From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net  Thu Jun  1 12:15:21 2006
From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke)
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:15:21 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
Message-ID: <447F20A9.401@highspeedlink.net>

I guess you mean that it makes 450/530 with the current intake manifold. 
It won't make that with a stock TPI.

Do you have a specific reason for wanting TPI? Are you converting from a 
carb? If I had an engine like that, I'd put a Holley Stealth Ram on it 
instead of TPI.



Will


> From: "Travis Eighinger" <teighinger at zoominternet.net>
> Subject: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Travis Eighinger 
> To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:25 PM
> Subject: TPI on a 412sbc
> 
> 
> I want to put TPI on a 412 I built. It has ~450hp and 530ft.-lb. The engine will never see more than 6000 rpms. I wanted to know if anybody has a starting point for ecu program or any suggestions. Thanks


From teighinger at zoominternet.net  Thu Jun  1 13:07:36 2006
From: teighinger at zoominternet.net (Travis Eighinger)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:07:36 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
References: <447F20A9.401@highspeedlink.net>
Message-ID: <012901c685a6$432c4d40$91ba9018@TravisHome>

I use it off road and I need fuel injection. I am just looking for the
cheapest route


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Lucke" <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:15 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1


> I guess you mean that it makes 450/530 with the current intake manifold.
> It won't make that with a stock TPI.
>
> Do you have a specific reason for wanting TPI? Are you converting from a
> carb? If I had an engine like that, I'd put a Holley Stealth Ram on it
> instead of TPI.
>
>
>
> Will
>
>
> > From: "Travis Eighinger" <teighinger at zoominternet.net>
> > Subject: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: Travis Eighinger
> > To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:25 PM
> > Subject: TPI on a 412sbc
> >
> >
> > I want to put TPI on a 412 I built. It has ~450hp and 530ft.-lb. The
engine will never see more than 6000 rpms. I wanted to know if anybody has a
starting point for ecu program or any suggestions. Thanks
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>
>




From efi at dyakron.com  Thu Jun  1 17:14:32 2006
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:14:32 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <012901c685a6$432c4d40$91ba9018@TravisHome>
References: <447F20A9.401@highspeedlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060601181340.02cc16f0@dyakron.com>

You may be able to find a Holley 950 commader TBI setup.
It is a 4bbl TBI deal.
MV
At 02:07 PM 6/1/2006 -0400, you wrote:

>I use it off road and I need fuel injection. I am just looking for the
>cheapest route
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "William Lucke" <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
>To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:15 PM
>Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
>
>
> > I guess you mean that it makes 450/530 with the current intake manifold.
> > It won't make that with a stock TPI.
> >
> > Do you have a specific reason for wanting TPI? Are you converting from a
> > carb? If I had an engine like that, I'd put a Holley Stealth Ram on it
> > instead of TPI.
> >
> >
> >
> > Will



From krawczuk at dodo.com.au  Thu Jun  1 20:36:09 2006
From: krawczuk at dodo.com.au (mark krawczuk)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:06:09 +0930
Subject: [Gmecm] 4l60 lockup  kit  ??
Message-ID: <000801c685e4$ecb12d70$6baef0dc@marka7e6m8swbp>

hi, any  body know where i  can buy the tcc lockup kit that contains the vacuum switch for a 4l60   trans from ?
thanks,
mark k

From ne14roxcj at gmail.com  Thu Jun  1 22:49:45 2006
From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:49:45 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060601181340.02cc16f0@dyakron.com>
Message-ID: <447fb563.4e15431b.3a3d.798c@mx.gmail.com>

Even cheaper might be a TBI from a 454. I used the Holley Pro-jection TB
with a 7747 ECM. A few guys here swapped out the Holley injector pod for a
GM piece. Either way, you get 2" bores and if you got the GM unit from the
big-block, tuning might be fairly simple. I can say that the big-bore
throttle body seemed to breathe a little better at high RPMs. I swapped that
for a TPI. I gained a little drivability (low-end), but it doesn't seem to
have the high-rev power that the TBI did. Note: Stay away from Holley
injectors if you run them with a GM ECM. There are also a number of 4-bbl
TBI units out in the aftermarket besides the Holley. I have to agree with
the other guys, I don't think you will come close to those HP and TQ numbers
with a stock TPI setup. My 355 is done making power by 4300-4500. It may be
the cam, but I tend to think it is the small runners. What kind of cam are
you using to make that kind of power and do you think it will be compatible
with EFI? Oh, you said you were thinking about the '165. That is MAF, right?
It should handle a little more cam than my speed density setup. That's just
my $0.02

BTW, what components make up a 412SBC? Is that a 400 overbored?

