Flash into high > > impedance > > > > > mode. Then you can apply your own bootstrap RAM/etc to shadow > > > > > the ROM code and act as an emulator. That way you don't even have to > > > > > remove the Flash chip to achieve the RT emulation, just disable > > > > > it by forcing the flash CE high. > > > > > > > > > > I looked into doing something via dual port, but it ended up being a > > bit > > > > > prohibitive in terms of architecture/availability/cost. I > > > > > ended up going with parallel battery-backed SRAM with decent logic > > in > > > > > between for effective gating/muxing. > > > > > > > > > > Here's a couple of pics of the present (and past) implementations: > > > > > www.moates.net/images/rr2/ > > > > > That stuff all goes right off the pads of the flash location, not > > the edge > > > > > connector, but it could be done on the edge connector as > > > > > well (install a little more tedious I suppose). > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Steve Ravet" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:50 PM > > > > > Subject: RE: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as shadowing goes, one of the pins on the expansion connector > > is > > > > > a ROM disable signal. You could add a dual port RAM to the > > connector, > > > > > copy the flash contents to the RAM, and get on the fly tuning via > > the > > > > > second port of the dual port. I don't know about accessing CPU > > internal > > > > > memory, though. > > > > > > > > > > --steve > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > > > > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:29 PM > > > > > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like some very nice and interesting stuff. I'd love to > > > > > > open a dialogue and help where I can. I've spent some time > > > > > > probing many of the edge connections to determine what is > > > > > > connected where and how they behave on the scope. One of my > > > > > > present interests is to develop an easy-to-use internal > > > > > > interface which would use some of the existing edge connector > > > > > > terminals to access RAM data within the CPU of the PCM. This > > > > > > could, in practice, allow high-speed data acquisition > > > > > > separate and apart from the DLC/OBD2 protocols. I'd started > > > > > > chasing the possibility of having external RAM to shadow the > > > > > > content in some way if the address or data lines were common > > > > > > with the Flash bus. However, a serial solution, even if a CPU > > > > > > code patch had to be applied via BDM, would be ideal I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Darren Freed" > > > > > > To: > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:03 AM > > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup - connected it to the edge connector. I used CS8 for the CE > > > > > > > signal and CS9 for the OE signal. Both of these chip selects > > > > > > aren't used in the stock code. The SRAM is addressed to > > > > > > $B0000 and the address lines are connected as in the efi332 > > > > > > project (ie leaving A1 not connected). It worked well - no > > > > > > troubles at all. I just need to work on the PC software now, > > > > > > to make it more user friendly. Unfortunately I'm over in the > > > > > > UK now for a year, away from my ECM bench. So everything for > > > > > > the next year will be PC programming stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On another note, I've been looking at the DLC routines > > > > > > quite abit in a > > > > > > > variety of V6 and V8 code, from '96 to '04. It seems > > > > > > pretty well conserved throughout, which is good news in terms > > > > > > of developing an interface and programming for > > datalogging/reflashing. > > > > > > Although my SCI stuff works well for me, its not particularly > > > > > > useful to anyone else (I suspect). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: Steve Ravet > > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 0:06 am > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > > [gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Darren Freed > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 1:12 PM > > > > > > > > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm one step closer to on the fly tuning with a GM > > > > > > OBDII pcm. > > > > > > > > > I've added an additional 16k sram and am able to write > > > > > > to it and > > > > > > > > > read from it with SCI(ALDL) type comms - ie modify > > > > > > tables on the > > > > > > > > > fly. This is similar to what is done with the > > > > > > > > > efi332 project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren, where (physically) did you connect the SRAM? To the > > edge > > > > > > > > connector? Did you use an unused chip select output, or did > > you > > > > > > > > replacean existing item in the CPU memory space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any > > > > > > attachments > > > > > > > > are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not > > the > > > > > > > > intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately > > > > > > and do not > > > > > > > > disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any > > > > > > purpose, > > > > > > > > or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > From perlon at passagen.se Tue Jul 4 07:02:40 2006 From: perlon at passagen.se (Per Lonnborg) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:02:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Gmecm] Stoich AFR and constants table Message-ID: <350426.1152014560811.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps09.sth.basefarm.net> Thanks Craig for answering, I will try to be a little more clear: My question regarding on-the-fly tuning was if all *ECM CONSTANTS* can be changed on-the-fly. Since they are constants I thougt that the ECM maybe just read some of these constants just once, perhaps when ignition comes on, or even just after a complete Power On/Off? Seems to me a bit strange why the ECM would have routines to traverse all these constanst over and over when they normally are just, constants. On the other hand, MF#1 and MF#2 tables are in a way "constants" as well, but in this case the ECM has to lookup the right cell depending on which condition the motor is in. I am NO expert on this, so please be patient with my thinkings! :-) Why is ask is because of this: When I switched to the BIN with altered Stoich AFR the engine went extremely lean after about 5 minutes from startup. I also got the 44 O2 lean Flag, which I newer had before. I then switched back to my "normal" BIN (engine still running), but the very lean condition continued. Thats what I meant with my "bad" ALDL-readings. (Mind you, this is not actually the on-the-fly tuning mentioned above, I use your "stacked BIN option with the 8-BIN switch) Does any other know more about the Stoich AFR Constant and what it does? I hope this will clear something about my thinkings! /Per >----Ursprungligt meddelande---- >Fr?n: craig at moates.net >Datum: 2006-jul-03 06:25 >Till: "Per Lonnborg", >?rende: Re: [Gmecm] Stoich AFR and constants table > >Per, > >You can use the TunerPro or TunerCat software to make changes on the fly without interrupting your ECM operation. No resets needed >if you've got a decent emulator hooked up. There's several out there (I know I make a couple of em). > >I believe the stoich AFR will impact the target AFR which the ECM tries to achieve based on the switch points of the O2. It should >impact both the learned fueling and the 'open loop' fueling. Anyone care to corroborate or refute? > >Not sure what you mean by bad readings on the ALDL. What did you see? > >Best regards, >Craig Moates > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Per Lonnborg" >To: ; >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:06 AM >Subject: Ang: [Gmecm] Stoich AFR and constants table > > >Hi again, > >I don?t seem to have got any answers regarding the (1) "Stoichiometric AFR" constant in 1227747/AMUR, and (2) my thoughts about >changing >constants values on the fly(driving) > >Perhaps Craig can help me out with the on-the-fly tuning part? > >/Per > >>----Ursprungligt meddelande---- >>Fr?n: perlon at passagen.se >>Datum: 2006-jun-26 11:12 >>Till: >>?rende: [Gmecm] Stoich AFR and constants table >> >>Hi! >> >>I have 2 questions: >> >>1. I am doing some testing with ethanol fuel (E85) in my ?747 TBI 350, and I wonder if anyone knows how the "Stoichiometric AFR" >constant >>affects the fuel metering? >> >>Does it for affect for example affect MF tables without not needing to alter the actual tables? >>(I changed AFR from 14.70 to 9.90 which is the AFR for ethanol with 15% gasoline) >> >> >>2. Can you change values in the Constants Table on the fly (driving), for example using Moates G2X TBI-Type Switching Adapter or >Tuner >Pro >>Emulator, without upsetting the ECM or does it need to be resetted (power on/off)? >> >>It seems to me that when I switched to the 9.90 AFR .bin and then went back to the 14.70 .bin on the highway, I got totally wrong >ALDL- >>readings. >> >> >>/Per Lonnborg >> >>350 TBI ?747 Chevy Monza >> >>Stockholm, Sweden >>_______________________________________________ >>Gmecm mailing list >>Gmecm at diy-efi.org >>http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > From rjdrew at adelphia.net Tue Jul 4 08:48:48 2006 From: rjdrew at adelphia.net (Ron Drew) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:48:48 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] ASJW or AXAU bin files References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec><004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec><007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> Message-ID: <000301c69f70$93713020$6801a8c0@RonHome> Anyone know where I can fine a ASJW.bin or a AXAU.bin? Thank you, Ron From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 4 09:28:03 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:28:03 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Power/torque curves References: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net><0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf><001601c69a38$c2bd9bd0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0ad201c69a39$d3891e70$020101c0@gandalf><003801c69a47$2b8d16a0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0b1301c69a8e$48aae270$020101c0@gandalf><003301c69aa5$819c8e00$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0bc201c69ae0$9ad35210$020101c0@gandalf><000801c69af8$47101100$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP><0fa501c69de5$bce78940$020101c0@gandalf><0fac01c69dee$2d437250$020101c0@gandalf> <0fcd01c69e01$76712400$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <10d301c69f76$10467c90$020101c0@gandalf> Anybody interested in power/torque curves for a weedy little European engine? :-) Standard GM/Vauxhall C20XE (2L L4) running DCOE 40s with 36mm chokes and $58/Sunbird controlled ignition: http://213.162.107.39/misc/PowerTorque2006.gif Compared to the last evolution of the 1700cc L4 Ford Crossflow that preceeded it (running same carbs, but 34mm chokes) and $8D/ANHT controlled ignition (with too much advance at the top end, I later discovered...): http://213.162.107.39/misc/PowerTorque2003_2006.gif Thoughts? Looks clear to me that the 36s are strangling the XE at the top end - which EFi should cure... Robin From efi at dyakron.com Tue Jul 4 10:00:19 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:00:19 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Power/torque curves In-Reply-To: <10d301c69f76$10467c90$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net> <0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf> <001601c69a38$c2bd9bd0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP> <0ad201c69a39$d3891e70$020101c0@gandalf> <003801c69a47$2b8d16a0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP> <0b1301c69a8e$48aae270$020101c0@gandalf> <003301c69aa5$819c8e00$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP> <0bc201c69ae0$9ad35210$020101c0@gandalf> <000801c69af8$47101100$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP> <0fa501c69de5$bce78940$020101c0@gandalf> <0fac01c69dee$2d437250$020101c0@gandalf> <0fcd01c69e01$76712400$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060704105948.034219f0@dyakron.com> At 03:28 PM 7/4/2006 +0100, you wrote: >Thoughts? Looks clear to me that the 36s are strangling the XE at the top >end - which EFi should cure... You left out the turbocharger! Nice work Robin. MV From darrenfreed at gmail.com Tue Jul 4 14:16:26 2006 From: darrenfreed at gmail.com (Darren Freed) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:16:26 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning In-Reply-To: <0a3601c69ef8$001b3960$0201a8c0@antec> References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec> <004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec> <007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> <0a3601c69ef8$001b3960$0201a8c0@antec> Message-ID: The amount of RAM on the CPU itself is quite small, not practical for the kinds of things the diy-efi community wants to do (I reckon, anyway). So yeah, I've modified the 'stock' code to point to my external RAM for table lookups. The actual 'OS' still runs as usual from the flashrom. I've expanded the PCMs SCI handler to include a mode that will accept values over the SCI and stores them in my additional RAM (ie table lookup values), enabling on the fly modification of tables. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "anything that is stored on the CPU itself?" Darren On 7/4/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > OK, > > So if the right stuff was put into the 'stock' code, I guess the PCMs CPU > could be asked to do whatever you tell it to. Including > providing internal RAM content to an external port via imbedded serial > routines? So you're just modifying the Flash-based external > code and not changing anything that is stored on the CPU itself? > > Best regards, > Craig Moates > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Darren Freed" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 4:39 PM > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > I've changed the code quite heavily (96 v6 pcm), including experimenting > > with a SD only, full 200 kpa VE table in 5 kpa increments, among a host > of > > other things. I really think that the 68332 based pcms (particularly 96 > - > > 97, because of the edge connector availability) are the way to > go. Also, > > the stock code is very good, in my mind. I'm actually back to a MAF > based > > program (more stockish) because the engine idles so much better with a > MAF > > sensor in place. > > > > my .02, anyway... > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > > > > > To clarify, I haven't done anything yet with the CPU code itself. > > > Haven't changed anything on the BDM, and haven't played with the > TPURAM > > > stuff. > > > > > > Yet... > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Craig Moates" > > > To: > > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:08 AM > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > Darren, > > > > > > > > The entire content of the Flash is emulated via the 2-bank RAM. So > it > > > boots from 'ROM', but boots from the 'RAM' of the emulator. > > > I > > > > could also have set it up so that the emulator only kicked in when > > > certain addresses were accessed and let the ROM kick in when > > > > other areas were being used, sort of flip-flopping back and forth. > That > > > would prevent the need to change lookups and what-not, but > > > > you'd have to make the swap pretty fast and avoid contention. I > guess > > > the same is true for what you were thinking of, assuming > > > you'd > > > > be sharing the same data bus as the Flash. We do that with some of > the > > > Ford applications and it works well. However, there's not > > > > that much room left in the RR architecture now. The CPLD is just > about > > > jamb-pack full, especially with the trace functionality > > > ;^). > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Darren Freed" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:21 AM > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > Craig, > > > > > > > > > > That's some very cool stuff. That's basically where I was headed, > but > > > > > you're way ahead of me! My plan was to have only the cal data in > the > > > ram, > > > > > but that would require changing all the lookups in the code to > point > > > to the > > > > > ram rather than rom - a bit tedious to say the least, but not > > > impossible. > > > > > > > > > > So does yours boot from ram or rom? > > > > > > > > > > darren > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/29/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve, > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's right. You can disable the onboard flash nicely that > > > way. I've > > > > > > done that already, where you force the ROM CE high and > > > > > > you can essentially throw the whole onboard Flash into high > > > impedance > > > > > > mode. Then you can apply your own bootstrap RAM/etc to shadow > > > > > > the ROM code and act as an emulator. That way you don't even > have to > > > > > > remove the Flash chip to achieve the RT emulation, just disable > > > > > > it by forcing the flash CE high. > > > > > > > > > > > > I looked into doing something via dual port, but it ended up > being a > > > bit > > > > > > prohibitive in terms of architecture/availability/cost. I > > > > > > ended up going with parallel battery-backed SRAM with decent > logic > > > in > > > > > > between for effective gating/muxing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a couple of pics of the present (and past) > implementations: > > > > > > www.moates.net/images/rr2/ > > > > > > That stuff all goes right off the pads of the flash location, > not > > > the edge > > > > > > connector, but it could be done on the edge connector as > > > > > > well (install a little more tedious I suppose). > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Steve Ravet" > > > > > > To: > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:50 PM > > > > > > Subject: RE: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as shadowing goes, one of the pins on the expansion > connector > > > is > > > > > > a ROM disable signal. You could add a dual port RAM to the > > > connector, > > > > > > copy the flash contents to the RAM, and get on the fly tuning > via > > > the > > > > > > second port of the dual port. I don't know about accessing CPU > > > internal > > > > > > memory, though. > > > > > > > > > > > > --steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:29 PM > > > > > > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like some very nice and interesting stuff. I'd love to > > > > > > > open a dialogue and help where I can. I've spent some time > > > > > > > probing many of the edge connections to determine what is > > > > > > > connected where and how they behave on the scope. One of my > > > > > > > present interests is to develop an easy-to-use internal > > > > > > > interface which would use some of the existing edge connector > > > > > > > terminals to access RAM data within the CPU of the PCM. This > > > > > > > could, in practice, allow high-speed data acquisition > > > > > > > separate and apart from the DLC/OBD2 protocols. I'd started > > > > > > > chasing the possibility of having external RAM to shadow the > > > > > > > content in some way if the address or data lines were common > > > > > > > with the Flash bus. However, a serial solution, even if a CPU > > > > > > > code patch had to be applied via BDM, would be ideal I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "Darren Freed" > > > > > > > To: > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:03 AM > > > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup - connected it to the edge connector. I used CS8 for > the CE > > > > > > > > signal and CS9 for the OE signal. Both of these chip > selects > > > > > > > aren't used in the stock code. The SRAM is addressed to > > > > > > > $B0000 and the address lines are connected as in the efi332 > > > > > > > project (ie leaving A1 not connected). It worked well - no > > > > > > > troubles at all. I just need to work on the PC software now, > > > > > > > to make it more user friendly. Unfortunately I'm over in the > > > > > > > UK now for a year, away from my ECM bench. So everything for > > > > > > > the next year will be PC programming stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On another note, I've been looking at the DLC routines > > > > > > > quite abit in a > > > > > > > > variety of V6 and V8 code, from '96 to '04. It seems > > > > > > > pretty well conserved throughout, which is good news in terms > > > > > > > of developing an interface and programming for > > > datalogging/reflashing. > > > > > > > Although my SCI stuff works well for me, its not particularly > > > > > > > useful to anyone else (I suspect). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: Steve Ravet > > > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 0:06 am > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > > > [gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Darren Freed > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 1:12 PM > > > > > > > > > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm one step closer to on the fly tuning with a GM > > > > > > > OBDII pcm. > > > > > > > > > > I've added an additional 16k sram and am able to write > > > > > > > to it and > > > > > > > > > > read from it with SCI(ALDL) type comms - ie modify > > > > > > > tables on the > > > > > > > > > > fly. This is similar to what is done with the > > > > > > > > > > efi332 project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren, where (physically) did you connect the SRAM? To > the > > > edge > > > > > > > > > connector? Did you use an unused chip select output, or > did > > > you > > > > > > > > > replacean existing item in the CPU memory space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any > > > > > > > attachments > > > > > > > > > are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are > not > > > the > > > > > > > > > intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately > > > > > > > and do not > > > > > > > > > disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any > > > > > > > purpose, > > > > > > > > > or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank > you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From craig at moates.net Tue Jul 4 14:42:32 2006 From: craig at moates.net (Craig Moates) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:42:32 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec><004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec><007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec><0a3601c69ef8$001b3960$0201a8c0@antec> Message-ID: <001701c69fa1$fe0688f0$0201a8c0@antec> Darren, OK, so the code on the external flash has been modified to enable the SCI handler for direct access? So all you need is a serial comm at the SCI port pins of the CPU/edge connector to carry this out from the PC/external perspective. What does the 'stock' code provide for with respect to SCI handling, and how did you expand it? I mean, in stock form, what can be done with the SCI port? Can you do small RAM dumps, like some of the old Mode1/Mode2 ALDL stuff? What are the protocols for talking with the CPU via the SCI port. I'm asking because I think that your SCI stuff could be very useful to several folks. Also, for your expansion RAM, did you keep the address and data lines common with those of the external flash chip? So that you just select whether you're in RAM or ROM with a CE1/CE2 pairing? Best regards, Craig Moates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Freed" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:16 PM Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > The amount of RAM on the CPU itself is quite small, not practical for the > kinds of things the diy-efi community wants to do (I reckon, anyway). So > yeah, I've modified the 'stock' code to point to my external RAM for table > lookups. The actual 'OS' still runs as usual from the flashrom. I've > expanded the PCMs SCI handler to include a mode that will accept values over > the SCI and stores them in my additional RAM (ie table lookup values), > enabling on the fly modification of tables. > > Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "anything that is stored on the > CPU itself?" > > Darren > > > On 7/4/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > > > OK, > > > > So if the right stuff was put into the 'stock' code, I guess the PCMs CPU > > could be asked to do whatever you tell it to. Including > > providing internal RAM content to an external port via imbedded serial > > routines? So you're just modifying the Flash-based external > > code and not changing anything that is stored on the CPU itself? > > > > Best regards, > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Darren Freed" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 4:39 PM > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > I've changed the code quite heavily (96 v6 pcm), including experimenting > > > with a SD only, full 200 kpa VE table in 5 kpa increments, among a host > > of > > > other things. I really think that the 68332 based pcms (particularly 96 > > - > > > 97, because of the edge connector availability) are the way to > > go. Also, > > > the stock code is very good, in my mind. I'm actually back to a MAF > > based > > > program (more stockish) because the engine idles so much better with a > > MAF > > > sensor in place. > > > > > > my .02, anyway... > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > > > > > > > To clarify, I haven't done anything yet with the CPU code itself. > > > > Haven't changed anything on the BDM, and haven't played with the > > TPURAM > > > > stuff. > > > > > > > > Yet... > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Craig Moates" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:08 AM > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren, > > > > > > > > > > The entire content of the Flash is emulated via the 2-bank RAM. So > > it > > > > boots from 'ROM', but boots from the 'RAM' of the emulator. > > > > I > > > > > could also have set it up so that the emulator only kicked in when > > > > certain addresses were accessed and let the ROM kick in when > > > > > other areas were being used, sort of flip-flopping back and forth. > > That > > > > would prevent the need to change lookups and what-not, but > > > > > you'd have to make the swap pretty fast and avoid contention. I > > guess > > > > the same is true for what you were thinking of, assuming > > > > you'd > > > > > be sharing the same data bus as the Flash. We do that with some of > > the > > > > Ford applications and it works well. However, there's not > > > > > that much room left in the RR architecture now. The CPLD is just > > about > > > > jamb-pack full, especially with the trace functionality > > > > ;^). > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Darren Freed" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:21 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Craig, > > > > > > > > > > > > That's some very cool stuff. That's basically where I was headed, > > but > > > > > > you're way ahead of me! My plan was to have only the cal data in > > the > > > > ram, > > > > > > but that would require changing all the lookups in the code to > > point > > > > to the > > > > > > ram rather than rom - a bit tedious to say the least, but not > > > > impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > So does yours boot from ram or rom? > > > > > > > > > > > > darren > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/29/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's right. You can disable the onboard flash nicely that > > > > way. I've > > > > > > > done that already, where you force the ROM CE high and > > > > > > > you can essentially throw the whole onboard Flash into high > > > > impedance > > > > > > > mode. Then you can apply your own bootstrap RAM/etc to shadow > > > > > > > the ROM code and act as an emulator. That way you don't even > > have to > > > > > > > remove the Flash chip to achieve the RT emulation, just disable > > > > > > > it by forcing the flash CE high. