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 Fr