Beau

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Mike V
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:15 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1

You may be able to find a Holley 950 commader TBI setup.
It is a 4bbl TBI deal.
MV
At 02:07 PM 6/1/2006 -0400, you wrote:

>I use it off road and I need fuel injection. I am just looking for the
>cheapest route
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "William Lucke" <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
>To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:15 PM
>Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
>
>
> > I guess you mean that it makes 450/530 with the current intake manifold.
> > It won't make that with a stock TPI.
> >
> > Do you have a specific reason for wanting TPI? Are you converting from a
> > carb? If I had an engine like that, I'd put a Holley Stealth Ram on it
> > instead of TPI.
> >
> >
> >
> > Will

_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm



From romans at starstream.net  Thu Jun  1 22:53:35 2006
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 20:53:35 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks to using a
	big cap HEI on a 747 ecm?
References: <000801c685e4$ecb12d70$6baef0dc@marka7e6m8swbp>
Message-ID: <004401c685f8$1fca19c0$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks to using a big cap HEI on a 
747 ecm?

I have a friend who put a 747 ecm in his 80 Buick and is running a big cap 
HEI and a 747 ecm.
The Car runs great with the EST Bypass disconnected, except it doesn't have 
any power due to low timing
advance in the module, when he hooks up the EST bypass the timing jumps all 
over the place.

I don't think it's in the chip because I smoothed out the spark map where 
the idle is, and even when the timing
should be staying constant it's bouncing all over the place.

The order of the wires between the small cap and big cap HEI are reversed 
and I have checked everything to death!
Is there anything I am missing?

Thanks!

Mark 



From ne14roxcj at gmail.com  Thu Jun  1 23:00:03 2006
From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:00:03 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] 4l60 lockup  kit  ??
In-Reply-To: <000801c685e4$ecb12d70$6baef0dc@marka7e6m8swbp>
Message-ID: <447fb7cc.60dabb3a.7170.79cb@mx.gmail.com>

I would think that would be pretty easy to piece together from a salvage
yard. Just take the control wire from the trans and hook it to a vacuum
switch from the early-mid '80's trucks with a 700R4. I guess you would need
to know how the valve body switches are set up to know what kind of signal
it is looking for. I didn't see any "kits" in my quick look through Summit's
site. Only speedo controlled kits.

Beau

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of mark krawczuk
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:36 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: [Gmecm] 4l60 lockup kit ??

hi, any  body know where i  can buy the tcc lockup kit that contains the
vacuum switch for a 4l60   trans from ?
thanks,
mark k
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm



From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun  2 02:47:23 2006
From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 03:47:23 -0400
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Gmecm] 4l60 lockup  kit  ??
References: <447fb7cc.60dabb3a.7170.79cb@mx.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007f01c68618$cd31ae00$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB>

I looked for those switches new last time someone asked about this, don't 
remember what I eventually found it on but I remember it being $60-$70.

Did a quick internet search for just a plain vacuum switch:

first one is on the 4th page of the pdf.  One of those set to (depends on 
application) 8 or 9 inHg would probably work just perfect.
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/hss/hobbscorp/P3_6.pdf

here is just another website with other switches.
http://www.whitmancontrols.com/WhitmanControls/Default.aspx?tabid=43&mid=468&mastercategoryid=33&subcategoryid=192

Imagine there is other stuff out there but a simple vacuum switch, brake 
switch and a relay could net you a fairly decent set up.

Other thing you might look into is an accelerator pedal switch.  My 82 
caprice has one for it's original 350diesel/2004r set up.  I have yet to 
test it to find out if it still works or hook it to my TCC wiring.  For 
quite a while now I've just had a manual on off switch and a brake switch. 
Usually I just turn it on after the engine hits 130-140.   Has worked well 
for a couple years.  For this car normal around town driving is fine with 
the TCC engaged all the time, Hydraulically it can't lock in 1st gear, it 
locks up after 20mph in 2nd (not sure if it's supposed to work like this as 
this transmission isn't in the best condition).