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I looked into doing something via dual port, but it ended up > > being a > > > > bit > > > > > > > prohibitive in terms of architecture/availability/cost. I > > > > > > > ended up going with parallel battery-backed SRAM with decent > > logic > > > > in > > > > > > > between for effective gating/muxing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a couple of pics of the present (and past) > > implementations: > > > > > > > www.moates.net/images/rr2/ > > > > > > > That stuff all goes right off the pads of the flash location, > > not > > > > the edge > > > > > > > connector, but it could be done on the edge connector as > > > > > > > well (install a little more tedious I suppose). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "Steve Ravet" > > > > > > > To: > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:50 PM > > > > > > > Subject: RE: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as shadowing goes, one of the pins on the expansion > > connector > > > > is > > > > > > > a ROM disable signal. You could add a dual port RAM to the > > > > connector, > > > > > > > copy the flash contents to the RAM, and get on the fly tuning > > via > > > > the > > > > > > > second port of the dual port. I don't know about accessing CPU > > > > internal > > > > > > > memory, though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:29 PM > > > > > > > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like some very nice and interesting stuff. I'd love to > > > > > > > > open a dialogue and help where I can. I've spent some time > > > > > > > > probing many of the edge connections to determine what is > > > > > > > > connected where and how they behave on the scope. One of my > > > > > > > > present interests is to develop an easy-to-use internal > > > > > > > > interface which would use some of the existing edge connector > > > > > > > > terminals to access RAM data within the CPU of the PCM. This > > > > > > > > could, in practice, allow high-speed data acquisition > > > > > > > > separate and apart from the DLC/OBD2 protocols. I'd started > > > > > > > > chasing the possibility of having external RAM to shadow the > > > > > > > > content in some way if the address or data lines were common > > > > > > > > with the Flash bus. However, a serial solution, even if a CPU > > > > > > > > code patch had to be applied via BDM, would be ideal I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: "Darren Freed" > > > > > > > > To: > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:03 AM > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup - connected it to the edge connector. I used CS8 for > > the CE > > > > > > > > > signal and CS9 for the OE signal. Both of these chip > > selects > > > > > > > > aren't used in the stock code. The SRAM is addressed to > > > > > > > > $B0000 and the address lines are connected as in the efi332 > > > > > > > > project (ie leaving A1 not connected). It worked well - no > > > > > > > > troubles at all. I just need to work on the PC software now, > > > > > > > > to make it more user friendly. Unfortunately I'm over in the > > > > > > > > UK now for a year, away from my ECM bench. So everything for > > > > > > > > the next year will be PC programming stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On another note, I've been looking at the DLC routines > > > > > > > > quite abit in a > > > > > > > > > variety of V6 and V8 code, from '96 to '04. It seems > > > > > > > > pretty well conserved throughout, which is good news in terms > > > > > > > > of developing an interface and programming for > > > > datalogging/reflashing. > > > > > > > > Although my SCI stuff works well for me, its not particularly > > > > > > > > useful to anyone else (I suspect). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > From: Steve Ravet > > > > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 0:06 am > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > > > > [gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Darren Freed > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 1:12 PM > > > > > > > > > > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm one step closer to on the fly tuning with a GM > > > > > > > > OBDII pcm. > > > > > > > > > > > I've added an additional 16k sram and am able to write > > > > > > > > to it and > > > > > > > > > > > read from it with SCI(ALDL) type comms - ie modify > > > > > > > > tables on the > > > > > > > > > > > fly. This is similar to what is done with the > > > > > > > > > > > efi332 project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Darren, where (physically) did you connect the SRAM? To > > the > > > > edge > > > > > > > > > > connector? Did you use an unused chip select output, or > > did > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > replacean existing item in the CPU memory space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any > > > > > > > > attachments > > > > > > > > > > are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are > > not > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately > > > > > > > > and do not > > > > > > > > > > disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any > > > > > > > > purpose, > > > > > > > > > > or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank > > you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gmecm mailing list > > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > From lwester at lincsat.com Tue Jul 4 15:18:11 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:18:11 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Original File Chevrolet Cavalier References: <001001c69eec$9a8e3800$2101a8c0@daniel> Message-ID: <000e01c69fa6$fe33e840$4250050a@WESTER2> You'd need a VIN for that one... Lyndon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "electronica del automovil" To: Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 4:04 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Original File Chevrolet Cavalier > Hello members: > > I am looking for the original ECU file of Chevrolet Cavalier 2.2L 1998, > ecu number: > > CKPD > SER NO 16228016 > > If any of you can give me a copy I will be very gratefully. > > Thanks, Daniel > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From matthew10_5 at netzero.net Tue Jul 4 15:42:44 2006 From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net (matthew10_5 at netzero.net) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:42:44 GMT Subject: [Gmecm] 305 TBI Hesitation Message-ID: <20060704.134329.2120.344187@webmail17.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.diy-efi.org/pipermail/gmecm/attachments/20060704/3126338b/attachment.pl From dennysweet at charter.net Tue Jul 4 20:23:05 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 18:23:05 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] 305 TBI Hesitation References: <20060704.134329.2120.344187@webmail17.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: <000401c69fd1$92bcb620$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> sounds like a vac leak to me! From lwester at lincsat.com Tue Jul 4 20:02:54 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:02:54 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] 305 TBI Hesitation References: <20060704.134329.2120.344187@webmail17.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: <001801c69fce$c5e86920$4250050a@WESTER2> There's a lot of possibilities: 1. False triggering from RFI 2. Incorrect TPS voltage 3. IAC problems 4. Incorrect loads indicated to the ECM 5. Incorrect base timing 6. Faulty ECM--improper PROM. If you had a scanner--it'll tell what's going on. If the IAC counts are close to "0"--basically, the computer can't control idle. It's a vacuum leak--whether wrong PCV valve, physical baseplate leak, IAC stuck, intake gaskets or brake booster problem--anything 'false air related'. If IAC counts are also high--look for a commanded load (P/N switch), A/C input, low alternator charging rate, or high operating temps. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:42 PM Subject: [Gmecm] 305 TBI Hesitation > THis one has plagued me for a year now and like a man it is finally > time to ask for help. > The Project: > 305 CID Small block TBI 7747. > I'M trying to figure out two things still. I have a high idle problem > that cannot be lowered by altering convention cell settings for the > idle. Something in another area is holding the idle up to 1100 RPM no > matter what is done, it is not mechanical. The computer wants to > increase the idle in gear at a stop sign. > This might be related as well .If the throttle is opened up slowly > under load, the engine hesitates or stumbles as though it is going > lean. If you let off the throttle ( around 1100 RPM ), it hesitates and > the engine surges back as though it went suddenly went rich. Now if > you step on it Hard, the engine jumps with all kinds of power and runs > as it should. My question is has any run into this before and which > cells are responsible or maybe over riding the others? I need some more > heads on this one....Fred > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From lwester at lincsat.com Tue Jul 4 20:07:10 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:07:10 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] ASJW or AXAU bin files References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec><004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec><007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> <000301c69f70$93713020$6801a8c0@RonHome> Message-ID: <002d01c69fcf$5c9149f0$4250050a@WESTER2> Looks like it was updated to BNAK...which I don't have handy, either. Lyndon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Drew" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 7:48 AM Subject: [Gmecm] ASJW or AXAU bin files > Anyone know where I can fine a ASJW.bin or a AXAU.bin? > > Thank you, Ron > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From davesnothereman at netscape.net Wed Jul 5 17:45:32 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Power/torque curves Message-ID: <4549EE7C.3CD55CB6.DB881660@netscape.net> My thoughts exactly! Actually, those numbers are similar to what the C20GET produces stock. There are some very interesting intakes for that engine... at least in some of the pictures I've seen. Zaphod Mike V wrote: >At 03:28 PM 7/4/2006 +0100, you wrote: > >>Thoughts? Looks clear to me that the 36s are strangling the XE at the top >>end - which EFi should cure... > > >You left out the turbocharger! >Nice work Robin. >MV > > > >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp From darrenfreed at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 14:12:54 2006 From: darrenfreed at gmail.com (Darren Freed) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:12:54 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning In-Reply-To: <001701c69fa1$fe0688f0$0201a8c0@antec> References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec> <004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec> <007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> <0a3601c69ef8$001b3960$0201a8c0@antec> <001701c69fa1$fe0688f0$0201a8c0@antec> Message-ID: Sorry if this is a repost - I haven't seen it come through yet, thought I'd try again. > On the 96/97 v6 PCMs, the SCI is unlocked and enabled to allow access to the PCM. It's functionality is very limited, although it does support a P4 style Mode 5/6 (download and execute). The OBD-II serial flash paper on the gmecm webpage is based on that capability. In stock form, the SCI is used to communicate with the ABS and digital dash etc. With newer pcms, that is handled by the J1850 bus, so the SCI capability is dropped completely (although oddly enough the code is still there - just never called). I expanded the SCI capability to allow P4 style Modes 1/2/5/6/8/9 and even made up a few of my own, for example writing to the RAM expansion. The initial changes to code/reflashing had to be done with Steve Ravet's BDM utilities, but now I only use the SCI to reprogram the flash (except for rescuing dead boxes). I'm not sure how many PCMs would support this type of thing, which is why we really need to jump on Steve's J1850 VPW interface and develop software for it - with it, any PCM could be configured for this (with or without code changes) although to implement RAM expansion (which could also be read/written over the J1850 bus, with code changes), an edge connector is handy (not all of them have it - particularly the newer ones). The RAM is implemented using 2 unused chip select pins and setting up their respective configuration registers in the SIM. As far as the PCM is concerned it is no different than reading/writing one of the peripheral chips. It is set up nearly identical to the efi332 project in terms of addressing. I really need to find some time to put this altogether into a nice little package (along with all my P4 stuff) and put it up on the new Wiki!! I really need another body! :-) Darren On 7/4/06, Craig Moates wrote: > > Darren, > > OK, so the code on the external flash has been modified to enable the SCI > handler for direct access? > > So all you need is a serial comm at the SCI port pins of the CPU/edge > connector to carry this out from the PC/external perspective. > > What does the 'stock' code provide for with respect to SCI handling, and > how did you expand it? I mean, in stock form, what can be > done with the SCI port? Can you do small RAM dumps, like some of the old > Mode1/Mode2 ALDL stuff? What are the protocols for talking > with the CPU via the SCI port. I'm asking because I think that your SCI > stuff could be very useful to several folks. > > Also, for your expansion RAM, did you keep the address and data lines > common with those of the external flash chip? So that you just > select whether you're in RAM or ROM with a CE1/CE2 pairing? > > Best regards, > Craig Moates > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Darren Freed" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:16 PM > Subject: Re: RE: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning > > > > The amount of RAM on the CPU itself is quite small, not practical for > the > > kinds of things the diy-efi community wants to do (I reckon, > anyway). So > > yeah, I've modified the 'stock' code to point to my external RAM for > table > > lookups. The actual 'OS' still runs as usual from the flashrom. I've > > expanded the PCMs SCI handler to include a mode that will accept values > over > > the SCI and stores them in my additional RAM (ie table lookup values), > > enabling on the fly modification of tables. > > > > Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "anything that is stored on > the > > CPU itself?" > > > > Darren > > > > > > From b.shaw at comcast.net Thu Jul 6 23:18:09 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill - Comcast) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:18:09 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Cold start problem In-Reply-To: References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec> <004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec> <007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> <0a3601c69ef8$001b3960$0201a8c0@antec> <001701c69fa1$fe0688f0$0201a8c0@antec> Message-ID: <44ADE081.8080307@comcast.net> I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century wagon and am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When trying to start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and stall. We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally wheeze to life. Once it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The problem occurs only when it's stone cold, after running for even a minute it will repeatedly start fine. It's not setting any codes so I'm not getting any help from the ECM. This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired up quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something weird with the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and easy anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on what to look at next? Thanks, Bill From jlg-sep at comcast.net Fri Jul 7 06:14:19 2006 From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:14:19 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Cold start problem References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec> <004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec> <007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> <0a3601c69ef8$001b3960$0201a8c0@antec> <001701c69fa1$fe0688f0$0201a8c0@antec> <44ADE081.8080307@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001801c6a1b6$7e47eac0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP> > I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century wagon and > am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When trying to > start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and > stall. We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally wheeze to > life. Once it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The > problem occurs only when it's stone cold, after running for even a > minute it will repeatedly start fine. It's not setting any codes so I'm > not getting any help from the ECM. > > This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired up > quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something weird with > the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and easy > anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on what to > look at next? My first instinct would be an ignition timing issue. I'd check the timing with a light while cranking and see where its at. If its way out of spec, you may have a problem with the ignition module, since this sets timing during cranking while in Bypass mode. On this engine, the module is the entire base to which the (3) DIS coils mount. When not in Bypass mode (under ECM control), it might be just fine. -Scott From dgilbert78 at juno.com Fri Jul 7 06:16:38 2006 From: dgilbert78 at juno.com (dgilbert78 at juno.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Cold start problem Message-ID: <20060707.071639.-113103.0.dgilbert78@juno.com> hello: you might try the crank position sensor, I had one that drove me nuts. Also had a set of plug wires go bad, ate the core out of them, all this on a 87 Buick. good luck Darryl.. On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:18:09 -0400 Bill - Comcast writes: > I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century wagon > and > am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When trying > to > start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and > stall. We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally wheeze > to > life. Once it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The > problem occurs only when it's stone cold, after running for even a > minute it will repeatedly start fine. It's not setting any codes so > I'm > not getting any help from the ECM. > > This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired up > > quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something weird > with > the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and easy > > anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on what > to > look at next? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > From rjdrew at adelphia.net Sat Jul 8 06:29:16 2006 From: rjdrew at adelphia.net (Ron Drew) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 07:29:16 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Cold start problem References: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec> <004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec> <007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec> <0a3601c69ef8$001b3960$0201a8c0@antec> <001701c69fa1$fe0688f0$0201a8c0@antec> <44ADE081.8080307@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001301c6a281$bf5dbc30$6801a8c0@RonHome> This may not help, but here is what I have experienced: I have two 3800 engine cars from the same era and I have experienced what you described on both of them. In both cases, I measured the secondary ignition voltage and found that the some of the spark plugs had deteriorated some (the firing voltage had creeped up from previous taken measurements). After replacing the plugs, I then tweaked the 'cranking pulse width' (in both cases, I was slightly lean, so the cranking pulse width had to be slightly increased at lower coolant temperatures). I don't understand why I had to slightly increase the cranking pulse width, when each car had previously cranked fine, however I did this on one car 3 or 4 years ago and it has been fine since. I applied the same to the second car this year (which I drive during the week), and both crank now without any issues. A strong indication that what I experienced is the same reason for your problem; is that after trying to crank the engine for a few starter motor turns, release the key and try to crank the engine a second time. If it is the slightly lean problem which I described, the car will likely fire right up on the second try. I think this can be explained because the pulse width is programmed to progressively decrease the longer you try to run the starter motor (to prevent flooding the engine) so a second attempt would provide the extra needed fuel. I think the only thing that could explain for the engine firing immediately on the second try is that the programmed cranking pulse width is slightly too lean. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill - Comcast" To: Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 12:18 AM Subject: [Gmecm] Cold start problem > I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century wagon and > am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When trying to > start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and stall. > We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally wheeze to life. Once > it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The problem occurs only > when it's stone cold, after running for even a minute it will repeatedly > start fine. It's not setting any codes so I'm not getting any help from > the ECM. > > This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired up > quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something weird with > the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and easy > anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on what to look > at next? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From b.shaw at comcast.net Sat Jul 8 09:23:15 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill - Comcast) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Cold start problem In-Reply-To: <20060707.071639.-113103.0.dgilbert78@juno.com> References: <20060707.071639.-113103.0.dgilbert78@juno.com> Message-ID: <44AFBFD3.4000907@comcast.net> You win Darryl. It was the crank position sensor. Stop by and pick up your free beer any time. :-) I don't understand why it gave so much trouble when cold and worked fine when warm, but it's much better now with a new sensor. The old one was apparently contacting the crank flag and was warn down. Thanks for all the replies, guys. Bill dgilbert78 at juno.com wrote: > hello: you might try the crank position sensor, I had one that drove me > nuts. Also had a set of plug wires go bad, ate the core out of them, all > this on a 87 Buick. > good luck > Darryl.. > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:18:09 -0400 Bill - Comcast > writes: > >> I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century wagon >> and >> am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When trying >> to >> start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and >> stall. We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally wheeze >> to >> life. Once it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The >> problem occurs only when it's stone cold, after running for even a >> minute it will repeatedly start fine. It's not setting any codes so >> I'm >> not getting any help from the ECM. >> >> This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired up >> >> quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something weird >> with >> the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and easy >> >> anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on what >> to >> look at next? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill >> >> From dgilbert78 at juno.com Sat Jul 8 10:26:09 2006 From: dgilbert78 at juno.com (dgilbert78 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:26:09 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Cold start problem Message-ID: <20060708.112610.-172961.0.dgilbert78@juno.com> Well ok, glad you found it and that was the problem. It is much easier if they just stop working, its tough when they get wounded. The one I had If i remember would work fine Cold, act up when warm, go figure. Thanks Darryl... On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:23:15 -0400 Bill - Comcast writes: > You win Darryl. It was the crank position sensor. Stop by and pick > up > your free beer any time. :-) > > I don't understand why it gave so much trouble when cold and worked > fine > when warm, but it's much better now with a new sensor. The old one > was > apparently contacting the crank flag and was warn down. > > Thanks for all the replies, guys. > > Bill > > dgilbert78 at juno.com wrote: > > hello: you might try the crank position sensor, I had one that > drove me > > nuts. Also had a set of plug wires go bad, ate the core out of > them, all > > this on a 87 Buick. > > good luck > > Darryl.. > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:18:09 -0400 Bill - Comcast > > > writes: > > > >> I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century > wagon > >> and > >> am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When > trying > >> to > >> start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and > > >> stall. We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally > wheeze > >> to > >> life. Once it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The > > >> problem occurs only when it's stone cold, after running for even > a > >> minute it will repeatedly start fine. It's not setting any codes > so > >> I'm > >> not getting any help from the ECM. > >> > >> This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired > up > >> > >> quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something > weird > >> with > >> the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and > easy > >> > >> anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on > what > >> to > >> look at next? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Sun Jul 9 21:08:54 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] 305 TBI Hesitation Message-ID: > > THis one has plagued me for a year now and like a man it is > finally time to ask for help. > The Project: > 305 CID Small block TBI 7747. > I'M trying to figure out two things still. I have a high > idle problem that cannot be lowered by altering convention > cell settings for the idle. Something in another area is > holding the idle up to 1100 RPM no matter what is done, it is > not mechanical. The computer wants to increase the idle in > gear at a stop sign. > This might be related as well .If the throttle is opened up > slowly under load, the engine hesitates or stumbles as though > it is going lean. If you let off the throttle ( around 1100 > RPM ), it hesitates and > the engine surges back as though it went suddenly went rich. Now if > you step on it Hard, the engine jumps with all kinds of power > and runs as it should. My question is has any run into this > before and which cells are responsible or maybe over riding > the others? I need some more heads on this one....Fred I had a similar problem some time ago, you can search in the archives for "creepy idle". With a scan tool I could see the "desired idle rpm" creeping up while stopped and in gear. From a fully warmed up desired RPM of 550 it would slowly creep up to 800 or so, opening the IAC to 180 or more in the process. I got used to shifting to neutral when coming to a stop. While looking into it I discovered that a wiring error meant that my P/N switch had never been connected correctly. It was always indicating in gear. (This is a swap project, 350 TBI into an S-10 Blazer, I've been driving it for 9 years now). Fixing that, however, did not solve the problem. Unfortunately I don't know what did solve it, as it just gradually quit doing it. I checked CTS, VSS, etc. on the scan tool and all were correct. There were some other suggestions in response to my original post that I never got around to trying, you might try to dig them up. --steve -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From davida1 at hiwaay.net Mon Jul 10 09:54:31 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:54:31 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- 305 TBI Hesitation References: +ADw-DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C7434140611783010D5AD4+AEA-NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com+AD4- Message-ID: <002d01c6a433$ff481800$6ed3ca46@yancey.com> Does your calibration have a table that modifies idle speed vs. battery voltage? Could there be parameters in the calbration which are not called out in the definition file? I caught heck with a project this year having a similar problem. It would idle very high and according to scan data the ECM was calling for this idle- just like in your case. My calibration had a table for desired idle speed vs. battery voltage. There is something wrong with the calibation or the definition file because the ECM only responds to the LOWEST battery voltage range in this table. Even though the ECM reports a battery voltage of 14 with the engine running, it will idle at the speed called for in the 8 volt table location. I figured this one out by trial and error and error and error and error..... No one (including the creator of the definition file) has been able to offer any additional insight. I simply put 750 in all cells of this table and the engine idles at 750 rpm. Probably not the most helpful advice but... Later, David ----- Original Message ----- From: +ACI-Steve Ravet+ACI- +ADw-Steve.Ravet+AEA-arm.com+AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 9:08 PM Subject: RE: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- 305 TBI Hesitation +AD4APg- +AD4APg- THis one has plagued me for a year now and like a man it is +AD4APg- finally time to ask for help. +AD4APg- The Project: +AD4APg- 305 CID Small block TBI 7747. +AD4APg- I'M trying to figure out two things still. I have a high +AD4APg- idle problem that cannot be lowered by altering convention +AD4APg- cell settings for the idle. Something in another area is +AD4APg- holding the idle up to 1100 RPM no matter what is done, it is +AD4APg- not mechanical. The computer wants to increase the idle in +AD4APg- gear at a stop sign. +AD4APg- This might be related as well .If the throttle is opened up +AD4APg- slowly under load, the engine hesitates or stumbles as though +AD4APg- it is going lean. If you let off the throttle ( around 1100 +AD4APg- RPM ), it hesitates and +AD4APg- the engine surges back as though it went suddenly went rich. Now if +AD4APg- you step on it Hard, the engine jumps with all kinds of power +AD4APg- and runs as it should. My question is has any run into this +AD4APg- before and which cells are responsible or maybe over riding +AD4APg- the others? I need some more heads on this one....Fred +AD4- +AD4- I had a similar problem some time ago, you can search in the archives +AD4- for +ACI-creepy idle+ACI-. With a scan tool I could see the +ACI-desired idle rpm+ACI- +AD4- creeping up while stopped and in gear. From a fully warmed up desired +AD4- RPM of 550 it would slowly creep up to 800 or so, opening the IAC to 180 +AD4- or more in the process. I got used to shifting to neutral when coming +AD4- to a stop. While looking into it I discovered that a wiring error meant +AD4- that my P/N switch had never been connected correctly. It was always +AD4- indicating in gear. (This is a swap project, 350 TBI into an S-10 +AD4- Blazer, I've been driving it for 9 years now). +AD4- +AD4- Fixing that, however, did not solve the problem. Unfortunately I don't +AD4- know what did solve it, as it just gradually quit doing it. I checked +AD4- CTS, VSS, etc. on the scan tool and all were correct. There were some +AD4- other suggestions in response to my original post that I never got +AD4- around to trying, you might try to dig them up. +AD4- +AD4- --steve +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are +AD4- confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended +AD4- recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the +AD4- contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the +AD4- information in any medium. Thank you. +AD4- +AD4- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- +AD4- Gmecm mailing list +AD4- Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org +AD4- http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm +AD4- +AD4- From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Mon Jul 10 10:40:38 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:40:38 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: [Gmecm] 305 TBI Hesitation Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of David Allen > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 9:55 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: [Gmecm] 305 TBI Hesitation > > Does your calibration have a table that modifies idle speed > vs. battery voltage? Could there be parameters in the > calbration which are not called out in the definition file? > I caught heck with a project this year having a similar > problem. It would idle very high and according to scan data > the ECM was calling for this idle- just like in your case. > My calibration had a table for desired idle speed vs. > battery voltage. > There is something wrong with the calibation or the > definition file because the ECM only responds to the LOWEST > battery voltage range in this table. > Even though the ECM reports a battery voltage of 14 with the > engine running, it will idle at the speed called for in the 8 > volt table location. I figured this one out by trial and > error and error and error and error..... > No one (including the creator of the definition file) has > been able to offer any additional insight. I simply put 750 > in all cells of this table and the engine idles at 750 rpm. > Probably not the most helpful advice but... > Later, > David My reported battery voltage was also correct. This idle problem arose after years of OK operation, even though the P/N switch wasn't connected. It didn't seem likely that the computer or calibration would be wrong in this case so I didn't pursue that. Some reading on the thirdgen board turned up a possibility. When AIR is enabled some calibrations change the O2 switchpoint slightly to compensate for the air being added to the exhaust stream. I removed the AIR pump on mine, and the timing of that may correspond with the start of my idle problems. BUT, in my case the O2 sensor is in the driver's side downpipe, and the only AIR fittings are on the passenger side. So maybe not. The other thing I meant to mention last night is that there is a very comprehensive document about the TBI idle strategy on the gmecm page. Lots of tables and data values and a very good discussion of what they do. So if you wanted to dive into the idle routines and tables start by reading that. Something else I did while troubleshooting this was to jumper the A/B connectors with the key on (fully seats the IAC) then disconnect the IAC. Then start the engine. It will probably barely idle. Plug the IAC back in, put the trans in gear, wait for the ECM to bring the engine up to a reasonable speed, then unplug the IAC again, this time leave it disconnected. David's solution is better since you still get stall saver and other features with the ECM controlling idle, but this worked in a pinch. --steve > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ravet" > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 9:08 PM > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] 305 TBI Hesitation > > > >> > >> THis one has plagued me for a year now and like a man it is > >> finally time to ask for help. > >> The Project: > >> 305 CID Small block TBI 7747. > >> I'M trying to figure out two things still. I have a high > >> idle problem that cannot be lowered by altering convention > >> cell settings for the idle. Something in another area is > >> holding the idle up to 1100 RPM no matter what is done, it is > >> not mechanical. The computer wants to increase the idle in > >> gear at a stop sign. > >> This might be related as well .If the throttle is opened up > >> slowly under load, the engine hesitates or stumbles as though > >> it is going lean. If you let off the throttle ( around 1100 > >> RPM ), it hesitates and > >> the engine surges back as though it went suddenly went > rich. Now if > >> you step on it Hard, the engine jumps with all kinds of power > >> and runs as it should. My question is has any run into this > >> before and which cells are responsible or maybe over riding > >> the others? I need some more heads on this one....Fred > > > > I had a similar problem some time ago, you can search in > the archives > > for "creepy idle". With a scan tool I could see the > "desired idle rpm" > > creeping up while stopped and in gear. From a fully warmed > up desired > > RPM of 550 it would slowly creep up to 800 or so, opening > the IAC to 180 > > or more in the process. I got used to shifting to neutral > when coming > > to a stop. While looking into it I discovered that a > wiring error meant > > that my P/N switch had never been connected correctly. It > was always > > indicating in gear. (This is a swap project, 350 TBI into an S-10 > > Blazer, I've been driving it for 9 years now). > > > > Fixing that, however, did not solve the problem. > Unfortunately I don't > > know what did solve it, as it just gradually quit doing it. > I checked > > CTS, VSS, etc. on the scan tool and all were correct. > There were some > > other suggestions in response to my original post that I never got > > around to trying, you might try to dig them up. > > > > --steve -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From justin_email at lycos.com Mon Jul 10 12:06:29 2006 From: justin_email at lycos.com (Justin justin) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:06:29 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] 1227730 ECM Compatable Knock Sensors Message-ID: <20060710170629.9B356CA07A@ws7-4.us4.outblaze.com> I am doing an EFI conversion on my Cadillac 472 using the 1227730 ECM and need a knock sensor that would be closest in cubes to work with my motor. I was thinking of using one from a 454 but I have heard that they will not work with the 1227730 is this true? Does anyone know of any knock sensors from a chevy 454 app will work with a 1227730 ecm? Thanks - Justin -- _______________________________________________ Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 From gmecm at 4usapride.com Mon Jul 10 21:26:39 2006 From: gmecm at 4usapride.com (Andrew G.) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:26:39 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 1227730 ECM Compatable Knock Sensors References: <20060710170629.9B356CA07A@ws7-4.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <004e01c6a491$729af950$6701a8c0@ANDREW2> >From what I understand, the primary component of a knock signature is a function of bore size. I'd get a KS with the most similar bore size, for the '730 computer. Also for the 730 the KS filtering is done on the memcal. I'd pick up the same memcal and use it as a starting point as well... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin justin" To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:06 PM Subject: [Gmecm] 1227730 ECM Compatable Knock Sensors I am doing an EFI conversion on my Cadillac 472 using the 1227730 ECM and need a knock sensor that would be closest in cubes to work with my motor. I was thinking of using one from a 454 but I have heard that they will not work with the 1227730 is this true? Does anyone know of any knock sensors from a chevy 454 app will work with a 1227730 ecm? Thanks - Justin -- _______________________________________________ Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From justin_email at lycos.com Tue Jul 11 10:22:03 2006 From: justin_email at lycos.com (Justin justin) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:22:03 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] 1227730 ECM Compatable Knock Sensors Message-ID: <20060711152203.1E5763384B@ws7-3.us4.outblaze.com> Thanks for the info Andrew. Would I be better off using a knock sensor from a 350 then? I'm just trying to find one that would be closest to a 472 and it looks like the 454 knock sensor would be the closest. Someone also told me the only way you can get the 454 knock sensor to work with the 730 ecm is to run a 4k ohm resistor inline with it is this true? If so what does this do? Thanks - Justin > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew G." > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 1227730 ECM Compatable Knock Sensors > Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:26:39 -0400 > > > > From what I understand, the primary component of a knock signature is a > function of bore size. > I'd get a KS with the most similar bore size, for the '730 computer. > > Also for the 730 the KS filtering is done on the memcal. I'd pick > up the same memcal and use it as a starting point as well... > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin justin" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:06 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] 1227730 ECM Compatable Knock Sensors > > > I am doing an EFI conversion on my Cadillac 472 using the 1227730 > ECM and need a knock sensor that would be closest in cubes to work > with my motor. I was thinking of using one from a 454 but I have > heard that they will not work with the 1227730 is this true? Does > anyone know of any knock sensors from a chevy 454 app will work > with a 1227730 ecm? Thanks - Justin > > -- _______________________________________________ > > Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages > > http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > -- _______________________________________________ Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Tue Jul 11 11:54:20 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] test, don't reply Message-ID: there may be more of these ------------------- Steve Ravet ARM steve.ravet at arm.com -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From jryan at caminofx.org Wed Jul 12 02:09:48 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 2:09:48 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 Message-ID: <8ba95f39bf9c31db0fa07c3afc932475@localhost> I have a problem that I am at my wits' end about. I've tried to research it and experiment and I just can't figure it out. I have a Chevrolet El Camino that used to have an LG4 305 (5.0L) V-8 with 8.6:1 static compression ratio when new (though this engine had seen better days; it ran smoothly but burned oil). I converted that 305 from a QuadraJet carburetor to TBI with a stock intake manifold and throttle body from an F-body. The ECM is a 1228746. I had a programmer make a custom chip for the LG4 305, and it ran very well on 87-octane gasoline. Recently, I swapped engines. The new one is a brand-new GM 350 with a Crane Cams 2032 roller camshaft and high-swirl TBI heads. The static compression ratio is 9.2:1, and the dynamic compression ratio with that camshaft should be about 8.7:1. I changed the fuel injectors from the 40 lb./hr. units to 55 lb./hr. units like a 350-equipped half-ton pickup truck would have. I changed the ESC module and knock sensor when the new 350 went in. They are brand-new GM units specified for a 350. >From the beginning, I have had a pinging problem. It would run fine on 93-octane gasoline. I would really like it to run on 87-octane. I got the programmer who made the chip I used for the 305 to make a new one for the 350. It was better, but it still pinged on 87-octane. He made another revision, and this time I logged data using a notebook PC and WinALDL. It still pinged some, and after reviewing more data that I logged, the programmer said it looked like it was running too lean, and he suggested changing to an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and increasing the pressure a little bit. That is when the problem *really* got bad. I installed a JET adjustable FPR. I have watched while the engine is running with the air cleaner housing removed so the injector pod is not shrouded, and there are no leaks. The problem at this stage is that even with the screw on the AFPR turned to reduce the pressure as far as it will go (should be 10PSI), the engine just does not run well at idle. It puts out black smoke and runs very rough, and sometimes surges. The car accelerates fine, and there is no smoke at mid-range to high engine speeds, but coming away from a new green light, it can take several seconds for black smoke to stop coming out of the tailpipes. It looks like the engine is really loading up with fuel. Even though it runs very, very rich at idle, the engine does still ping some, especially on light acceleration. There is very little pinging under highway cruising, but a lot from off-idle on up during light to moderate acceleration. So I really don't understand what happened. It idled *perfectly* with the stock who-knows-how-old non-adjustable FPR that came with the throttle body (that was salvaged off a wrecked F-body). Doing the IAC reset and minimum idle speed adjustment does not help. The TPS on this throttle body is non-adjustable. The base ignition timing is set at 0. To make things even worse, for three days in a row, I have tried to log a lot of data with WinALDL, and the program has shut down, apparently causing a GPF (in Windows 98), so I don't have hard data on the current state of things. So there are only a few things I can imagine. These are hypothoses I formed, and feel free to disprove them. I need ideas. 1. The stock FPR was worn-out and weak, or never correct from the factory, and set a much lower fuel pressure than really needed, in which case the correct fix would be to simply get a new stock FPR. 2. The adjustable FPR gives the pressure that this setup really needs, and the chip is not programmed for the higher pressure. The only situation in which I can imagine this is that there is a certain minimum and maximum duty cycle for the injectors, so the ECM cannot reduce the fuel to the point that it is lean enough at idle. 3. This setup might really need a GM vacuum-adjustable regulator, so it can run a low pressure at idle and a higher pressure at higher engine speeds. 