The drivetrain is a 1973 olds 350 4bbl, 1984 700r4 from a trans am, mid 60's 
ford replacement holley carburetor (450cfm, got it off a 65 galaxie 352fe, 
went a jet size smaller on the primary), drishaft is stock, shortened 6 
inches (3'' for the transmission swap, 3'' for the rear end swap) rear is a 
1986 caprice 8.5'' 10bolt with 2.56:1 limited slip.

Also chopped the top 4'' and turned it into a 2 door "el caprice" so it's 
lighter then stock and a little more aerodynamic.  Got 21mpg running 80 on 
the highway.  I usually see 26mpg when the bed is full, working on getting a 
tonneu (sp) cover made so I don't have to haul a load of firewood just to 
get good highway mileage.

Ok, just realized I'm way to tired and typing stuff that doesn't matter.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Beau Blankenship" <ne14roxcj at gmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:00 AM
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Gmecm] 4l60 lockup kit ??


>I would think that would be pretty easy to piece together from a salvage
> yard. Just take the control wire from the trans and hook it to a vacuum
> switch from the early-mid '80's trucks with a 700R4. I guess you would 
> need
> to know how the valve body switches are set up to know what kind of signal
> it is looking for. I didn't see any "kits" in my quick look through 
> Summit's
> site. Only speedo controlled kits.
>
> Beau
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On 
> Behalf
> Of mark krawczuk
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:36 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] 4l60 lockup kit ??
>
> hi, any  body know where i  can buy the tcc lockup kit that contains the
> vacuum switch for a 4l60   trans from ?
> thanks,
> mark k
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Fri Jun  2 08:28:51 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:28:51 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks to using
	abig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301006A07@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Mark Romans
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:54 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any 
> tricks to using abig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?
> 
> Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks to using a 
> big cap HEI on a
> 747 ecm?
> 
> I have a friend who put a 747 ecm in his 80 Buick and is 
> running a big cap HEI and a 747 ecm.
> The Car runs great with the EST Bypass disconnected, except 
> it doesn't have any power due to low timing advance in the 
> module, when he hooks up the EST bypass the timing jumps all 
> over the place.

I've seen that at idle also on my TBI blazer.  I think it's "normal".
Ignoring the timing light, how does it run?

--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 romans at starstream.net  Fri Jun  2 09:42:27 2006
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 07:42:27 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks to
	usingabig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301006A07@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c68652$c53d7fa0$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

It surges with the est hooked up.
Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks to 
usingabig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?




> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Mark Romans
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:54 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any
> tricks to using abig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?
>
> Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks to using a
> big cap HEI on a
> 747 ecm?
>
> I have a friend who put a 747 ecm in his 80 Buick and is
> running a big cap HEI and a 747 ecm.
> The Car runs great with the EST Bypass disconnected, except
> it doesn't have any power due to low timing advance in the
> module, when he hooks up the EST bypass the timing jumps all
> over the place.

I've seen that at idle also on my TBI blazer.  I think it's "normal".
Ignoring the timing light, how does it run?

--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 galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun  2 10:30:44 2006
From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:30:44 -0400
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any
	tricks tousingabig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301006A07@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
	<000c01c68652$c53d7fa0$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>
Message-ID: <00ce01c6865a$2cf7be10$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB>

check out your other sensors, I had a similiar problem with my 92 caprice, 
dead spot on the throttle position sensor.  At idle the TPS values 
constantly changed, just off idle they went to zero, then were fine up to 
WOT.  Caused surging in rpm, I didnt' check to see what the timing was doing 
since I just hooked up my scan tool and saw the TPS problem, then verified 
with an Ohm meter.

btw, when running smooth timing on that caprice jumps around a bit, maybe 8 
degrees total.  Really it's more of a sweeping from advance to retarded then 
back.  I'm not sure as to the cause.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Romans" <romans at starstream.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks 
tousingabig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?


> It surges with the est hooked up.
> Mark
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:28 AM
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks to 
> usingabig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
>> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Mark Romans
>> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:54 PM
>> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subject: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any
>> tricks to using abig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?
>>
>> Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are any tricks to using a
>> big cap HEI on a
>> 747 ecm?
>>
>> I have a friend who put a 747 ecm in his 80 Buick and is
>> running a big cap HEI and a 747 ecm.
>> The Car runs great with the EST Bypass disconnected, except
>> it doesn't have any power due to low timing advance in the
>> module, when he hooks up the EST bypass the timing jumps all
>> over the place.
>
> I've seen that at idle also on my TBI blazer.  I think it's "normal".
> Ignoring the timing light, how does it run?
>
> --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
> 




From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  2 13:42:39 2006
From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <20060602184240.13779.qmail@web60821.mail.yahoo.com>

It sounds like you have hooked up the pickup wires backwards. Been there done that on a Chev 250 6cyl 7748. Runs like garbage when backwards. Runs great with ecm doing fuel only or with the est unhooked. Just swap the green and white wires and see what happens.
 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From romans at starstream.net  Fri Jun  2 19:49:41 2006
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 17:49:41 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <20060602184240.13779.qmail@web60821.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000e01c686a7$998f65d0$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

Hi Andrew:   On this application (747) there are 4 wires that go between the 
ecm and the distributor.

Circuit Number    Color           ECM Pin     Dist Pin Small Cap       Big 
Cap
423                     WHT               D4               D 
A
430                     PPL/WHT        B5              C 
B
424                    TAN/BLK         D5              B 
C  (EST BY-PASS SET TIMING)
453                    BLK/RED          B3             A 
D

The stock application uses the small cam dist, this car is fitted with a 
large cap hei that is wired like the shop manual says as noted above.

HELP!!!

Thanks

Mark


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:42 AM
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747


> It sounds like you have hooked up the pickup wires backwards. Been there 
> done that on a Chev 250 6cyl 7748. Runs like garbage when backwards. Runs 
> great with ecm doing fuel only or with the est unhooked. Just swap the 
> green and white wires and see what happens.
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> 



From dennysweet at charter.net  Sat Jun  3 00:30:58 2006
From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 22:30:58 -0700
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Gmecm] Gmecm - Does anyone know if there are
	anytricks tousingabig cap HEI on a 747 ecm?
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301006A07@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com><000c01c68652$c53d7fa0$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>
	<00ce01c6865a$2cf7be10$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB>
Message-ID: <001a01c686ce$e555aca0$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj>

Kinda makes me wonder if the springs inside the dist. are bad and letting 
the timing go crazy? 


From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  3 19:09:31 2006
From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson)
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 17:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <20060604000932.39791.qmail@web60817.mail.yahoo.com>

I wasn't talking about the 4 wires from the module to the ecm. I was talking about the two wires from the ignition pickup coil inside the distributor to the module. If the wires are switched the timing pickup is coming off the curved section of the waveform instead of the vertical slope in the center. This can offset the timing by as much as 40 degress and will vary greatly by engine rpm. (See the piggyback igintion module discussion I started a couple of months ago.) The wires should be white and green (at least off the pickup coil) I don't remember which is positive and which is negative.
   
  Also since you are obviously having problems and must have extended the pickup coil wires to have a external module: If you need the module more than 1.5" away (The length of  stock pickup coil wires) the spliced in wires need to be twisted for noise reduction. (If you peel the insulation off a piece of network cable you will get the idea)
   
  Good luck!

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From romans at starstream.net  Sat Jun  3 19:37:24 2006
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 17:37:24 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <20060604000932.39791.qmail@web60817.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c6876f$0c9b9400$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

Thanks Andrew, I'll check it!
Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747


>I wasn't talking about the 4 wires from the module to the ecm. I was 
>talking about the two wires from the ignition pickup coil inside the 
>distributor to the module. If the wires are switched the timing pickup is 
>coming off the curved section of the waveform instead of the vertical slope 
>in the center. This can offset the timing by as much as 40 degress and will 
>vary greatly by engine rpm. (See the piggyback igintion module discussion I 
>started a couple of months ago.) The wires should be white and green (at 
>least off the pickup coil) I don't remember which is positive and which is 
>negative.
>
>  Also since you are obviously having problems and must have extended the 
> pickup coil wires to have a external module: If you need the module more 
> than 1.5" away (The length of  stock pickup coil wires) the spliced in 
> wires need to be twisted for noise reduction. (If you peel the insulation 
> off a piece of network cable you will get the idea)
>
>  Good luck!
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> 



From dgilbert78 at juno.com  Sat Jun  3 21:12:09 2006
From: dgilbert78 at juno.com (dgilbert78 at juno.com)
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:12:09 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <20060603.221210.-168319.0.dgilbert78@juno.com>