4. I have some mismatch of the FPR and the spring that is installed with it. Does anyone have some insight, and have some ideas for a systematic way to figure this out without throwing money at it? I want to learn. I enjoy tinkering with things. I just really need to figure this out because gas mileage has dropped from an average of 19.2MPG to 15.5MPG since installing the adjustable FPR. One interesting thing I noticed is that after installing the JET adjustable FPR, the engine started MUCH faster than with the old stock regulator, even though it doesn't idle smoothly. It still cranks and starts very, very fast, which makes me wonder if hypothesis #1 may be close to the truth. I'm open to any ideas, discussion, arguments, etc. Thanks! -- - Jared Ryan [jryan at caminofx.org] From Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Wed Jul 12 11:14:50 2006 From: Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk (Terminal Crazy) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:14:50 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <8ba95f39bf9c31db0fa07c3afc932475@localhost> References: <8ba95f39bf9c31db0fa07c3afc932475@localhost> Message-ID: <4e4559e7e0Terminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> On 12 Jul, Jared Ryan wrote: [stuff] Hiya, whilst i've not got any good answers for you, just a couple of off the wall questions. Are you running Open Loop or with 02's ? Have you tested/checked what the fuel pressure actually is now? and under load (ie for restrictions in fuel filter) ? Have you checked the injectors are ok AND are what they are supposed to be? Can't think of anything else ATM HTH -- Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6 terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Lancashire England http://www.sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk/terminal_crazy/ From dvfagan at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 11:52:53 2006 From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <8ba95f39bf9c31db0fa07c3afc932475@localhost> Message-ID: <20060712165253.10300.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jared, What is the fuel pressure at idle? What is the fuel pressure at WOT? Until you measure these numbers with a guage, you and the guy burning your chips are guessing. This can take a while. Dennis p.s. I use the GMPP vacuum modulated regulator. --- Jared Ryan wrote: > > I have a problem that I am at my wits' end about. > I've tried to research it and > experiment and I just can't figure it out. > > I have a Chevrolet El Camino that used to have an > LG4 305 (5.0L) V-8 with 8.6:1 > static compression ratio when new (though this > engine had seen better days; it > ran smoothly but burned oil). I converted that 305 > from a QuadraJet carburetor > to TBI with a stock intake manifold and throttle > body from an F-body. The ECM > is a 1228746. I had a programmer make a custom chip > for the LG4 305, and it > ran very well on 87-octane gasoline. > > Recently, I swapped engines. The new one is a > brand-new GM 350 with a Crane > Cams 2032 roller camshaft and high-swirl TBI heads. > The static compression > ratio is 9.2:1, and the dynamic compression ratio > with that camshaft should be > about 8.7:1. I changed the fuel injectors from the > 40 lb./hr. units to 55 > lb./hr. units like a 350-equipped half-ton pickup > truck would have. > > I changed the ESC module and knock sensor when the > new 350 went in. They are > brand-new GM units specified for a 350. > > >From the beginning, I have had a pinging problem. > It would run fine on > 93-octane gasoline. I would really like it to run > on 87-octane. I got the > programmer who made the chip I used for the 305 to > make a new one for the 350. > It was better, but it still pinged on 87-octane. He > made another revision, and > this time I logged data using a notebook PC and > WinALDL. It still pinged some, > and after reviewing more data that I logged, the > programmer said it looked like > it was running too lean, and he suggested changing > to an adjustable fuel > pressure regulator and increasing the pressure a > little bit. > > That is when the problem *really* got bad. > > I installed a JET adjustable FPR. I have watched > while the engine is running > with the air cleaner housing removed so the injector > pod is not shrouded, and > there are no leaks. The problem at this stage is > that even with the screw on > the AFPR turned to reduce the pressure as far as it > will go (should be 10PSI), > the engine just does not run well at idle. It puts > out black smoke and runs > very rough, and sometimes surges. The car > accelerates fine, and there is no > smoke at mid-range to high engine speeds, but coming > away from a new green > light, it can take several seconds for black smoke > to stop coming out of the > tailpipes. It looks like the engine is really > loading up with fuel. Even > though it runs very, very rich at idle, the engine > does still ping some, > especially on light acceleration. There is very > little pinging under highway > cruising, but a lot from off-idle on up during light > to moderate acceleration. > > So I really don't understand what happened. It > idled *perfectly* with the > stock who-knows-how-old non-adjustable FPR that came > with the throttle body > (that was salvaged off a wrecked F-body). Doing the > IAC reset and minimum idle > speed adjustment does not help. The TPS on this > throttle body is > non-adjustable. The base ignition timing is set at > 0. > > To make things even worse, for three days in a row, > I have tried to log a lot > of data with WinALDL, and the program has shut down, > apparently causing a GPF > (in Windows 98), so I don't have hard data on the > current state of things. > > So there are only a few things I can imagine. These > are hypothoses I formed, > and feel free to disprove them. I need ideas. > > 1. The stock FPR was worn-out and weak, or never > correct from the factory, and > set a much lower fuel pressure than really needed, > in which case the correct > fix would be to simply get a new stock FPR. > > 2. The adjustable FPR gives the pressure that this > setup really needs, and the > chip is not programmed for the higher pressure. The > only situation in which I > can imagine this is that there is a certain minimum > and maximum duty cycle for > the injectors, so the ECM cannot reduce the fuel to > the point that it is lean > enough at idle. > > 3. This setup might really need a GM > vacuum-adjustable regulator, so it can run > a low pressure at idle and a higher pressure at > higher engine speeds. > > 4. I have some mismatch of the FPR and the spring > that is installed with it. > > Does anyone have some insight, and have some ideas > for a systematic way to > figure this out without throwing money at it? I > want to learn. I enjoy > tinkering with things. I just really need to figure > this out because gas > mileage has dropped from an average of 19.2MPG to > 15.5MPG since installing the > adjustable FPR. > > One interesting thing I noticed is that after > installing the JET adjustable > FPR, the engine started MUCH faster than with the > old stock regulator, even > though it doesn't idle smoothly. It still cranks > and starts very, very fast, > which makes me wonder if hypothesis #1 may be close > to the truth. > > I'm open to any ideas, discussion, arguments, etc. > Thanks! > > -- > - Jared Ryan [jryan at caminofx.org] > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 12 12:01:56 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <8ba95f39bf9c31db0fa07c3afc932475@localhost> Message-ID: <20060712170156.7293.qmail@web80514.mail.scd.yahoo.com> What about EGR, if the custom chip has EGR disabled, you may never get this guy to run w/out pinging sans retarding the spark drastically, EGR is your friend, not your enemey! ----- Original Message ---- From: Jared Ryan To: Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:09:48 AM Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 I have a problem that I am at my wits' end about. I've tried to research it and experiment and I just can't figure it out. I have a Chevrolet El Camino that used to have an LG4 305 (5.0L) V-8 with 8.6:1 static compression ratio when new (though this engine had seen better days; it ran smoothly but burned oil). I converted that 305 from a QuadraJet carburetor to TBI with a stock intake manifold and throttle body from an F-body. The ECM is a 1228746. I had a programmer make a custom chip for the LG4 305, and it ran very well on 87-octane gasoline. Recently, I swapped engines. The new one is a brand-new GM 350 with a Crane Cams 2032 roller camshaft and high-swirl TBI heads. The static compression ratio is 9.2:1, and the dynamic compression ratio with that camshaft should be about 8.7:1. I changed the fuel injectors from the 40 lb./hr. units to 55 lb./hr. units like a 350-equipped half-ton pickup truck would have. I changed the ESC module and knock sensor when the new 350 went in. They are brand-new GM units specified for a 350. >From the beginning, I have had a pinging problem. It would run fine on 93-octane gasoline. I would really like it to run on 87-octane. I got the programmer who made the chip I used for the 305 to make a new one for the 350. It was better, but it still pinged on 87-octane. He made another revision, and this time I logged data using a notebook PC and WinALDL. It still pinged some, and after reviewing more data that I logged, the programmer said it looked like it was running too lean, and he suggested changing to an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and increasing the pressure a little bit. That is when the problem *really* got bad. I installed a JET adjustable FPR. I have watched while the engine is running with the air cleaner housing removed so the injector pod is not shrouded, and there are no leaks. The problem at this stage is that even with the screw on the AFPR turned to reduce the pressure as far as it will go (should be 10PSI), the engine just does not run well at idle. It puts out black smoke and runs very rough, and sometimes surges. The car accelerates fine, and there is no smoke at mid-range to high engine speeds, but coming away from a new green light, it can take several seconds for black smoke to stop coming out of the tailpipes. It looks like the engine is really loading up with fuel. Even though it runs very, very rich at idle, the engine does still ping some, especially on light acceleration. There is very little pinging under highway cruising, but a lot from off-idle on up during light to moderate acceleration. So I really don't understand what happened. It idled *perfectly* with the stock who-knows-how-old non-adjustable FPR that came with the throttle body (that was salvaged off a wrecked F-body). Doing the IAC reset and minimum idle speed adjustment does not help. The TPS on this throttle body is non-adjustable. The base ignition timing is set at 0. To make things even worse, for three days in a row, I have tried to log a lot of data with WinALDL, and the program has shut down, apparently causing a GPF (in Windows 98), so I don't have hard data on the current state of things. So there are only a few things I can imagine. These are hypothoses I formed, and feel free to disprove them. I need ideas. 1. The stock FPR was worn-out and weak, or never correct from the factory, and set a much lower fuel pressure than really needed, in which case the correct fix would be to simply get a new stock FPR. 2. The adjustable FPR gives the pressure that this setup really needs, and the chip is not programmed for the higher pressure. The only situation in which I can imagine this is that there is a certain minimum and maximum duty cycle for the injectors, so the ECM cannot reduce the fuel to the point that it is lean enough at idle. 3. This setup might really need a GM vacuum-adjustable regulator, so it can run a low pressure at idle and a higher pressure at higher engine speeds. 4. I have some mismatch of the FPR and the spring that is installed with it. Does anyone have some insight, and have some ideas for a systematic way to figure this out without throwing money at it? I want to learn. I enjoy tinkering with things. I just really need to figure this out because gas mileage has dropped from an average of 19.2MPG to 15.5MPG since installing the adjustable FPR. One interesting thing I noticed is that after installing the JET adjustable FPR, the engine started MUCH faster than with the old stock regulator, even though it doesn't idle smoothly. It still cranks and starts very, very fast, which makes me wonder if hypothesis #1 may be close to the truth. I'm open to any ideas, discussion, arguments, etc. Thanks! -- - Jared Ryan [jryan at caminofx.org] _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From jryan at caminofx.org Wed Jul 12 19:10:35 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:10:35 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <20060712170156.7293.qmail@web80514.mail.scd.yahoo.com> References: <20060712170156.7293.qmail@web80514.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <52f24ff8c884fa62988f730640d2aa5c@caminofx.org> I sent an e-mail to the programmer to ask. Based on the state emissions test results, EGR must be enabled, because the NOx reading is very minimal, but I am asking to make sure. The EGR valve is actually the one from the 305, and it is relatively new, still shiny. It shouldn't be all carboned up. ---> Jared Ryan <--- jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Rick McLeod wrote: > What about EGR, if the custom chip has EGR disabled, you may never get > this guy to run w/out pinging sans retarding the spark drastically, > EGR is your friend, not your enemey! From dennysweet at charter.net Wed Jul 12 21:46:44 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:46:44 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 References: <20060712170156.7293.qmail@web80514.mail.scd.yahoo.com> <52f24ff8c884fa62988f730640d2aa5c@caminofx.org> Message-ID: <000201c6a626$941e4e60$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> They are all not the same! 305 and 350 are different, along with the application! From jryan at caminofx.org Wed Jul 12 19:57:27 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:57:27 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <000201c6a626$941e4e60$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> References: <20060712170156.7293.qmail@web80514.mail.scd.yahoo.com> <52f24ff8c884fa62988f730640d2aa5c@caminofx.org> <000201c6a626$941e4e60$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Message-ID: I honestly don't remember which EGR valve it has, so I will get the number off of it and look it up. What I have been using as a baseline for ordering parts for this engine is a 1990 C1500 pickup with a 350 K-VIN TBI engine. That mostly works, but I know with a few things it could cause some problems, since the C-series pickup is a good bit heavier than an El Camino. My next move is to get a pressure gauge and find out for sure what the pressure is, then log some more data with WinALDL. The instructions that came with the JET regulator suggest 13.6 psi as a starting point. Does this sound reasonable? ---> Jared Ryan <--- jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org On Jul 12, 2006, at 9:46 PM, Denny wrote: > They are all not the same! 305 and 350 are different, along with the > application! From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 22:02:22 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Re: TBI 350 Message-ID: <20060713030222.72394.qmail@web60815.mail.yahoo.com> Jared personally I am a great fan of the vacuum controlled regulator. Just because it provides enleanment on decel and enrichment on accel much better controlled than your fuel tables can. Newer cars with bigger tables can easily run returnless or fixed pressure. Here's my reccomendation. Pull off your fuel pressure regulator, put a new diaphram in it (they're cheap) extract the pressure control bolt out and put one in you can adjust. Then bump your pressure up a little and it will increase all the way across the board without totally screwing up all the research you have done for your current chip. If you go to lindertech dot com in the archives they have a 1bbl tbi build that they did this to. Your tbi will be similar, but with 2 barrels :) Keep tinkering it's better than sitting around drinking booze with friends bragging about how much horsepower your brother's roomate's nephew's Honda makes! --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. From jryan at caminofx.org Thu Jul 13 00:11:26 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 0:11:26 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <20060713030222.72394.qmail@web60815.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060713030222.72394.qmail@web60815.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <150dfe1bb8324e16ec26c5282218dcce@localhost> The more I think about it, the more I wonder if this engine would really benefit from the vacuum-controlled regulator. The issue seems to be that if I raise the pressure enough that it doesn't ping on acceleration, it doesn't idle very well at all. The vacuum-controlled regulator would seem to address that very issue. Here is what I don't understand: is there some minimum duty cycle of the injectors? If I raise the fuel pressure, I increase the amount of fuel that comes out of each injector in each pulse. Why, then, does the ECM just not pulse the injectors less often, to lean out the mixture at idle? It's this part of the programming that I don't understand. I thought, when I put the adjustable regulator on, that the ECM would just compensate and everything would be right. I do need to say that even though the idle is horrible right now, it starts *very* fast, especially when cold. With the old stock non-adjustable regulator, it took a few seconds of cranking to get it to start, especially when cold. With the JET adjustable regulator at its minimum pressure, it starts very quickly, as fast as a carburetor-equipped engine with choke set exactly right. I have ordered a fuel pressure gauge with Schraeder-valve adapter and paid for next-day-air shipping, so hopefully by Saturday I will be able to report exactly what the fuel pressure is at idle and at wide-open throttle. I will look at the Lindertech material you mentioned and try to learn more while I wait for the pressure gauge. - Jared Ryan [jryan at caminofx.org] On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:02:22 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Gibson wrote: > Jared personally I am a great fan of the vacuum controlled regulator. Just > because it provides enleanment on decel and enrichment on accel much > better controlled than your fuel tables can. Newer cars with bigger tables > can easily run returnless or fixed pressure. > > Here's my reccomendation. Pull off your fuel pressure regulator, put a > new diaphram in it (they're cheap) extract the pressure control bolt out > and put one in you can adjust. Then bump your pressure up a little and it > will increase all the way across the board without totally screwing up all > the research you have done for your current chip. > > If you go to lindertech dot com in the archives they have a 1bbl tbi > build that they did this to. Your tbi will be similar, but with 2 barrels > :) > > Keep tinkering it's better than sitting around drinking booze with > friends bragging about how much horsepower your brother's roomate's > nephew's Honda makes! > > > --------------------------------- > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great > rates starting at 1?/min. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm -- - Jared Ryan [jryan at caminofx.org] From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Thu Jul 13 10:12:53 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:12:53 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: TBI 350 Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Jared Ryan > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:11 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: TBI 350 > > > The more I think about it, the more I wonder if this engine > would really benefit from the vacuum-controlled regulator. > The issue seems to be that if I raise the pressure enough > that it doesn't ping on acceleration, it doesn't idle very > well at all. The vacuum-controlled regulator would seem to > address that very issue. The vacuum regulator is meant to keep a constant pressure across a port style injector, so that a given pulse width flows the same amount of fuel under all manifold conditions. This is because the nozzle of a port style injector is exposed to manifold air pressure. The change in vacuum from 18 inHg at idle to 0 at WOT is a change of 9 psi across the injector. With a vacuum referenced regulator the injector always sees a constant pressure from inlet to outlet, and therefore always flows a consistent amount of fuel. Your TBI injector isn't exposed to vacuum, it's exposed to ambient air, therefore it needs a constant input pressure. The calculations and tables inside the ECM assume that the injector flow is proportional to pulsewidth, not also proportional to MAP or other factors. You can add a vacuum referenced regulator but in the long run when everything is running right you will have ended up tuning out the effect of the rising rate regulator in your VE tables. > I have ordered a fuel pressure gauge with Schraeder-valve > adapter and paid for next-day-air shipping, so hopefully by > Saturday I will be able to report exactly what the fuel > pressure is at idle and at wide-open throttle. Good. Until you've done some diagnostic work, the speculation is just farting into the wind. --steve -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From rwhughe at oplink.net Thu Jul 13 13:29:58 2006 From: rwhughe at oplink.net (Robert W Hughes) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:29:58 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <20060713170129.0C5E458CAF6@mail.oplnk.net> References: <20060713170129.0C5E458CAF6@mail.oplnk.net> Message-ID: <44B69126.1010508@oplink.net> > Recently, I swapped engines. The new one is a brand-new GM 350 with a Crane > Cams 2032 roller camshaft and high-swirl TBI heads. The static compression > ratio is 9.2:1, and the dynamic compression ratio with that camshaft should be > about 8.7:1. I changed the fuel injectors from the 40 lb./hr. units to 55 > lb./hr. units like a 350-equipped half-ton pickup truck would have. You increased engine size by about 15% but injector size by almost 40%. If you didn't change the injector constant, you might be running up against the BLM/INT adjustment limits in the software. This would mean that after the ecm leaned everything out as much as it could it was still too rich. maybe. -- Robert W. Hughes (Bob) BackYard Engineering 29:40.237N, 95:28.726W or perhaps 30:55.265N, 95:20.590W Houston, Texas "The city with too much Oxygen" rwhughe at oplink.net From dennysweet at charter.net Thu Jul 13 16:48:01 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:48:01 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 References: <20060713170129.0C5E458CAF6@mail.oplnk.net> <44B69126.1010508@oplink.net> Message-ID: <001c01c6a6c6$03e36f10$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> I have to agree with Robert Hughes, I swapped a 3.4 into my s10 blazer that had a 2.8. Thats only .6 liters and you went .7 liters. My s10 runs great and idles fine. So maybe you went to big? denny From jryan at caminofx.org Thu Jul 13 20:35:06 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:35:06 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <44B69126.1010508@oplink.net> References: <20060713170129.0C5E458CAF6@mail.oplnk.net> <44B69126.1010508@oplink.net> Message-ID: See, I ran it for a couple of days on the 40 lb./hr. 305 injectors, and it ran *horribly.