Hello. Ign module to pick up coil  N=white wire  P=green wire
good luck
Darryl...
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 17:37:24 -0700 "Mark Romans" <romans at starstream.net>
writes:
> Thanks Andrew, I'll check it!
> Mark
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 5:09 PM
> Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
> 
> 
> >I wasn't talking about the 4 wires from the module to the ecm. I 
> was 
> >talking about the two wires from the ignition pickup coil inside 
> the 
> >distributor to the module. If the wires are switched the timing 
> pickup is 
> >coming off the curved section of the waveform instead of the 
> vertical slope 
> >in the center. This can offset the timing by as much as 40 degress 
> and will 
> >vary greatly by engine rpm. (See the piggyback igintion module 
> discussion I 
> >started a couple of months ago.) The wires should be white and 
> green (at 
> >least off the pickup coil) I don't remember which is positive and 
> which is 
> >negative.
> >
> >  Also since you are obviously having problems and must have 
> extended the 
> > pickup coil wires to have a external module: If you need the 
> module more 
> > than 1.5" away (The length of  stock pickup coil wires) the 
> spliced in 
> > wires need to be twisted for noise reduction. (If you peel the 
> insulation 
> > off a piece of network cable you will get the idea)
> >
> >  Good luck!
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Jun  4 09:45:12 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:45:12 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
References: <000601c67fe9$c9efa0b0$6801a8c0@james0uw35t2hd>
Message-ID: <021701c687e5$7cf995f0$020101c0@gandalf>

I've noticed different behaviour on ALDL between ANHT/$8D and Sunbird/$58
code in my '727. The ANHT/$8D seems to behave more 'sensibly/predictably.'
than the Sunbird/$58 code!

I'm currently trying to find a robust algorithm to talk to the Sunbird/$58
code. I have modified ALDLMON (which works but takes longer to lock on than
it does with ANHT/$8D) and played around with some noddy programs of my own
(not w/o some issues, which I'm still trying to get to the bottom of). Has
anybody played with ALDL from Sunbird/$58? The code chucks out $F0 $55 $BB
repeatedly. The Turbo code doc. indicates that the ALDL monitor should
reply, but does not appear to say with what. Anybody know what the correct
response is?

Robin



From b.shaw at comcast.net  Sun Jun  4 10:29:16 2006
From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw)
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:29:16 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
In-Reply-To: <021701c687e5$7cf995f0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net>

Hi Robin,

The $58 code is very timing sensitive.  It's been a while since I've played
with it so the details are a bit fuzzy,  but as I remember you have to send
a mode change within a couple hundred milliseconds of the 'chatter' packet
to get it to shut up and start taking commands.  Once you change mode it'll
respond OK to your commands until it times out aned returns to 'chatter'
mode.  Do you have the Turbo-P4 doc?  It's spelled out pretty well in there,
look for 'turbo_p4' or something like that on incoming.

Best,

Bill

> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:45:12 +0100
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
> 
> I've noticed different behaviour on ALDL between ANHT/$8D and Sunbird/$58
> code in my '727. The ANHT/$8D seems to behave more 'sensibly/predictably.'
> than the Sunbird/$58 code!
> 
> I'm currently trying to find a robust algorithm to talk to the Sunbird/$58
> code. I have modified ALDLMON (which works but takes longer to lock on than
> it does with ANHT/$8D) and played around with some noddy programs of my own
> (not w/o some issues, which I'm still trying to get to the bottom of). Has
> anybody played with ALDL from Sunbird/$58? The code chucks out $F0 $55 $BB
> repeatedly. The Turbo code doc. indicates that the ALDL monitor should
> reply, but does not appear to say with what. Anybody know what the correct
> response is?
> 
> Robin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Jun  4 11:26:11 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 17:26:11 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <023601c687f3$99b7a570$020101c0@gandalf>

Hey Bill,

I think you're dead right about the timing sensitivity. I'm really surprised
that GM made the $58 code behave differently from the $8D, though. My
current $58 test program waits until it sees the $BB checkum of the chatter
message and immediately after sends a request for Mode 1 data - which the
$58 responds to with data, and the chatter message is inhibited for a few
seconds. It seems that, if the Mode 1 request doesn't come out at just the
right time, it is ignored and the chatter messages just churn out. That
isn't the case with $8D. The weird thing is that, with my test program, the
$58 code gives me the Mode 1 data 3 times consecutively from my program
start and then ignores subsequent requests! If I stop and restart my program
it does the same again. This sounds like a bug in my program, but I tried
the program with ANHT/$8D and it worked fine! I know the $58 should work
repeatedly because, once locked on, ALDLMON works. This is really confusing
me ATM! :-)

BTW: Yes, the Turbo P4 doc is the one I was referring to. Following what it
describes, I've been testing the Mode 4 ability to turn the fan on, like I
did for ANHT/$8D, and having problems with that too, using $58! I expected
it to work straight away! :-(

BR,

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 04 June 2006 16:29
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol


> Hi Robin,
>
> The $58 code is very timing sensitive.  It's been a while since I've
played
> with it so the details are a bit fuzzy,  but as I remember you have to
send
> a mode change within a couple hundred milliseconds of the 'chatter' packet
> to get it to shut up and start taking commands.  Once you change mode
it'll
> respond OK to your commands until it times out aned returns to 'chatter'
> mode.  Do you have the Turbo-P4 doc?  It's spelled out pretty well in
there,
> look for 'turbo_p4' or something like that on incoming.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> > From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> > Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:45:12 +0100
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
> >
> > I've noticed different behaviour on ALDL between ANHT/$8D and
Sunbird/$58
> > code in my '727. The ANHT/$8D seems to behave more
'sensibly/predictably.'
> > than the Sunbird/$58 code!
> >
> > I'm currently trying to find a robust algorithm to talk to the
Sunbird/$58
> > code. I have modified ALDLMON (which works but takes longer to lock on
than
> > it does with ANHT/$8D) and played around with some noddy programs of my
own
> > (not w/o some issues, which I'm still trying to get to the bottom of).
Has
> > anybody played with ALDL from Sunbird/$58? The code chucks out $F0 $55
$BB
> > repeatedly. The Turbo code doc. indicates that the ALDL monitor should
> > reply, but does not appear to say with what. Anybody know what the
correct
> > response is?
> >
> > Robin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 mmansur at hotmail.com  Sun Jun  4 13:33:43 2006
From: mmansur at hotmail.com (Mark Mansur)
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:43 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net>
	<023601c687f3$99b7a570$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <BAY107-DAV18D965B211490E0726C1A7B4970@phx.gbl>

Hi Robin -

I've had much recent experience with $58 in my work to make TunerPro much 
more robust.

Indeed $58 is rather chatty and timing sensitive. The ECM/BCC send "I'm 
alive" chatter message ($F0 $55 $BB) every 200ms (if I remember correctly). 
In order to get that to stop, you need to listen for the chatter message and 
respond with a MODE 1 dump request in the window between the chatter 
messages. Some docs seem to mention that you can send the message at any 
point between, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I send the mode 1 
request 1ms after I receive the $BB. Note that many other ECMs that function 
like this actually require a mode 8 command to silence chatter (and a Mode 0 
to restart normal comms), but $58 requires a mode 1 dump. If you get a 
successful reply from the mode 1 dump request, the ECM will be silent for as 
long as you continue to send requests to the ECM. If your requests cease for 
5 seconds, the chatter will once again begin.

What you describe does indeed sound like a bug in your test program (are you 
flushing the FIFO as you should be?).

More helpful information from Blacky can be found here:
http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/archive/html_gm_archive_num_12/msg08681.html

Hope this helps, and good luck!

Mark


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol


Hey Bill,

I think you're dead right about the timing sensitivity. I'm really surprised
that GM made the $58 code behave differently from the $8D, though. My
current $58 test program waits until it sees the $BB checkum of the chatter
message and immediately after sends a request for Mode 1 data - which the
$58 responds to with data, and the chatter message is inhibited for a few
seconds. It seems that, if the Mode 1 request doesn't come out at just the
right time, it is ignored and the chatter messages just churn out. That
isn't the case with $8D. The weird thing is that, with my test program, the
$58 code gives me the Mode 1 data 3 times consecutively from my program
start and then ignores subsequent requests! If I stop and restart my program
it does the same again. This sounds like a bug in my program, but I tried
the program with ANHT/$8D and it worked fine! I know the $58 should work
repeatedly because, once locked on, ALDLMON works. This is really confusing
me ATM! :-)