* It was painful to drive. It didn't start easily, and it was clearly too lean while driving. The 55 lb./hr. injectors helped it start much faster, and it just overall ran better. A revised chip made it run almost perfectly - on 93-octane. This all started when I decided to try to make it run on 87-octane and installed the adjustable regulator to try to richen the mixture some. Now, even with the regulator backed down to its lowest pressure, it idles very badly and still pings (though with the pressure turned up, it didn't ping). The gauge should arrive tomorrow, so we can start working with real numbers and no guessing. ---> Jared Ryan <--- jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org On Jul 13, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Robert W Hughes wrote: >> Recently, I swapped engines. The new one is a brand-new GM 350 with >> a Crane >> Cams 2032 roller camshaft and high-swirl TBI heads. The static >> compression >> ratio is 9.2:1, and the dynamic compression ratio with that camshaft >> should be >> about 8.7:1. I changed the fuel injectors from the 40 lb./hr. units >> to 55 >> lb./hr. units like a 350-equipped half-ton pickup truck would have. > > You increased engine size by about 15% but injector size by almost > 40%. If you didn't change the injector constant, you might be running > up against the BLM/INT adjustment limits in the software. This would > mean that after the ecm leaned everything out as much as it could it > was still too rich. maybe. > > -- > Robert W. Hughes (Bob) > BackYard Engineering > 29:40.237N, 95:28.726W or perhaps 30:55.265N, 95:20.590W > Houston, Texas "The city with too much Oxygen" > rwhughe at oplink.net > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From jryan at caminofx.org Thu Jul 13 20:36:38 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:36:38 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <001c01c6a6c6$03e36f10$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> References: <20060713170129.0C5E458CAF6@mail.oplnk.net> <44B69126.1010508@oplink.net> <001c01c6a6c6$03e36f10$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Message-ID: <4dc5177dbb53b5ce795aecbaf9272cb5@caminofx.org> I'm really not sure. 55 lb./hr. injectors seem to be the norm for stock 350s. This engine is "wilder" than the K-VIN-code 350 used in full-size pickups, though still comparatively tame. I know some factory HO 350s had 65 lb./hr. injectors. I can't wait to get the fuel pressure gauge. I think we can solve this mystery when we start working with real data. ---> Jared Ryan <--- jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org On Jul 13, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Denny wrote: > I have to agree with Robert Hughes, I swapped a 3.4 into my s10 blazer > that had a 2.8. Thats only .6 liters and you went .7 liters. My s10 > runs great and idles fine. So maybe you went to big? > > denny _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From dennysweet at charter.net Thu Jul 13 23:12:41 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:12:41 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 References: <20060713170129.0C5E458CAF6@mail.oplnk.net><44B69126.1010508@oplink.net><001c01c6a6c6$03e36f10$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> <4dc5177dbb53b5ce795aecbaf9272cb5@caminofx.org> Message-ID: <001a01c6a6fb$c06abaa0$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> I think you will find that you have a vac leak somewhere. I took the tbi off my 4.3 and put it on my 3.4 tonite just to see what would happen. It idled like crap,smoked like a train. HHmmmmm guess what it was? Throttle Body gasket was cracked. Put on a new one and all better. I found this by spraying starting fluid around the tbi unit. Just for shits and giggles you might want to try that? From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 14 13:47:44 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:47:44 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac References: <20060710170629.9B356CA07A@ws7-4.us4.outblaze.com> <004e01c6a491$729af950$6701a8c0@ANDREW2> Message-ID: <078401c6a776$01b22730$020101c0@gandalf> Having started to think about adjusting SA for low CTS values, I spotted that the Sunbird/$58 CTS correction table for SA is indexed by 'vacuum', rather than 'MAP'. I've plotted this quantity on the same axes as MAP, and the two look like a mirror image of each other, with the mirror at ~60kPa. So, vacuum goes up as MAP goes down, which makes sense. But I don't understand why vacuum exists as well as MAP, and what the relationship is. Can anyone help? I also spotted that, whilst idling, vacuum was constant and had no noise on it. This changed when the fan kicked in, and then went back to being constant when the fan switched off. I don't understand why! Robin From red83brick at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 17:35:01 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 In-Reply-To: <8ba95f39bf9c31db0fa07c3afc932475@localhost> Message-ID: <20060714223501.58164.qmail@web61014.mail.yahoo.com> First off, 305 injectors (Green/White) are 55 lb/hr. 350 Injectors (Orange/Black) are 61 lbs/hr. Second the 305 and 350 use vastly different calibrations. I hope the programer started fresh with a 350 .BIN file. Third, that cam is not much different that what GM ran in the police car 350s. You might try to find a 9C1 prom chip for the 8746 ECM and bump the fuel pressure to 15 PSI. That will give you the same effect as swapping in the 68 lb/hr later model bubble body 9C1 injectors. Jared Ryan wrote: I have a problem that I am at my wits' end about. I've tried to research it and experiment and I just can't figure it out. I have a Chevrolet El Camino that used to have an LG4 305 (5.0L) V-8 with 8.6:1 static compression ratio when new (though this engine had seen better days; it ran smoothly but burned oil). I converted that 305 from a QuadraJet carburetor to TBI with a stock intake manifold and throttle body from an F-body. The ECM is a 1228746. I had a programmer make a custom chip for the LG4 305, and it ran very well on 87-octane gasoline. Recently, I swapped engines. The new one is a brand-new GM 350 with a Crane Cams 2032 roller camshaft and high-swirl TBI heads. The static compression ratio is 9.2:1, and the dynamic compression ratio with that camshaft should be about 8.7:1. I changed the fuel injectors from the 40 lb./hr. units to 55 lb./hr. units like a 350-equipped half-ton pickup truck would have. I changed the ESC module and knock sensor when the new 350 went in. They are brand-new GM units specified for a 350. >From the beginning, I have had a pinging problem. It would run fine on 93-octane gasoline. I would really like it to run on 87-octane. I got the programmer who made the chip I used for the 305 to make a new one for the 350. It was better, but it still pinged on 87-octane. He made another revision, and this time I logged data using a notebook PC and WinALDL. It still pinged some, and after reviewing more data that I logged, the programmer said it looked like it was running too lean, and he suggested changing to an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and increasing the pressure a little bit. That is when the problem *really* got bad. I installed a JET adjustable FPR. I have watched while the engine is running with the air cleaner housing removed so the injector pod is not shrouded, and there are no leaks. The problem at this stage is that even with the screw on the AFPR turned to reduce the pressure as far as it will go (should be 10PSI), the engine just does not run well at idle. It puts out black smoke and runs very rough, and sometimes surges. The car accelerates fine, and there is no smoke at mid-range to high engine speeds, but coming away from a new green light, it can take several seconds for black smoke to stop coming out of the tailpipes. It looks like the engine is really loading up with fuel. Even though it runs very, very rich at idle, the engine does still ping some, especially on light acceleration. There is very little pinging under highway cruising, but a lot from off-idle on up during light to moderate acceleration. So I really don't understand what happened. It idled *perfectly* with the stock who-knows-how-old non-adjustable FPR that came with the throttle body (that was salvaged off a wrecked F-body). Doing the IAC reset and minimum idle speed adjustment does not help. The TPS on this throttle body is non-adjustable. The base ignition timing is set at 0. To make things even worse, for three days in a row, I have tried to log a lot of data with WinALDL, and the program has shut down, apparently causing a GPF (in Windows 98), so I don't have hard data on the current state of things. So there are only a few things I can imagine. These are hypothoses I formed, and feel free to disprove them. I need ideas. 1. The stock FPR was worn-out and weak, or never correct from the factory, and set a much lower fuel pressure than really needed, in which case the correct fix would be to simply get a new stock FPR. 2. The adjustable FPR gives the pressure that this setup really needs, and the chip is not programmed for the higher pressure. The only situation in which I can imagine this is that there is a certain minimum and maximum duty cycle for the injectors, so the ECM cannot reduce the fuel to the point that it is lean enough at idle. 3. This setup might really need a GM vacuum-adjustable regulator, so it can run a low pressure at idle and a higher pressure at higher engine speeds. 4. I have some mismatch of the FPR and the spring that is installed with it. Does anyone have some insight, and have some ideas for a systematic way to figure this out without throwing money at it? I want to learn. I enjoy tinkering with things. I just really need to figure this out because gas mileage has dropped from an average of 19.2MPG to 15.5MPG since installing the adjustable FPR. One interesting thing I noticed is that after installing the JET adjustable FPR, the engine started MUCH faster than with the old stock regulator, even though it doesn't idle smoothly. It still cranks and starts very, very fast, which makes me wonder if hypothesis #1 may be close to the truth. I'm open to any ideas, discussion, arguments, etc. Thanks! -- - Jared Ryan [jryan at caminofx.org] _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 22:32:28 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac Message-ID: <20060716033228.59054.qmail@web60819.mail.yahoo.com> Here's the scoop. Manifold vacuum is the best indicator of engine load. Which is why it is used to control fuel and spark. (I'll explain the vacuum/map difference in a moment.) The reason the vacuum changes when the fan comes on is beacuse the fan uses electricity from the alternator which is driven by the engine. Fan comes on, engine load goes up, vacuum goes down. Here's where the map/vacuum gets interesting. When you turn the key on the computer takes a Barometric pressure reading for alititude spark/fuel adjustment. It is taken from the map sensor. When the car is started the manifold vacuum adjusts the reading at the map sensor according to how much vacuum is present. Your MAP and Vacuum values in the datastream will always add up to the BARO reading. For instance say you have a BARO of 25 inHg, Vacuum of 17 inHg, then your MAP will be 8 inHg. The MAP reading is opposing the Vacuum because it is Manifold Absolute Presssure - The difference between barometric pressure and Vacuum. It is used because of the changes that occur in pressure due to altitude. A vacuum only measurement is not enough for accurate fuel and spark control at varying altitudes. The reasoning is this: At higher altitudes less air is available. The engine is also less able to pull a high vacuum. With no altitude compensation the ecm will see a lower vacuum, think there is a higher load and more air available, and enrich the fuel mixture. When in reality there is less air and so what the ecm precieves as normal is creating a double power enrichment without needing one. Lower altitudes will create a lean mix and even advance the timing for a precieved cruise condition. Less fuel, advanced timing = engine meltdown. So as you can see all three readings are very important to proper running, fuel economy, power and engine longtevity. Enjoy! --------------------------------- See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 16 04:20:35 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:20:35 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac References: <20060716033228.59054.qmail@web60819.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <082801c6a8b9$1a19ea80$020101c0@gandalf> Thanks Andrew. I was vaguely aware that the initial MAP measurement was used as a pressure reference for calculating true engine load and therefore correct fueling. AIUI this is one of the benefits of speed-density over Alpha-N (unless the Alpha-N has a MAP sensor and incorporates some kind of baro correction, of course). I'm still digesting your words, but my recorded data doesn't seem to agree with the simple relationship that you describe. Maybe I've misunderstood. In my recorded data, I see a fixed value of Baro (~97kPa). This makes sense, but my recorded MAP and Vac values do not add up to this. Fitting a line to a (roughly elliptical) MAP vs Vac plot (that has a number of outlying points) gives: MAP = 120 - Vac, when Baro = 97 throughout. Looking at the absolute plots; while driving: Map + Vac ~= 120, but during the following idling phase, Map + Vac ~= 100 (i.e. a lot nearer Baro), except when the Fan kicks in. Then, because Vac goes up by 15kPa while the fan is on, so does (Map + Vac). What have I missed? Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Gibson" To: Sent: 16 July 2006 04:32 Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac > Here's the scoop. Manifold vacuum is the best indicator of engine load. Which is why it is used to control fuel and spark. (I'll explain the vacuum/map difference in a moment.) The reason the vacuum changes when the fan comes on is beacuse the fan uses electricity from the alternator which is driven by the engine. Fan comes on, engine load goes up, vacuum goes down. > > Here's where the map/vacuum gets interesting. When you turn the key on the computer takes a Barometric pressure reading for alititude spark/fuel adjustment. It is taken from the map sensor. When the car is started the manifold vacuum adjusts the reading at the map sensor according to how much vacuum is present. Your MAP and Vacuum values in the datastream will always add up to the BARO reading. For instance say you have a BARO of 25 inHg, Vacuum of 17 inHg, then your MAP will be 8 inHg. The MAP reading is opposing the Vacuum because it is Manifold Absolute Presssure - The difference between barometric pressure and Vacuum. It is used because of the changes that occur in pressure due to altitude. A vacuum only measurement is not enough for accurate fuel and spark control at varying altitudes. > > The reasoning is this: At higher altitudes less air is available. The engine is also less able to pull a high vacuum. With no altitude compensation the ecm will see a lower vacuum, think there is a higher load and more air available, and enrich the fuel mixture. When in reality there is less air and so what the ecm precieves as normal is creating a double power enrichment without needing one. Lower altitudes will create a lean mix and even advance the timing for a precieved cruise condition. Less fuel, advanced timing = engine meltdown. So as you can see all three readings are very important to proper running, fuel economy, power and engine longtevity. Enjoy! > > > --------------------------------- > See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 17 03:28:19 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:28:19 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac Message-ID: <08bd01c6a97a$f92036a0$020101c0@gandalf> Plot here: http://213.162.107.39/misc/MAP_Vac_Baro.gif Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Handley" To: Sent: 16 July 2006 10:20 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac > Thanks Andrew. > > I was vaguely aware that the initial MAP measurement was used as a pressure > reference for calculating true engine load and therefore correct fueling. > AIUI this is one of the benefits of speed-density over Alpha-N (unless the > Alpha-N has a MAP sensor and incorporates some kind of baro correction, of > course). > > I'm still digesting your words, but my recorded data doesn't seem to agree > with the simple relationship that you describe. Maybe I've misunderstood. In > my recorded data, I see a fixed value of Baro (~97kPa). This makes sense, > but my recorded MAP and Vac values do not add up to this. > > Fitting a line to a (roughly elliptical) MAP vs Vac plot (that has a number > of outlying points) gives: MAP = 120 - Vac, when Baro = 97 throughout. > > Looking at the absolute plots; while driving: Map + Vac ~= 120, but during > the following idling phase, Map + Vac ~= 100 (i.e. a lot nearer Baro), > except when the Fan kicks in. Then, because Vac goes up by 15kPa while the > fan is on, so does (Map + Vac). > > What have I missed? > > Robin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Gibson" > To: > Sent: 16 July 2006 04:32 > Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac > > > > Here's the scoop. Manifold vacuum is the best indicator of engine load. > Which is why it is used to control fuel and spark. (I'll explain the > vacuum/map difference in a moment.) The reason the vacuum changes when the > fan comes on is beacuse the fan uses electricity from the alternator which > is driven by the engine. Fan comes on, engine load goes up, vacuum goes > down. > > > > Here's where the map/vacuum gets interesting. When you turn the key on > the computer takes a Barometric pressure reading for alititude spark/fuel > adjustment. It is taken from the map sensor. When the car is started the > manifold vacuum adjusts the reading at the map sensor according to how much > vacuum is present. Your MAP and Vacuum values in the datastream will always > add up to the BARO reading. For instance say you have a BARO of 25 inHg, > Vacuum of 17 inHg, then your MAP will be 8 inHg. The MAP reading is opposing > the Vacuum because it is Manifold Absolute Presssure - The difference > between barometric pressure and Vacuum. It is used because of the changes > that occur in pressure due to altitude. A vacuum only measurement is not > enough for accurate fuel and spark control at varying altitudes. > > > > The reasoning is this: At higher altitudes less air is available. The > engine is also less able to pull a high vacuum. With no altitude > compensation the ecm will see a lower vacuum, think there is a higher load > and more air available, and enrich the fuel mixture. When in reality there > is less air and so what the ecm precieves as normal is creating a double > power enrichment without needing one. Lower altitudes will create a lean mix > and even advance the timing for a precieved cruise condition. Less fuel, > advanced timing = engine meltdown. So as you can see all three readings are > very important to proper running, fuel economy, power and engine longtevity. > Enjoy! From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Mon Jul 17 09:20:19 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac Message-ID: > I also spotted that, whilst idling, vacuum was constant and > had no noise on it. This changed when the fan kicked in, and > then went back to being constant when the fan switched off. I > don't understand why! Electrical noise from the fan motor or circuit. Try shielding the MAP sensor wires with some tin foil to start with. You may have to rearrange the wiring, or replace the fan if the motor is too noisy. The MAP sensor may not be the only one picking up noise. --steve -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 17 13:29:32 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:29:32 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac References: Message-ID: <08c601c6a9ce$f4bef430$020101c0@gandalf> Is the level of MAP noise in my plot excessive? AIUI MAP measurements are noisy because the signal, itself, is noisy. Hence the 1st order exponential lag filter present in some GM code. I'm regularly plotting: TPS, CTS, MAP, and battery voltage. I have no other sensors ATM. None of these sensor measurements change their noise signature when the fan goes on. CTS and TPS have no noise at all. Vac is the only thing I've seen change from zero noise to noise when the fan goes on. I would welcome advice/plots to indicate what level of noise is normal, and help in understanding how Vac relates to MAP. Thanks, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ravet" To: Sent: 17 July 2006 15:20 Subject: RE: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac > I also spotted that, whilst idling, vacuum was constant and > had no noise on it. This changed when the fan kicked in, and > then went back to being constant when the fan switched off. I > don't understand why! Electrical noise from the fan motor or circuit. Try shielding the MAP sensor wires with some tin foil to start with. You may have to rearrange the wiring, or replace the fan if the motor is too noisy. The MAP sensor may not be the only one picking up noise. --steve From davesnothereman at netscape.net Tue Jul 18 06:51:56 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac Message-ID: <27D15084.21ED4A1E.DB881660@netscape.net> The relationship Andrew described is correct. What is the lowest value allowed by the code for vacuum? It appears that vacuum at WOT is limited by software values. The vacuum reading should be zero with key on and engine off. MAP and vacuum are equally effective as indicators of load. My guess as to the reason for the vacuum based table is that it was imported from an older version of code written when engineers were more likely to use vacuum based units. Zaphod "Robin Handley" wrote: >Thanks Andrew. > >I was vaguely aware that the initial MAP measurement was used as a pressure >reference for calculating true engine load and therefore correct fueling. >AIUI this is one of the benefits of speed-density over Alpha-N (unless the >Alpha-N has a MAP sensor and incorporates some kind of baro correction, of >course). > >I'm still digesting your words, but my recorded data doesn't seem to agree >with the simple relationship that you describe. Maybe I've misunderstood. In >my recorded data, I see a fixed value of Baro (~97kPa). This makes sense, >but my recorded MAP and Vac values do not add up to this. > >Fitting a line to a (roughly elliptical) MAP vs Vac plot (that has a number >of outlying points) gives: MAP = 120 - Vac, when Baro = 97 throughout. > >Looking at the absolute plots; while driving: Map + Vac ~= 120, but during >the following idling phase, Map + Vac ~= 100 (i.e. a lot nearer Baro), >except when the Fan kicks in. Then, because Vac goes up by 15kPa while the >fan is on, so does (Map + Vac). > >What have I missed? > >Robin > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Andrew Gibson" >To: >Sent: 16 July 2006 04:32 >Subject: [Gmecm] MAP and Vac > > >> Here's the scoop. Manifold vacuum is the best indicator of engine load. >Which is why it is used to control fuel and spark. (I'll explain the >vacuum/map difference in a moment.) The reason the vacuum changes when the >fan comes on is beacuse the fan uses electricity from the alternator which >is driven by the engine. Fan comes on, engine load goes up, vacuum goes >down. >> >> ? Here's where the map/vacuum gets interesting. When you turn the key on >the computer takes a Barometric pressure reading for alititude spark/fuel >adjustment. It is taken from the map sensor. When the car is started the >manifold vacuum adjusts the reading at the map sensor according to how much >vacuum is present. Your MAP and Vacuum values in the datastream will always >add up to the BARO reading. For instance say you have a BARO of 25 inHg, >Vacuum of 17 inHg, then your MAP will be 8 inHg. The MAP reading is opposing >the Vacuum because it is Manifold Absolute Presssure - The difference >between barometric pressure and Vacuum. It is used because of the changes >that occur in pressure due to altitude. A vacuum only measurement is not >enough for accurate fuel and spark control at varying altitudes. >> >> ? The reasoning is this: At higher altitudes less air is available. The >engine is also less able to pull a high vacuum. With no altitude >compensation the ecm will see a lower vacuum, think there is a higher load >and more air available, and enrich the fuel mixture. When in reality there >is less air and so what the ecm precieves as normal is creating a double >power enrichment without needing one. Lower altitudes will create a lean mix >and even advance the timing for a precieved cruise condition. Less fuel, >advanced timing = engine meltdown. So as you can see all three readings are >very important to proper running, fuel economy, power and engine longtevity. >Enjoy! >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. ?Check it out. >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> > >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp From no1chou at hotmail.com Tue Jul 18 13:13:32 2006 From: no1chou at hotmail.com (Mike Chou) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:13:32 +0800 Subject: [Gmecm] GMPCM? And FS spam Message-ID: Hello, I've been lurking awhile, never really did much with my GM truck.. Just wondering if anyone here uses GMPCM? I bought it a couple years back, and thought it was a wonderful product, come to find out they are no longer in business. If anyone is interested in the following, I purchased all these goods for my 95 GMC truck. (305 TBI) 16197427 ECM, BJXU memcal Transtronics pocket rom 2 (parallel port) Transtronics romulator (serial port) Moates USB OBD1 interface with cable Moates GP3 Prom switcher with remote Moates memcal header New BTTS GM Memcal (latest for the 305 TBI) Tunercat GMPCM Datamaster (datalogging) I'm located in Sacramento, California. Fell free to make an offer on any and all, hope this doesn't violate rules, but I figure someone here maybe likely to want it before I post it all up on ebay. Thanks. Mike _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ From craig.moates at cox.net Tue Jul 18 13:16:50 2006 From: craig.moates at cox.net (Craig Moates) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:16:50 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] GMPCM? And FS spam References: Message-ID: <054b01c6aa96$573c6530$0201a8c0@antec> Hi Mike, Try TunerPro RT. You'll find that it has drastically more functionality, and it's shareware. Additionally, the author is a subscriber to this list and is overall a really nice guy. He won't leave you hanging or talk down to you. Best regards, Craig Moates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Chou" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:13 PM Subject: [Gmecm] GMPCM? And FS spam > Hello, I've been lurking awhile, never really did much with my GM truck.. Just wondering if anyone here uses GMPCM? I bought it a > couple years back, and thought it was a wonderful product, come to find out they are no longer in business. > > If anyone is interested in the following, I purchased all these goods for my 95 GMC truck. (305 TBI) > 16197427 ECM, BJXU memcal > > Transtronics pocket rom 2 (parallel port) > Transtronics romulator (serial port) > Moates USB OBD1 interface with cable > Moates GP3 Prom switcher with remote > Moates memcal header > New BTTS GM Memcal (latest for the 305 TBI) > Tunercat > GMPCM > Datamaster (datalogging) > > I'm located in Sacramento, California. Fell free to make an offer on any and all, hope this doesn't violate rules, but I figure > someone here maybe likely to want it before I post