BTW: Yes, the Turbo P4 doc is the one I was referring to. Following what it
describes, I've been testing the Mode 4 ability to turn the fan on, like I
did for ANHT/$8D, and having problems with that too, using $58! I expected
it to work straight away! :-(

BR,

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 04 June 2006 16:29
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol


> Hi Robin,
>
> The $58 code is very timing sensitive.  It's been a while since I've
played
> with it so the details are a bit fuzzy,  but as I remember you have to
send
> a mode change within a couple hundred milliseconds of the 'chatter' packet
> to get it to shut up and start taking commands.  Once you change mode
it'll
> respond OK to your commands until it times out aned returns to 'chatter'
> mode.  Do you have the Turbo-P4 doc?  It's spelled out pretty well in
there,
> look for 'turbo_p4' or something like that on incoming.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> > From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> > Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:45:12 +0100
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
> >
> > I've noticed different behaviour on ALDL between ANHT/$8D and
Sunbird/$58
> > code in my '727. The ANHT/$8D seems to behave more
'sensibly/predictably.'
> > than the Sunbird/$58 code!
> >
> > I'm currently trying to find a robust algorithm to talk to the
Sunbird/$58
> > code. I have modified ALDLMON (which works but takes longer to lock on
than
> > it does with ANHT/$8D) and played around with some noddy programs of my
own
> > (not w/o some issues, which I'm still trying to get to the bottom of).
Has
> > anybody played with ALDL from Sunbird/$58? The code chucks out $F0 $55
$BB
> > repeatedly. The Turbo code doc. indicates that the ALDL monitor should
> > reply, but does not appear to say with what. Anybody know what the
correct
> > response is?
> >
> > Robin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 mmansur at hotmail.com  Sun Jun  4 16:46:42 2006
From: mmansur at hotmail.com (Mark Mansur)
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 14:46:42 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] 94-95 LT1 ALDL flash information
Message-ID: <BAY107-DAV185D4D3CE5F7F5831C3A81B4970@phx.gbl>

Does anyone out there have leads on information on flashing 94-95 LT1 PCMs 
through ALDL? The info is out there somewhere, as John at TunerCat has it 
and LT1Edit supports it, but so far I've been unable to come up with any 
information on the commands necessary. I'm guessing it's a seed/key type of 
thing, and analyzing the port monitor logs during a read and flash gets 
rather tedious and confusing.

If anyone can point me to ANY information, I'd be most grateful.

Mark 


From romans at starstream.net  Mon Jun  5 23:11:51 2006
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:11:51 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <20060604000932.39791.qmail@web60817.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002901c6891f$56c76f20$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

Hi DarrylAndrew:

We switched the wires on the module and it seems to have killed
the module.  What's weird is that your description is so exactly what the 
symtoms are.
Keep in mind this is a big cap HEI with an internal module.

The timing varies by huge amounts and greatly by engine rpm.

It idles fine in EST bypass.

Everything has been replaced.  One more thing is that this is an EST HEI 
modified to fit
a 350 Buick running a 747 ecm.

Mark




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747


>I wasn't talking about the 4 wires from the module to the ecm. I was 
>talking about the two wires from the ignition pickup coil inside the 
>distributor to the module. If the wires are switched the timing pickup is 
>coming off the curved section of the waveform instead of the vertical slope 
>in the center. This can offset the timing by as much as 40 degress and will 
>vary greatly by engine rpm. (See the piggyback igintion module discussion I 
>started a couple of months ago.) The wires should be white and green (at 
>least off the pickup coil) I don't remember which is positive and which is 
>negative.
>
>  Also since you are obviously having problems and must have extended the 
> pickup coil wires to have a external module: If you need the module more 
> than 1.5" away (The length of  stock pickup coil wires) the spliced in 
> wires need to be twisted for noise reduction. (If you peel the insulation 
> off a piece of network cable you will get the idea)
>
>  Good luck!
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> 



From dgilbert78 at juno.com  Mon Jun  5 23:38:56 2006
From: dgilbert78 at juno.com (dgilbert78 at juno.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 00:38:56 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <20060606.003857.-185273.2.dgilbert78@juno.com>