it all up on ebay. Thanks. > > Mike > > _________________________________________________________________ > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Tue Jul 18 16:12:32 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:12:32 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] service manuals Message-ID: I'm a big fan of the factory service manuals but tired of tissue paper pages and cheap bindings that fall apart. On EBAY I see what are supposedly GM factory TECHLINE DVDs for sale with all service information for a variety of models and model years. Has anyone ever used one of these, and do they compare well to the paper books? Here's an example: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Techline-General-Motors-Service-Informati on-DVD_W0QQitemZ200006599348QQihZ010QQcategoryZ34222QQssPageNameZWDVWQQr dZ1QQcmdZViewItem If that doesn't work try this: http://tinyurl.com/qjz24 If it's any good, how come I can't find it for sale at a "real" store? thanks, --steve ------------------- Steve Ravet ARM steve.ravet at arm.com -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Tue Jul 18 20:29:37 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:29:37 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] service manuals Message-ID: <5F1F3C24.16C2D075.DB881660@netscape.net> The blue Techline ESI CD's / DVD's are real dealer stuff. Dealers don't get FSM's anymore. Latest data is sent through GM's own satellite network and doesn't even hit the DVD until later. When did you ever see a "real" FSM at a book store unless it was a reprint? HELM sells DVD's. About 8 years ago they would give out a free DVD set just for the asking as a sample in case you were interested in buying a subscription. That software ran on any OS up to win2k without trouble. Today's software might be locked to a dongle or hasp. Zaphod "Steve Ravet" wrote: >I'm a big fan of the factory service manuals but tired of tissue paper >pages and cheap bindings that fall apart. On EBAY I see what are >supposedly GM factory TECHLINE DVDs for sale with all service >information for a variety of models and model years. Has anyone ever >used one of these, and do they compare well to the paper books? > >Here's an example: > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Techline-General-Motors-Service-Informati >on-DVD_W0QQitemZ200006599348QQihZ010QQcategoryZ34222QQssPageNameZWDVWQQr >dZ1QQcmdZViewItem > >If that doesn't work try this: > >http://tinyurl.com/qjz24 > >If it's any good, how come I can't find it for sale at a "real" store? > >thanks, >--steve > >------------------- >Steve Ravet >ARM >steve.ravet at arm.com > >-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. > >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Tue Jul 18 20:50:06 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] service manuals Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of > davesnothereman at netscape.net > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:30 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] service manuals > > The blue Techline ESI CD's / DVD's are real dealer stuff. > Dealers don't get FSM's anymore. Latest data is sent through > GM's own satellite network and doesn't even hit the DVD until later. > > When did you ever see a "real" FSM at a book store unless it > was a reprint? HELM sells DVD's. About 8 years ago they > would give out a free DVD set just for the asking as a sample > in case you were interested in buying a subscription. That > software ran on any OS up to win2k without trouble. Today's > software might be locked to a dongle or hasp. I found the DVDs at HELM now, they're in the aftermarket section not the DIY section. It's $400 for the set, everything from 1998 through 2006. Nice but a little pricey for me. They should sell them unlocked for particular models to the DIY crowd. I'm guessing the ones on EBAY were swiped from a dealer update, especially since they tend to be 2004 or 2005 releases. thanks, --steve -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From aoturneriii at tds.net Wed Jul 19 11:15:41 2006 From: aoturneriii at tds.net (Arby) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:15:41 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus References: <062920061934.2693.44A42B3D000DD02100000A852200750330020A050C0E9D0C0C03D20CD202080106@comcast.net> <23c901c69bc4$d71af040$0201a8c0@antec> Message-ID: <01d801c6ab4e$9605a930$0300a8c0@NATALIE> Hi Craig, Do you have any plans to make a data logging cable that goes straight to a USB port for the Dynamic EFI ECM. Thank you, Arby ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Moates" To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus > John, > > Have you seen the new EBL and UltimateTBI stuff from here: > http://www.dynamicefi.com/ > Real nice, they put some good work into the development. High-speed data, > imbedded functionality, and a new code base to deal with > pesky TBI-specific issues of the 747. > > Best regards, > Craig Moates > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:34 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus > > >> Hello all, >> >> I have a 4.2L powered Jeep on which I installed a '7747 controlled TBI >> system in 2001 - 2002. At that time, I went through > several iterations of programs eventually making the Jeep run consistently > "fair". Due to other things going on in life and career, > I was content with "fair" ... but now I want to get back into the code and > make it run "good". >> >> Some background: I still have my Pocket Programmer II, EPROM eraser, >> Auto X-Ray, and a WinALDL cable (but I've never actually run > WinALDL) ... and I see that WinBin and TunerCat are still available. I > still have my old ECU files and a history of my BIN files. > The Jeep is now a trail rig with limited on-road operation. Its a 4.2L > with stock intake manifold and headers. I am running ECU > controlled timing. The cam is a little more than stock ... a Crower RV or > off-road cam (I'm sure I can find cam data if necessary). >> >> Because of some changes that I have made to this Jeep during my hiatus >> (making it a little closer to mechanically stock), I > believe I would like to start over again with my program. My first > thought is to start with off-the-shelf Howell code. Is that > code available from anyone? Barring that, can anyone recommend a good > place to start (again). Perhaps someone has a good running > Jeep 4.2L code that they can share? >> >> My major issues, currently, are: >> 1. An unsteady idle ... particularly when its cool and cold outside. I >> know that, because of a big Clifford intake manifold that > I used to run, I fiddled with the IAC time delays and accelerator pump > constants (and maybe some other stuff). >> 2. It seems down on power compared to some carbureted Jeeps I've been >> in. >> 3. Runs rich across the board (not drastically so), but is very rich in >> some areas (RPM and load). >> >> Bottom line, I'm can't remember what all I did to the my code in the past >> in deviating from some start point (probably a Howell > code); and I've made some mechanical modifications to the driveline. I'd > like to start again with a known and solid code. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> John >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From rohn at triton.net Wed Jul 19 14:45:56 2006 From: rohn at triton.net (rohn) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] GMPCM? And FS spam References: Message-ID: <004f01c6ab6b$f428e910$e1d445d1@ron> How much for everything except the ecm and memcal? > Hello, I've been lurking awhile, never really did much with my GM truck.. > Just wondering if anyone here uses GMPCM? I bought it a couple years back, > and thought it was a wonderful product, come to find out they are no longer > in business. > > If anyone is interested in the following, I purchased all these goods for my > 95 GMC truck. (305 TBI) > 16197427 ECM, BJXU memcal > > Transtronics pocket rom 2 (parallel port) > Transtronics romulator (serial port) > Moates USB OBD1 interface with cable > Moates GP3 Prom switcher with remote > Moates memcal header > New BTTS GM Memcal (latest for the 305 TBI) > Tunercat > GMPCM > Datamaster (datalogging) > > I'm located in Sacramento, California. Fell free to make an offer on any and > all, hope this doesn't violate rules, but I figure someone here maybe likely > to want it before I post it all up on ebay. Thanks. > > Mike > > _________________________________________________________________ > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > From lwester at lincsat.com Wed Jul 19 19:39:18 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:39:18 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] service manuals References: Message-ID: <001c01c6ab94$f4de32b0$4250050a@WESTER2> And to add further input...those 'ebay' DVD's seldom work ... Lyndon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ravet" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:50 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] service manuals > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of >> davesnothereman at netscape.net >> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:30 PM >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] service manuals >> >> The blue Techline ESI CD's / DVD's are real dealer stuff. >> Dealers don't get FSM's anymore. Latest data is sent through >> GM's own satellite network and doesn't even hit the DVD until later. >> >> When did you ever see a "real" FSM at a book store unless it >> was a reprint? HELM sells DVD's. About 8 years ago they >> would give out a free DVD set just for the asking as a sample >> in case you were interested in buying a subscription. That >> software ran on any OS up to win2k without trouble. Today's >> software might be locked to a dongle or hasp. > > I found the DVDs at HELM now, they're in the aftermarket section not the > DIY section. It's $400 for the set, everything from 1998 through 2006. > Nice but a little pricey for me. They should sell them unlocked for > particular models to the DIY crowd. I'm guessing the ones on EBAY were > swiped from a dealer update, especially since they tend to be 2004 or > 2005 releases. > > thanks, > --steve > > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > information in any medium. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From birdfarm at direcway.com Wed Jul 19 19:49:26 2006 From: birdfarm at direcway.com (Joe Simmons) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:49:26 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] service manuals References: <001c01c6ab94$f4de32b0$4250050a@WESTER2> Message-ID: <003e01c6ab96$5c04cb60$8470010a@eMachine> I bought one one time......turned out to be a copy (on a generic DVD, no less) of the dealer software and manual. This was for a 2004 Nissan Frontier, and purchased disk early 2005. It does work, and is fully searchable, just like the OEM version...........definitely pirated software! Joe S ----- Original Message ----- From: "Programmer" > And to add further input...those 'ebay' DVD's seldom work ... > > Lyndon. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ravet" > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >>> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of >>> davesnothereman at netscape.net >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:30 PM >>> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] service manuals >>> >>> The blue Techline ESI CD's / DVD's are real dealer stuff. >>> Dealers don't get FSM's anymore. Latest data is sent through >>> GM's own satellite network and doesn't even hit the DVD until later. >>> >>> When did you ever see a "real" FSM at a book store unless it >>> was a reprint? HELM sells DVD's. About 8 years ago they >>> would give out a free DVD set just for the asking as a sample >>> in case you were interested in buying a subscription. That >>> software ran on any OS up to win2k without trouble. Today's >>> software might be locked to a dongle or hasp. >> >> I found the DVDs at HELM now, they're in the aftermarket section not the >> DIY section. It's $400 for the set, everything from 1998 through 2006. >> Nice but a little pricey for me. They should sell them unlocked for >> particular models to the DIY crowd. I'm guessing the ones on EBAY were >> swiped from a dealer update, especially since they tend to be 2004 or >> 2005 releases. >> >> thanks, >> --steve From lwester at lincsat.com Wed Jul 19 20:22:55 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:22:55 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] service manuals References: <001c01c6ab94$f4de32b0$4250050a@WESTER2> <003e01c6ab96$5c04cb60$8470010a@eMachine> Message-ID: <003401c6ab9b$0ba410e0$4250050a@WESTER2> Well...I bought one, one time....and it didn't work ! And it was the very last darn DVD (set of 6) that was corrupt !! So--buyer beware. End of story. Lyndon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Simmons" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] service manuals >I bought one one time......turned out to be a copy (on a generic DVD, no >less) of the dealer software and manual. This was for a 2004 Nissan >Frontier, and purchased disk early 2005. It does work, and is fully >searchable, just like the OEM version...........definitely pirated >software! > > Joe S > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Programmer" > > >> And to add further input...those 'ebay' DVD's seldom work ... >> >> Lyndon. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Ravet" >> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >>>> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of >>>> davesnothereman at netscape.net >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:30 PM >>>> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >>>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] service manuals >>>> >>>> The blue Techline ESI CD's / DVD's are real dealer stuff. >>>> Dealers don't get FSM's anymore. Latest data is sent through >>>> GM's own satellite network and doesn't even hit the DVD until later. >>>> >>>> When did you ever see a "real" FSM at a book store unless it >>>> was a reprint? HELM sells DVD's. About 8 years ago they >>>> would give out a free DVD set just for the asking as a sample >>>> in case you were interested in buying a subscription. That >>>> software ran on any OS up to win2k without trouble. Today's >>>> software might be locked to a dongle or hasp. >>> >>> I found the DVDs at HELM now, they're in the aftermarket section not the >>> DIY section. It's $400 for the set, everything from 1998 through 2006. >>> Nice but a little pricey for me. They should sell them unlocked for >>> particular models to the DIY crowd. I'm guessing the ones on EBAY were >>> swiped from a dealer update, especially since they tend to be 2004 or >>> 2005 releases. >>> >>> thanks, >>> --steve > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From krawczuk at dodo.com.au Wed Jul 19 21:23:18 2006 From: krawczuk at dodo.com.au (mark krawczuk) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:53:18 +0930 Subject: [Gmecm] service manuals References: <001c01c6ab94$f4de32b0$4250050a@WESTER2> Message-ID: <001701c6aba3$77065340$6baef0dc@marka7e6m8swbp> did u try to email the ebayer seller to get another copy ? mark k ----- Original Message ----- From: "Programmer" To: Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] service manuals > And to add further input...those 'ebay' DVD's seldom work ... > > Lyndon. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ravet" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:50 PM > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] service manuals > > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >>> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of >>> davesnothereman at netscape.net >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 8:30 PM >>> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] service manuals >>> >>> The blue Techline ESI CD's / DVD's are real dealer stuff. >>> Dealers don't get FSM's anymore. Latest data is sent through >>> GM's own satellite network and doesn't even hit the DVD until later. >>> >>> When did you ever see a "real" FSM at a book store unless it >>> was a reprint? HELM sells DVD's. About 8 years ago they >>> would give out a free DVD set just for the asking as a sample >>> in case you were interested in buying a subscription. That >>> software ran on any OS up to win2k without trouble. Today's >>> software might be locked to a dongle or hasp. >> >> I found the DVDs at HELM now, they're in the aftermarket section not the >> DIY section. It's $400 for the set, everything from 1998 through 2006. >> Nice but a little pricey for me. They should sell them unlocked for >> particular models to the DIY crowd. I'm guessing the ones on EBAY were >> swiped from a dealer update, especially since they tend to be 2004 or >> 2005 releases. >> >> thanks, >> --steve >> >> >> -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are >> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the >> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy >> the information in any medium. Thank you. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From perlon at passagen.se Thu Jul 20 03:23:00 2006 From: perlon at passagen.se (Per Lonnborg) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:23:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Gmecm] TBI 350 Message-ID: <5065860.1153383780519.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps02.sth.basefarm.net> Hi Jared and all others, I am no expert on this but what about this: Is your engine running in closed loop on idle? (when it runs bad and spits out black smoke) My 350 TBI did not run in closed loop at idle until I changed some constants. I did not have that much over-rich condition like you seem to have, but my emission (carbon monoxide) readings were to high at the annual Veichle inspection test. After letting it go into closed loop at idle, the ECU (O2 sensor) compensated and my emission rdings went OK. If not, wouldnt it be just that the tables and constants dealing with idle has to be altered to get a more leaner mixture?? Or have I missed something, does the IAC works like a "non-closed-loop-sensor"? I dont think so, I guess the IAC just adjust so that idle RPM is OK? As I said, I am no expert on this, so please correct me if I am wrong. /Per Stockholm, Sweden >----Ursprungligt meddelande---- >Fr?n: jryan at caminofx.org >Datum: 2006-jul-12 09:09 >Till: >?rende: [Gmecm] TBI 350 > > >I have a problem that I am at my wits' end about. I've tried to research it and >experiment and I just can't figure it out. > >I have a Chevrolet El Camino that used to have an LG4 305 (5.0L) V-8 with 8.6:1 >static compression ratio when new (though this engine had seen better days; it >ran smoothly but burned oil). I converted that 305 from a QuadraJet carburetor >to TBI with a stock intake manifold and throttle body from an F-body. The ECM >is a 1228746. I had a programmer make a custom chip for the LG4 305, and it >ran very well on 87-octane gasoline. > >Recently, I swapped engines. The new one is a brand-new GM 350 with a Crane >Cams 2032 roller camshaft and high-swirl TBI heads. The static compression >ratio is 9.2:1, and the dynamic compression ratio with that camshaft should be >about 8.7:1. I changed the fuel injectors from the 40 lb./hr. units to 55 >lb./hr. units like a 350-equipped half-ton pickup truck would have. > >I changed the ESC module and knock sensor when the new 350 went in. They are >brand-new GM units specified for a 350. > >>From the beginning, I have had a pinging problem. It would run fine on >93-octane gasoline. I would really like it to run on 87-octane. I got the >programmer who made the chip I used for the 305 to make a new one for the 350. >It was better, but it still pinged on 87-octane. He made another revision, and >this time I logged data using a notebook PC and WinALDL. It still pinged some, >and after reviewing more data that I logged, the programmer said it looked like >it was running too lean, and he suggested changing to an adjustable fuel >pressure regulator and increasing the pressure a little bit. > >That is when the problem *really* got bad. > >I installed a JET adjustable FPR. I have watched while the engine is running >with the air cleaner housing removed so the injector pod is not shrouded, and >there are no leaks. The problem at this stage is that even with the screw on >the AFPR turned to reduce the pressure as far as it will go (should be 10PSI), >the engine just does not run well at idle. It puts out black smoke and runs >very rough, and sometimes surges. The car accelerates fine, and there is no >smoke at mid-range to high engine speeds, but coming away from a new green >light, it can take several seconds for black smoke to stop coming out of the >tailpipes. It looks like the engine is really loading up with fuel. Even >though it runs very, very rich at idle, the engine does still ping some, >especially on light acceleration. There is very little pinging under highway >cruising, but a lot from off-idle on up during light to moderate acceleration. > >So I really don't understand what happened. It idled *perfectly* with the >stock who-knows-how-old non-adjustable FPR that came with the throttle body >(that was salvaged off a wrecked F-body). Doing the IAC reset and minimum idle >speed adjustment does not help. The TPS on this throttle body is >non-adjustable. The base ignition timing is set at 0. > >To make things even worse, for three days in a row, I have tried to log a lot >of data with WinALDL, and the program has shut down, apparently causing a GPF >(in Windows 98), so I don't have hard data on the current state of things. > >So there are only a few things I can imagine. These are hypothoses I formed, >and feel free to disprove them. I need ideas. > >1. The stock FPR was worn-out and weak, or never correct from the factory, and >set a much lower fuel pressure than really needed, in which case the correct >fix would be to simply get a new stock FPR. > >2. The adjustable FPR gives the pressure that this setup really needs, and the >chip is not programmed for the higher pressure. The only situation in which I >can imagine this is that there is a certain minimum and maximum duty cycle for >the injectors, so the ECM cannot reduce the fuel to the point that it is lean >enough at idle. > >3. This setup might really need a GM vacuum-adjustable regulator, so it can run >a low pressure at idle and a higher pressure at higher engine speeds. > >4. I have some mismatch of the FPR and the spring that is installed with it. > >Does anyone have some insight, and have some ideas for a systematic way to >figure this out without throwing money at it? I want to learn. I enjoy >tinkering with things. I just really need to figure this out because gas >mileage has dropped from an average of 19.2MPG to 15.5MPG since installing the >adjustable FPR. > >One interesting thing I noticed is that after installing the JET adjustable >FPR, the engine started MUCH faster than with the old stock regulator, even >though it doesn't idle smoothly. It still cranks and starts very, very fast, >which makes me wonder if hypothesis #1 may be close to the truth. > >I'm open to any ideas, discussion, arguments, etc. Thanks! > >-- > - Jared Ryan [jryan at caminofx.org] > >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From red83brick at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 12:47:14 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus In-Reply-To: <01d801c6ab4e$9605a930$0300a8c0@NATALIE> Message-ID: <20060720174714.50194.qmail@web61014.mail.yahoo.com> It comes with the package. Even has its own dataloging and analysis software. Really nice setup. Arby wrote: Hi Craig, Do you have any plans to make a data logging cable that goes straight to a USB port for the Dynamic EFI ECM. Thank you, Arby ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Moates" To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus > John, > > Have you seen the new EBL and UltimateTBI stuff from here: > http://www.dynamicefi.com/ > Real nice, they put some good work into the development. High-speed data, > imbedded functionality, and a new code base to deal with > pesky TBI-specific issues of the 747. > > Best regards, > Craig Moates > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:34 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus > > >> Hello all, >> >> I have a 4.2L powered Jeep on which I installed a '7747 controlled TBI >> system in 2001 - 2002. At that time, I went through > several iterations of programs eventually making the Jeep run consistently > "fair". Due to other things going on in life and career, > I was content with "fair" ... but now I want to get back into the code and > make it run "good". >> >> Some background: I still have my Pocket Programmer II, EPROM eraser, >> Auto X-Ray, and a WinALDL cable (but I've never actually run > WinALDL) ... and I see that WinBin and TunerCat are still available. I > still have my old ECU files and a history of my BIN files. > The Jeep is now a trail rig with limited on-road operation. Its a 4.2L > with stock intake manifold and headers. I am running ECU > controlled timing. The cam is a little more than stock ... a Crower RV or > off-road cam (I'm sure I can find cam data if necessary). >> >> Because of some changes that I have made to this Jeep during my hiatus >> (making it a little closer to mechanically stock), I > believe I would like to start over again with my program. My first > thought is to start with off-the-shelf Howell code. Is that > code available from anyone? Barring that, can anyone recommend a good > place to start (again). Perhaps someone has a good running > Jeep 4.2L code that they can share? >> >> My major issues, currently, are: >> 1. An unsteady idle ... particularly when its cool and cold outside. I >> know that, because of a big Clifford intake manifold that > I used to run, I fiddled with the IAC time delays and accelerator pump > constants (and maybe some other stuff). >> 2. It seems down on power compared to some carbureted Jeeps I've been >> in. >> 3. Runs rich across the board (not drastically so), but is very rich in >> some areas (RPM and load). >> >> Bottom line, I'm can't remember what all I did to the my code in the past >> in deviating from some start point (probably a Howell > code); and I've made some mechanical modifications to the driveline. I'd > like to start again with a known and solid code. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> John >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. From no1chou at hotmail.com Fri Jul 21 11:15:47 2006 From: no1chou at hotmail.com (Mike Chou) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:15:47 +0800 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: GMPCM? And FS spam (programmer, emulator and software FS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for the information Craig (Moates) I have been very happy with your prom switcher BTW! All the stuff I got works as expected and seems well sorted unlike the greddy emanage ultimate I purchased for my miata which does not seem sorted at all.. or the documentation is just horrible.. Hi Rohn, I don't know if you got my email or not, but I would like to get $350 for the whole setup, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I was selling the actual ECM in case anyone else becomes interested. Reasonable? since the cost of the pocket rom and romulator would cost that much alone I figure. If nobody wants it, it'll be on ebay in a week or so. That's the end of my spamming this great list! It's great to see so many resources out there for the GM stuff.. Seems like on my other vehicles (imports) everyone just goes with an aftermarket ECU since few (in the states at least) have done the reverse engineering that you all have with the GM stuff. Thanks for the interesting reading all! >From: "rohn" >Subject: Re: [Gmecm] GMPCM? And FS spam > >How much for everything except the ecm and memcal? > > > If anyone is interested in the following, I purchased all these goods >for >my 95 GMC truck. (305 TBI) 16197427 ECM > > > > > Transtronics pocket rom 2 (parallel port) > > Transtronics romulator (serial port) > > Moates USB OBD1 interface with cable > > Moates GP3 Prom switcher with remote > > Moates memcal header > > New BTTS GM Memcal (latest for the 305 TBI) > > Tunercat > > GMPCM > > Datamaster (datalogging) > > > > I'm located in Sacramento, California. _________________________________________________________________ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/ From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 14:15:47 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup/search? Message-ID: <20060721191547.61926.qmail@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, I KNOW somewhere out there, there is a binary lookup search page. You can search by BCC, by drivetrain, by platform, etc! But I lost the webpage! Anybody know what I'm talking about? I need to identify some PROMs. Thanks, Ryan --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. From di_dallas at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 16:20:09 2006 From: di_dallas at yahoo.com (Tom Butcher) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup/search? In-Reply-To: <20060721191547.61926.qmail@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060721212009.62308.qmail@web53707.mail.yahoo.com> Ryan, I believe this is what you are looking for http://www.efitune.com/broadcast_codes/ Tom Ryan Hess wrote: Hi, I KNOW somewhere out there, there is a binary lookup search page. You can search by BCC, by drivetrain, by platform, etc! But I lost the webpage! Anybody know what I'm talking about? I need to identify some PROMs. Thanks, Ryan --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 17:58:49 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup/search? In-Reply-To: <20060721212009.62308.qmail@web53707.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060721225849.50774.qmail@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> YESSS!!! Thank you!! Tom Butcher wrote: Ryan, I believe this is what you are looking for http://www.efitune.com/broadcast_codes/ Tom Ryan Hess wrote: Hi, I KNOW somewhere out there, there is a binary lookup search page. You can search by BCC, by drivetrain, by platform, etc! But I lost the webpage! Anybody know what I'm talking about? I need to identify some PROMs. Thanks, Ryan --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2???/min or less. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1???/min. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out. From pmkls1 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 18:19:35 2006 From: pmkls1 at yahoo.com (Phillip Kuhn) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use Message-ID: <20060721231935.13631.qmail@web54613.mail.yahoo.com> I have a '90 Nissan 240 sx which I was wanting to convert to a GM ecm for tuning simplicity and also to swap to a speed densty system and get rid of the MAF sensor. For now it is naturally aspirated but some day I want to turbo the car. I used to have a 749 ecm I was going to use on the car but I got busy doing other projects and sold the ecm and memcal I was going to use. Since then I have decided to delve into the project again but now I am wondering which ecm to use. I was thinking that a 7730 would suit me just fine but I am not sure of its compatbility with a turbocharged engine. Thanks in advance, Phil __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From efi at dyakron.com Fri Jul 21 21:39:02 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:39:02 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use In-Reply-To: <20060721231935.13631.qmail@web54613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060721223309.02cca150@dyakron.com> HI Phil, several people have run the 749 turbo code in the 730. Use a memcal from a 730 for an engine that had the correct number of cylinders for your app, and put the turbo code in the last half of the chip. The turbo 749 chip was 27128 equivilent and the 7730 had chips that were all 27256 IIRC. You can also just add the code to itself to get 256kbytes to burn into the larger ROM. Cheers, mv At 04:19 PM 7/21/2006 -0700, you wrote: >I have a '90 Nissan 240 sx which I was wanting to >convert to a GM ecm for tuning simplicity and also to >swap to a speed densty system and get rid of the MAF >sensor. For now it is naturally aspirated but some day >I want to turbo the car. I used to have a 749 ecm I >was going to use on the car but I got busy doing other >projects and sold the ecm and memcal I was going to >use. Since then I have decided to delve into the >project again but now I am wondering which ecm to use. >I was thinking that a 7730 would suit me just fine but >I am not sure of its compatbility with a turbocharged >engine. Thanks in advance, > >Phil From pmkls1 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 21:58:00 2006 From: pmkls1 at yahoo.com (Phillip Kuhn) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060721223309.02cca150@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <20060722025800.45752.qmail@web54612.mail.yahoo.com> Great, so until I install the turbo I could just use the 7730 ecm and memcal and a modified 4 cylinder code ? That was what I was thinking I could do since the only differences that are needed would be the extra timing and fuel enrichment calculations needed for positive intake pressures with the turbo installed. The 7730 is just so much more plentiful than the 749 that I was thinking about just going that route for simplicity. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jul 22 04:52:09 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:52:09 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use References: <20060722025800.45752.qmail@web54612.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0bed01c6ad74$819bf0d0$020101c0@gandalf> FWIW I've recently started using $58 code from a 749 in a 727 in my NA application (just ignition so far, though). It seems much more common to run the $58 code in a 730. R ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phillip Kuhn" To: Sent: 22 July 2006 03:58 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use > > Great, so until I install the turbo I could just use > the 7730 ecm and memcal and a modified 4 cylinder code > ? That was what I was thinking I could do since the > only differences that are needed would be the extra > timing and fuel enrichment calculations needed for > positive intake pressures with the turbo installed. > The 7730 is just so much more plentiful than the 749 > that I was thinking about just going that route for simplicity. From lwester at lincsat.com Mon Jul 24 17:03:32 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:03:32 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup/search? References: <20060721225849.50774.qmail@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003f01c6af6d$0540d9b0$4250050a@WESTER2> Who posted that ? I thought that was proprietory to one of the guys here who wrote that database lookup ? Lyndon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess" To: Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup/search? > YESSS!!! Thank you!! > > Tom Butcher wrote: Ryan, I believe this is what you > are looking for http://www.efitune.com/broadcast_codes/ > > Tom > > Ryan Hess wrote: > Hi, > > I KNOW somewhere out there, there is a binary lookup search page. You can > search by BCC, by drivetrain, by platform, etc! But I lost the webpage! > Anybody know what I'm talking about? I need to identify some PROMs. > Thanks, > > Ryan > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ > countries) for 2???/min or less. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > --------------------------------- > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great > rates starting at 1???/min. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > --------------------------------- > See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From jay at vessels-clan.com Mon Jul 24 19:40:02 2006 From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup/search? In-Reply-To: <003f01c6af6d$0540d9b0$4250050a@WESTER2> References: <20060721225849.50774.qmail@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003f01c6af6d$0540d9b0$4250050a@WESTER2> Message-ID: <44C56862.90901@vessels-clan.com> Hi there! Shannen had a BCC lookup a million years ago, but decided that too many people were freeloading and pulled it (the kicker was when he found there were eBay sellers not on the list linking to it). This appears to be a different database, as Shannen's wasn't implemented to be nearly as flexible as this one. Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) Programmer wrote: > Who posted that ? I thought that was proprietory to one of the guys here > who wrote that database lookup ? > > Lyndon. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess" > To: > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 4:58 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup/search? > > >> YESSS!!! Thank you!! >> >> Tom Butcher wrote: Ryan, I believe this is what >> you are looking for http://www.efitune.com/broadcast_codes/ >> >> Tom >> >> Ryan Hess wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I KNOW somewhere out there, there is a binary lookup search page. You >> can search by BCC, by drivetrain, by platform, etc! But I lost the >> webpage! Anybody know what I'm talking about? I need to identify some >> PROMs. Thanks, >> >> Ryan From davida1 at hiwaay.net Fri Jul 28 13:56:42 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:56:42 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem References: +ADw-DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61+AEA-NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com+AD4- +ADw-24ed01c69bca+ACQ-40029d10+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30606300121t5a55b954i5c2fbcc9ed27980a+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-004b01c69c4e+ACQ-b97a9b00+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-007c01c69c4f+ACQ-3796d8a0+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30607031439v482261fbhd4e0f34d4487abd2+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-0a3601c69ef8+ACQ-001b3960+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30607041216o604a5e5aidc473161f596a5d+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-001701c69fa1+ACQ-fe0688f0+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4APA-f61eb5c30607061212l36ee32bclabaee76556aca871+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4APA-44ADE081.8080307+AEA-comcast.net+AD4- +ADw-001301c6a281+ACQ-bf5dbc30+ACQ-6801a8c0+AEA-RonHome+AD4- Message-ID: <005c01c6b277$941711b0$0600a8c0@yancey.com> I know this is an old thread but... I am fighting the same cranking issue with my mom's car. Would you mind telling how much you increased the cold engine cranking pulse widths? I was thinking about a 10+ACU- increase on all the table values below operating temperature. Thanks for your advice+ACE- Her car is a 1990 LeSabre with the 3800 engine. 340,000 miles and still going strong+ACEAIQ- David ----- Original Message ----- From: +ACI-Ron Drew+ACI- +ADw-rjdrew+AEA-adelphia.net+AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:29 AM Subject: Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4- This may not help, but here is what I have experienced: I have two 3800 +AD4- engine cars from the same era and I have experienced what you described on +AD4- both of them. In both cases, I measured the secondary ignition voltage and +AD4- found that the some of the spark plugs had deteriorated some (the firing +AD4- voltage had creeped up from previous taken measurements). After replacing +AD4- the plugs, I then tweaked the 'cranking pulse width' (in both cases, I was +AD4- slightly lean, so the cranking pulse width had to be slightly increased at +AD4- lower coolant temperatures). I don't understand why I had to slightly +AD4- increase the cranking pulse width, when each car had previously cranked +AD4- fine, however I did this on one car 3 or 4 years ago and it has been fine +AD4- since. I applied the same to the second car this year (which I drive during +AD4- the week), and both crank now without any issues. +AD4- +AD4- A strong indication that what I experienced is the same reason for your +AD4- problem+ADs- is that after trying to crank the engine for a few starter motor +AD4- turns, release the key and try to crank the engine a second time. If it is +AD4- the slightly lean problem which I described, the car will likely fire right +AD4- up on the second try. I think this can be explained because the pulse width +AD4- is programmed to progressively decrease the longer you try to run the +AD4- starter motor (to prevent flooding the engine) so a second attempt would +AD4- provide the extra needed fuel. I think the only thing that could explain +AD4- for the engine firing immediately on the second try is that the programmed +AD4- cranking pulse width is slightly too lean. +AD4- +AD4- Ron +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- ----- Original Message ----- +AD4- From: +ACI-Bill - Comcast+ACI- +ADw-b.shaw+AEA-comcast.net+AD4- +AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- +AD4- Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 12:18 AM +AD4- Subject: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4- +AD4- +AD4APg- I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century wagon and +AD4APg- am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When trying to +AD4APg- start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and stall. +AD4APg- We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally wheeze to life. Once +AD4APg- it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The problem occurs only +AD4APg- when it's stone cold, after running for even a minute it will repeatedly +AD4APg- start fine. It's not setting any codes so I'm not getting any help from +AD4APg- the ECM. +AD4APg- +AD4APg- This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired up +AD4APg- quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something weird with +AD4APg- the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and easy +AD4APg- anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on what to look +AD4APg- at next? +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Thanks, +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Bill +AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- +AD4APg- Gmecm mailing list +AD4APg- Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org +AD4APg- http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm +AD4- +AD4- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- +AD4- Gmecm mailing list +AD4- Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org +AD4- http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm +AD4- From mgreenla at telus.net Fri Jul 28 18:11:03 2006 From: mgreenla at telus.net (M.A. GREENLAW) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:11:03 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem References: +ADw-DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61+AEA-NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com+AD4- +ADw-24ed01c69bca+ACQ-40029d10+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30606300121t5a55b954i5c2fbcc9ed27980a+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-004b01c69c4e+ACQ-b97a9b00+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-007c01c69c4f+ACQ-3796d8a0+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30607031439v482261fbhd4e0f34d4487abd2+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-0a3601c69ef8+ACQ-001b3960+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30607041216o604a5e5aidc473161f596a5d+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-001701c69fa1+ACQ-fe0688f0+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4APA-f61eb5c30607061212l36ee32bclabaee76556aca871+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4APA-44ADE081.8080307+AEA-comcast.net+AD4APA-001301c6a281+ACQ-bf5dbc30+ACQ-6801a8c0+AEA-RonHome+AD4- +ADw-005c01c6b277+ACQ-941711b0+ACQ-0600a8c0+AEA-yancey.com+AD4- Message-ID: <000501c6b29b$195e18f0$de00a8c0@amd> +ACoAKgAq-Not sure why I got this Email. I am fairly sure someone else is waiting for it. Hope this helps Them get it. MIKE+ACoAKgAq- +ACo- ----- Original Message ----- From: +ACI-David Allen+ACI- +ADw-davida1+AEA-hiwaay.net+AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4AOw- +ADw-rjdrew+AEA-adelphia.net+AD4- Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem I know this is an old thread but... I am fighting the same cranking issue with my mom's car. Would you mind telling how much you increased the cold engine cranking pulse widths? I was thinking about a 10+ACU- increase on all the table values below operating temperature. Thanks for your advice+ACE- Her car is a 1990 LeSabre with the 3800 engine. 340,000 miles and still going strong+ACEAIQ- David ----- Original Message ----- From: +ACI-Ron Drew+ACI- +ADw-rjdrew+AEA-adelphia.net+AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:29 AM Subject: Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4- This may not help, but here is what I have experienced: I have two 3800 +AD4- engine cars from the same era and I have experienced what you described on +AD4- both of them. In both cases, I measured the secondary ignition voltage +AD4- and +AD4- found that the some of the spark plugs had deteriorated some (the firing +AD4- voltage had creeped up from previous taken measurements). After replacing +AD4- the plugs, I then tweaked the 'cranking pulse width' (in both cases, I was +AD4- slightly lean, so the cranking pulse width had to be slightly increased at +AD4- lower coolant temperatures). I don't understand why I had to slightly +AD4- increase the cranking pulse width, when each car had previously cranked +AD4- fine, however I did this on one car 3 or 4 years ago and it has been fine +AD4- since. I applied the same to the second car this year (which I drive +AD4- during +AD4- the week), and both crank now without any issues. +AD4- +AD4- A strong indication that what I experienced is the same reason for your +AD4- problem+ADs- is that after trying to crank the engine for a few starter motor +AD4- turns, release the key and try to crank the engine a second time. If it is +AD4- the slightly lean problem which I described, the car will likely fire +AD4- right +AD4- up on the second try. I think this can be explained because the pulse +AD4- width +AD4- is programmed to progressively decrease the longer you try to run the +AD4- starter motor (to prevent flooding the engine) so a second attempt would +AD4- provide the extra needed fuel. I think the only thing that could explain +AD4- for the engine firing immediately on the second try is that the programmed +AD4- cranking pulse width is slightly too lean. +AD4- +AD4- Ron +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- ----- Original Message ----- +AD4- From: +ACI-Bill - Comcast+ACI- +ADw-b.shaw+AEA-comcast.net+AD4- +AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- +AD4- Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 12:18 AM +AD4- Subject: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4- +AD4- +AD4APg- I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century wagon and +AD4APg- am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When trying to +AD4APg- start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and stall. +AD4APg- We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally wheeze to life. +AD4APg- Once +AD4APg- it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The problem occurs only +AD4APg- when it's stone cold, after running for even a minute it will repeatedly +AD4APg- start fine. It's not setting any codes so I'm not getting any help from +AD4APg- the ECM. +AD4APg- +AD4APg- This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired up +AD4APg- quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something weird with +AD4APg- the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and easy +AD4APg- anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on what to +AD4APg- look +AD4APg- at next? +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Thanks, +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Bill +AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- +AD4APg- Gmecm mailing list +AD4APg- Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org +AD4APg- http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm +AD4- +AD4- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- +AD4- Gmecm mailing list +AD4- Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org +AD4- http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm +AD4- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- Gmecm mailing list Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sun Jul 30 08:26:36 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:26:36 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use Message-ID: <44CCB38C.4090809@highspeedlink.net> KA or SR engine? While the 730 is the obvious choice, which code to use might depend on what kind of triggering you have. The $8f code from a Syclone is for a distributor and the $58 code from a Grand Prix is for DIS. Will > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:19:35 -0700 (PDT) > From: Phillip Kuhn > Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Message-ID: <20060721231935.13631.qmail at web54613.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > I have a '90 Nissan 240 sx which I was wanting to > convert to a GM ecm for tuning simplicity and also to > swap to a speed densty system and get rid of the MAF > sensor. For now it is naturally aspirated but some day > I want to turbo the car. I used to have a 749 ecm I > was going to use on the car but I got busy doing other > projects and sold the ecm and memcal I was going to > use. Since then I have decided to delve into the > project again but now I am wondering which ecm to use. > I was thinking that a 7730 would suit me just fine but > I am not sure of its compatbility with a turbocharged > engine. Thanks in advance, > > Phil From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 30 12:13:37 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:13:37 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use References: <44CCB38C.4090809@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <0f3501c6b3fb$8164ade0$020101c0@gandalf> > KA or SR engine? While the 730 is the obvious choice, which code to use > might depend on what kind of triggering you have. The $8f code from a > Syclone is for a distributor and the $58 code from a Grand Prix is for DIS. > > > Will FWIW I'm running $58 (Turbo Sunbird code) with a distributor. HTH Robin From mgreenla at telus.net Sun Jul 30 12:32:54 2006 From: mgreenla at telus.net (M.A. GREENLAW) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:32:54 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Misdirected Email Message-ID: <000e01c6b3fe$30ec3790$de00a8c0@amd> Since signing up for this forum, I have received 3 e mails that are not directed to me, and I am sure that the senders are expecting answers from you. The last is enclosed below. I hope you can figure out what is wrong, and repair this. If it requires action on my part, let me know. meanwhile, I will forward any I get. I am sending a message to this sender to inform them of this issue. From Robin Handley Date July 30, 2006 10:13 AM To gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject Re: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use > KA or SR engine? While the 730 is the obvious choice, which code to use > might depend on what kind of triggering you have. The $8f code from a > Syclone is for a distributor and the $58 code from a Grand Prix is for DIS. > > > Will FWIW I'm running $58 (Turbo Sunbird code) with a distributor. HTH Robin _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From mgreenla at telus.net Sun Jul 30 12:36:36 2006 From: mgreenla at telus.net (M.A. GREENLAW) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:36:36 -0700 Subject: Fw: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use Message-ID: <002201c6b3fe$b4fcf6a0$de00a8c0@amd> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Handley" To: Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use >> KA or SR engine? While the 730 is the obvious choice, which code to use >> might depend on what kind of triggering you have. The $8f code from a >> Syclone is for a distributor and the $58 code from a Grand Prix is for > DIS. >> >> >> Will > > FWIW I'm running $58 (Turbo Sunbird code) with a distributor. > > HTH > > Robin > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From mgreenla at telus.net Sun Jul 30 12:36:54 2006 From: mgreenla at telus.net (M.A. GREENLAW) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:36:54 -0700 Subject: Fw: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use Message-ID: <002a01c6b3fe$bfd6fa80$de00a8c0@amd> ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 6:26 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use > KA or SR engine? While the 730 is the obvious choice, which code to use > might depend on what kind of triggering you have. The $8f code from a > Syclone is for a distributor and the $58 code from a Grand Prix is for > DIS. > > > Will > > > >> Message: 4 >> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:19:35 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Phillip Kuhn >> Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Message-ID: <20060721231935.13631.qmail at web54613.mail.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> I have a '90 Nissan 240 sx which I was wanting to >> convert to a GM ecm for tuning simplicity and also to >> swap to a speed densty system and get rid of the MAF >> sensor. For now it is naturally aspirated but some day >> I want to turbo the car. I used to have a 749 ecm I >> was going to use on the car but I got busy doing other >> projects and sold the ecm and memcal I was going to >> use. Since then I have decided to delve into the >> project again but now I am wondering which ecm to use. >> I was thinking that a 7730 would suit me just fine but >> I am not sure of its compatbility with a turbocharged >> engine. Thanks in advance, >> >> Phil > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From mgreenla at telus.net Sun Jul 30 12:40:17 2006 From: mgreenla at telus.net (M.A. GREENLAW) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:40:17 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use References: <44CCB38C.4090809@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <002e01c6b3ff$38f831e0$de00a8c0@amd> This arrived in my in box and I don't think you meant it to. I am a recent member, but not part of the consulting staff. Please contact them, and see if there is a problem. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 6:26 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use > KA or SR engine? While the 730 is the obvious choice, which code to use > might depend on what kind of triggering you have. The $8f code from a > Syclone is for a distributor and the $58 code from a Grand Prix is for > DIS. > > > Will > > > >> Message: 4 >> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:19:35 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Phillip Kuhn >> Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Message-ID: <20060721231935.13631.qmail at web54613.mail.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> I have a '90 Nissan 240 sx which I was wanting to >> convert to a GM ecm for tuning simplicity and also to >> swap to a speed densty system and get rid of the MAF >> sensor. For now it is naturally aspirated but some day >> I want to turbo the car. I used to have a 749 ecm I >> was going to use on the car but I got busy doing other >> projects and sold the ecm and memcal I was going to >> use. Since then I have decided to delve into the >> project again but now I am wondering which ecm to use. >> I was thinking that a 7730 would suit me just fine but >> I am not sure of its compatbility with a turbocharged >> engine. Thanks in advance, >> >> Phil > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From mgreenla at telus.net Sun Jul 30 12:41:22 2006 From: mgreenla at telus.net (M.A. GREENLAW) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:41:22 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use References: <44CCB38C.4090809@highspeedlink.net> <0f3501c6b3fb$8164ade0$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <003d01c6b3ff$5f860990$de00a8c0@amd> This arrived in my in box and I don't think you meant it to. I am a recent member, but not part of the consulting staff. Please contact them, and see if there is a problem. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Handley" To: Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use >> KA or SR engine? While the 730 is the obvious choice, which code to use >> might depend on what kind of triggering you have. The $8f code from a >> Syclone is for a distributor and the $58 code from a Grand Prix is for > DIS. >> >> >> Will > > FWIW I'm running $58 (Turbo Sunbird code) with a distributor. > > HTH > > Robin > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From davida1 at hiwaay.net Sun Jul 30 13:39:02 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:39:02 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Misdirected Email References: +ADw-000e01c6b3fe+ACQ-30ec3790+ACQ-de00a8c0+AEA-amd+AD4- Message-ID: <002c01c6b407$719c0960$0600a8c0@yancey.com> Hello. All list messages are forwarded to every member. It's an open discussion forum. You can set preferences for message delivery here. http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Hope this helps. David ----- Original Message ----- From: +ACI-M.A. GREENLAW+ACI- +ADwAPg- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:32 PM Subject: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Misdirected Email +AD4- Since signing up for this forum, I have received 3 e mails that are not directed to me, and I am sure that the senders are expecting answers from you. The last is enclosed below. I hope you can figure out what is wrong, and repair this. If it requires action on my part, let me know. meanwhile, I will forward any I get. I am sending a message to this sender to inform them of this issue. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 30 14:08:14 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:08:14 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use References: <44CCB38C.4090809@highspeedlink.net><0f3501c6b3fb$8164ade0$020101c0@gandalf> <003d01c6b3ff$5f860990$de00a8c0@amd> Message-ID: <0f7a01c6b40b$8648dd80$020101c0@gandalf> I'm just sending messages to the list, as normal. AFAIK there is no consulting staff. Anyone who is subscribed will get all list traffic. Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "M.A. GREENLAW" To: Sent: 30 July 2006 18:41 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use > This arrived in my in box and I don't think you meant it to. I am a recent > member, but not part of the consulting staff. Please contact them, and see > if there is a problem. > Mike > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robin Handley" > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:13 AM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use > > > >> KA or SR engine? While the 730 is the obvious choice, which code to use > >> might depend on what kind of triggering you have. The $8f code from a > >> Syclone is for a distributor and the $58 code from a Grand Prix is for > > DIS. > >> > >> > >> Will > > > > FWIW I'm running $58 (Turbo Sunbird code) with a distributor. > > > > HTH > > > > Robin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From pmkls1 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 15:22:44 2006 From: pmkls1 at yahoo.com (Phillip Kuhn) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use In-Reply-To: <0f3501c6b3fb$8164ade0$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <20060730202244.49096.qmail@web54606.mail.yahoo.com> I thought the $58 code was intended for the sunbird turbo, but there are a few things i dont completely understand still so I may have been wrong. I have a KA engine and will be requiring a distributor trigger until I can fab up a crank triggering system at which time I will go DIS. I was thinking on using the turbo sunbird code since the engine config is pretty much the same as mine. A good Q I have is would the 749 memcal work in the 730 ? I will be using the memcal adapter and a reprgrammable chip from moates.net so bascally the only thing i would need the memcal for is the resistor pack, but i would like to just buy the memcal for a turbo sunbird to read the code from it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 30 17:20:04 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:20:04 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Which ecm to use References: <20060730202244.49096.qmail@web54606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0f8301c6b426$52611990$020101c0@gandalf> > I thought the $58 code was intended for the sunbird > turbo, but there are a few things i dont completely > understand still so I may have been wrong. I have a KA > engine and will be requiring a distributor trigger > until I can fab up a crank triggering system at which > time I will go DIS. I was thinking on using the turbo > sunbird code since the engine config is pretty much > the same as mine. A good Q I have is would the 749 > memcal work in the 730 ? I will be using the memcal > adapter and a reprgrammable chip from moates.net so > bascally the only thing i would need the memcal for is > the resistor pack, but i would like to just buy the > memcal for a turbo sunbird to read the code from it. I'm not sure if this helps, but I'm happily running the ignition of a NA 4cyl engine using $58 Sunbird code (downloaded) in the high 16k of a 32k EPROM, running on a 16149396 (727) ECM and MemCal, triggered by a dizzy via an 8-pin HEI. My only change to the MemCal was to desolder one leg to configure it for a 4cyl engine. Robin From rjdrew at adelphia.net Mon Jul 31 03:51:08 2006 From: rjdrew at adelphia.net (Ron Drew) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem References: +ADw-DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61+AEA-NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com+AD4- +ADw-24ed01c69bca+ACQ-40029d10+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30606300121t5a55b954i5c2fbcc9ed27980a+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-004b01c69c4e+ACQ-b97a9b00+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-007c01c69c4f+ACQ-3796d8a0+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30607031439v482261fbhd4e0f34d4487abd2+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-0a3601c69ef8+ACQ-001b3960+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30607041216o604a5e5aidc473161f596a5d+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-001701c69fa1+ACQ-fe0688f0+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4APA-f61eb5c30607061212l36ee32bclabaee76556aca871+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4APA-44ADE081.8080307+AEA-comcast.net+AD4- +ADw-001301c6a281+ACQ-bf5dbc30+ACQ-6801a8c0+AEA-RonHome+AD4- +ADw-005c01c6b277+ACQ-941711b0+ACQ-0600a8c0+AEA-yancey.com+AD4- Message-ID: <000c01c6b47e$77810160$6801a8c0@RonHome> Keep in mind David that other's who have experienced this problem in this forum have found that replacing the crank position sensor fixed their cold cranking problem, in my case, replacing the crank sensor offered no help. I think the key to this is if you can release the starter while trying to crank the cold engine and the second time it fires right up then this is very strong eveidence that the cold cranking pulse needs to be increased. Increasing by 10+ACU- is probably a good amount to try. You only need to change the pulse width at water temperatures where the cold cranking problem occurs (I am assuming 100 degress F or less). I hope this helps, Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: +ACI-David Allen+ACI- +ADw-davida1+AEA-hiwaay.net+AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4AOw- +ADw-rjdrew+AEA-adelphia.net+AD4- Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:56 PM Subject: Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem I know this is an old thread but... I am fighting the same cranking issue with my mom's car. Would you mind telling how much you increased the cold engine cranking pulse widths? I was thinking about a 10+ACU- increase on all the table values below operating temperature. Thanks for your advice+ACE- Her car is a 1990 LeSabre with the 3800 engine. 340,000 miles and still going strong+ACEAIQ- David ----- Original Message ----- From: +ACI-Ron Drew+ACI- +ADw-rjdrew+AEA-adelphia.net+AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:29 AM Subject: Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4- This may not help, but here is what I have experienced: I have two 3800 +AD4- engine cars from the same era and I have experienced what you described on +AD4- both of them. In both cases, I measured the secondary ignition voltage +AD4- and +AD4- found that the some of the spark plugs had deteriorated some (the firing +AD4- voltage had creeped up from previous taken measurements). After replacing +AD4- the plugs, I then tweaked the 'cranking pulse width' (in both cases, I was +AD4- slightly lean, so the cranking pulse width had to be slightly increased at +AD4- lower coolant temperatures). I don't understand why I had to slightly +AD4- increase the cranking pulse width, when each car had previously cranked +AD4- fine, however I did this on one car 3 or 4 years ago and it has been fine +AD4- since. I applied the same to the second car this year (which I drive +AD4- during +AD4- the week), and both crank now without any issues. +AD4- +AD4- A strong indication that what I experienced is the same reason for your +AD4- problem+ADs- is that after trying to crank the engine for a few starter motor +AD4- turns, release the key and try to crank the engine a second time. If it is +AD4- the slightly lean problem which I described, the car will likely fire +AD4- right +AD4- up on the second try. I think this can be explained because the pulse +AD4- width +AD4- is programmed to progressively decrease the longer you try to run the +AD4- starter motor (to prevent flooding the engine) so a second attempt would +AD4- provide the extra needed fuel. I think the only thing that could explain +AD4- for the engine firing immediately on the second try is that the programmed +AD4- cranking pulse width is slightly too lean. +AD4- +AD4- Ron +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- ----- Original Message ----- +AD4- From: +ACI-Bill - Comcast+ACI- +ADw-b.shaw+AEA-comcast.net+AD4- +AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- +AD4- Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 12:18 AM +AD4- Subject: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4- +AD4- +AD4APg- I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century wagon and +AD4APg- am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When trying to +AD4APg- start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and stall. +AD4APg- We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally wheeze to life. +AD4APg- Once +AD4APg- it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The problem occurs only +AD4APg- when it's stone cold, after running for even a minute it will repeatedly +AD4APg- start fine. It's not setting any codes so I'm not getting any help from +AD4APg- the ECM. +AD4APg- +AD4APg- This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired up +AD4APg- quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something weird with +AD4APg- the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and easy +AD4APg- anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on what to +AD4APg- look +AD4APg- at next? +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Thanks, +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Bill +AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- +AD4APg- Gmecm mailing list +AD4APg- Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org +AD4APg- http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm +AD4- +AD4- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- +AD4- Gmecm mailing list +AD4- Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org +AD4- http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm +AD4- From davida1 at hiwaay.net Mon Jul 31 11:29:10 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:29:10 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem References: +ADw-DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61+AEA-NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com+AD4- +ADw-24ed01c69bca+ACQ-40029d10+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30606300121t5a55b954i5c2fbcc9ed27980a+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-004b01c69c4e+ACQ-b97a9b00+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-007c01c69c4f+ACQ-3796d8a0+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30607031439v482261fbhd4e0f34d4487abd2+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-0a3601c69ef8+ACQ-001b3960+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4- +ADw-f61eb5c30607041216o604a5e5aidc473161f596a5d+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4- +ADw-001701c69fa1+ACQ-fe0688f0+ACQ-0201a8c0+AEA-antec+AD4APA-f61eb5c30607061212l36ee32bclabaee76556aca871+AEA-mail.gmail.com+AD4APA-44ADE081.8080307+AEA-comcast.net+AD4- +ADw-001301c6a281+ACQ-bf5dbc30+ACQ-6801a8c0+AEA-RonHome+AD4- +ADw-005c01c6b277+ACQ-941711b0+ACQ-0600a8c0+AEA-yancey.com+AD4- +ADw-000c01c6b47e+ACQ-77810160+ACQ-6801a8c0+AEA-RonHome+AD4- Message-ID: <004501c6b4be$83c5ebd0$1b00000a@yancey.com> Yes, it had the classic release starter and re-engage to crank symptom. I did increase the pulse width and it fixed the problem. I mean 100 +ACU- fixed- engine barely turns over one revolution and it is running. I am not at my computer with the calibration file on it. I can't remmeber exactly how much I increased it but it was less than 10+ACU-. Whatever it was - it worked+ACE- Thanks, Ron and I will post the exact changes made when I get back home. Later, David ----- Original Message ----- From: +ACI-Ron Drew+ACI- +ADw-rjdrew+AEA-adelphia.net+AD4- To: +ACI-David Allen+ACI- +ADw-davida1+AEA-hiwaay.net+AD4AOw- +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:51 AM Subject: Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4- Keep in mind David that other's who have experienced this problem in this +AD4- forum have found that replacing the crank position sensor fixed their cold +AD4- cranking problem, in my case, replacing the crank sensor offered no help. I +AD4- think the key to this is if you can release the starter while trying to +AD4- crank the cold engine and the second time it fires right up then this is +AD4- very strong eveidence that the cold cranking pulse needs to be increased. +AD4- Increasing by 10+ACU- is probably a good amount to try. You only need to change +AD4- the pulse width at water temperatures where the cold cranking problem occurs +AD4- (I am assuming 100 degress F or less). I hope this helps, Ron +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- ----- Original Message ----- +AD4- From: +ACI-David Allen+ACI- +ADw-davida1+AEA-hiwaay.net+AD4- +AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4AOw- +ADw-rjdrew+AEA-adelphia.net+AD4- +AD4- Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:56 PM +AD4- Subject: Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- I know this is an old thread but... I am fighting the same cranking issue +AD4- with my mom's car. Would you mind telling how much you increased the cold +AD4- engine cranking pulse widths? +AD4- I was thinking about a 10+ACU- increase on all the table values below +AD4- operating temperature. +AD4- Thanks for your advice+ACE- Her car is a 1990 LeSabre with the 3800 engine. +AD4- 340,000 miles and still going strong+ACEAIQ- +AD4- David +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- ----- Original Message ----- +AD4- From: +ACI-Ron Drew+ACI- +ADw-rjdrew+AEA-adelphia.net+AD4- +AD4- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- +AD4- Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:29 AM +AD4- Subject: Re: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4- +AD4- +AD4APg- This may not help, but here is what I have experienced: I have two 3800 +AD4APg- engine cars from the same era and I have experienced what you described on +AD4APg- both of them. In both cases, I measured the secondary ignition voltage +AD4APg- and +AD4APg- found that the some of the spark plugs had deteriorated some (the firing +AD4APg- voltage had creeped up from previous taken measurements). After replacing +AD4APg- the plugs, I then tweaked the 'cranking pulse width' (in both cases, I was +AD4APg- slightly lean, so the cranking pulse width had to be slightly increased at +AD4APg- lower coolant temperatures). I don't understand why I had to slightly +AD4APg- increase the cranking pulse width, when each car had previously cranked +AD4APg- fine, however I did this on one car 3 or 4 years ago and it has been fine +AD4APg- since. I applied the same to the second car this year (which I drive +AD4APg- during +AD4APg- the week), and both crank now without any issues. +AD4APg- +AD4APg- A strong indication that what I experienced is the same reason for your +AD4APg- problem+ADs- is that after trying to crank the engine for a few starter motor +AD4APg- turns, release the key and try to crank the engine a second time. If it is +AD4APg- the slightly lean problem which I described, the car will likely fire +AD4APg- right +AD4APg- up on the second try. I think this can be explained because the pulse +AD4APg- width +AD4APg- is programmed to progressively decrease the longer you try to run the +AD4APg- starter motor (to prevent flooding the engine) so a second attempt would +AD4APg- provide the extra needed fuel. I think the only thing that could explain +AD4APg- for the engine firing immediately on the second try is that the programmed +AD4APg- cranking pulse width is slightly too lean. +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Ron +AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AD4APg- ----- Original Message ----- +AD4APg- From: +ACI-Bill - Comcast+ACI- +ADw-b.shaw+AEA-comcast.net+AD4- +AD4APg- To: +ADw-gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org+AD4- +AD4APg- Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 12:18 AM +AD4APg- Subject: +AFs-Gmecm+AF0- Cold start problem +AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AD4APgA+- I'm having a cold start problem on my wife's '88 Buick Century wagon and +AD4APgA+- am looking for some advise. This is a 3.8L v6 with DIS. When trying to +AD4APgA+- start it will crank a second or 2 then fire and then backfire and stall. +AD4APgA+- We have to try 10 to 15 times before it will finally wheeze to life. +AD4APgA+- Once +AD4APgA+- it starts it runs fine, no skips or hesitation. The problem occurs only +AD4APgA+- when it's stone cold, after running for even a minute it will repeatedly +AD4APgA+- start fine. It's not setting any codes so I'm not getting any help from +AD4APgA+- the ECM. +AD4APgA+- +AD4APgA+- This started suddenly a couple of days ago. Before that it fired up +AD4APgA+- quickly warm or cold and ran well. I thought maybe something weird with +AD4APgA+- the CTS ( remember, no codes) so I changed it (it was cheap and easy +AD4APgA+- anyways) but it made no difference. Anyone have a thought on what to +AD4APgA+- look +AD4APgA+- at next? +AD4APgA+- +AD4APgA+- Thanks, +AD4APgA+- +AD4APgA+- Bill +AD4APgA+- +AD4APgA+- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- +AD4APgA+- Gmecm mailing list +AD4APgA+- Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org +AD4APgA+- http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm +AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw- +AD4APg- Gmecm mailing list +AD4APg- Gmecm+AEA-diy-efi.org +AD4APg- http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4-