EST timing. I once had a small cap problem that I fought for awhile with
erratic timing. I benched the dist in a vise, connected a few wires and
played with it a lot. used the timing light to watch the dist. Found that
had to much end play in the shaft. Could fire the dist by simply moving
the shaft up and down. Watch out for cracked magnet material, makes extra
poles i think. Shimmed shaft endplay so would not cause spark when shaft
moved vertically . It is truly amazing just how slow you can rotate the
shaft and still produce a spark. I think the internal coil module has 1
less pin, but is basically the same module. In bypass the ECM has no
control, it is all internal. If jumping timing it is the ECM telling the
module to fire when not in bypass. If you have a knock module it could be
detecting knocks and retarding the spark at random. Could be false
knocks. An O scope at times like this works wonders. I have a complete
break out box i made for the 1227747, I can scope any wire or measure any
voltage if i need to work on something that is giving me problems. I had
a small cap and augured the top of the cap out at each tower so I could
watch the spark inside the cap when running, that showed me a lot,
uncovered a timing error on my part. I do not know if you can do that on
the big cap with the coil in top (i assume you have the coil in top) Good
luck
Darryl...
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:11:51 -0700 "Mark Romans" <romans at starstream.net>
writes:
> Hi DarrylAndrew:
> 
> We switched the wires on the module and it seems to have killed
> the module.  What's weird is that your description is so exactly 
> what the 
> symtoms are.
> Keep in mind this is a big cap HEI with an internal module.
> 
> The timing varies by huge amounts and greatly by engine rpm.
> 
> It idles fine in EST bypass.
> 
> Everything has been replaced.  One more thing is that this is an EST 
> HEI 
> modified to fit
> a 350 Buick running a 747 ecm.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 5:09 PM
> Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
> 
> 
> >I wasn't talking about the 4 wires from the module to the ecm. I 
> was 
> >talking about the two wires from the ignition pickup coil inside 
> the 
> >distributor to the module. If the wires are switched the timing 
> pickup is 
> >coming off the curved section of the waveform instead of the 
> vertical slope 
> >in the center. This can offset the timing by as much as 40 degress 
> and will 
> >vary greatly by engine rpm. (See the piggyback igintion module 
> discussion I 
> >started a couple of months ago.) The wires should be white and 
> green (at 
> >least off the pickup coil) I don't remember which is positive and 
> which is 
> >negative.
> >
> >  Also since you are obviously having problems and must have 
> extended the 
> > pickup coil wires to have a external module: If you need the 
> module more 
> > than 1.5" away (The length of  stock pickup coil wires) the 
> spliced in 
> > wires need to be twisted for noise reduction. (If you peel the 
> insulation 
> > off a piece of network cable you will get the idea)
> >
> >  Good luck!
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Jun  6 03:47:50 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:47:50 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Clearing fault codes
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <000601c68945$e5733800$020101c0@gandalf>

I've been trying to get rid of some spurious fault codes and I've realised
that I'm not exactly sure how they latch.

If the fault (e.g. 33 - MAP too HIGH) goes away, after it has been present,
should the flag automatically clear? Or is a total ECM reset required? I've
had no luck with using ALDL commands to clear malfs. Is it required to
remove all power from the ECM? If so, for how long?

Robin



From darrenfreed at shaw.ca  Tue Jun  6 07:57:10 2006
From: darrenfreed at shaw.ca (Darren Freed)
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:57:10 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] 94-95 LT1 ALDL flash information
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-DAV185D4D3CE5F7F5831C3A81B4970@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-DAV185D4D3CE5F7F5831C3A81B4970@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <44857BA6.9000700@shaw.ca>

I got this all sorted out a while ago, because I was planning to write a 
reflash program for the '4737 and '6397 pcms (v6, flash based, similar 
to the '8051).  The security access isn't too difficult, as I recall, 
and then the code to reflash is downloaded to ram, then executed.  I'll 
dig up what I can find and send it to you.

darren



Mark Mansur wrote:
> Does anyone out there have leads on information on flashing 94-95 LT1 PCMs 
> through ALDL? The info is out there somewhere, as John at TunerCat has it 
> and LT1Edit supports it, but so far I've been unable to come up with any 
> information on the commands necessary. I'm guessing it's a seed/key type of 
> thing, and analyzing the port monitor logs during a read and flash gets 
> rather tedious and confusing.
> 
> If anyone can point me to ANY information, I'd be most grateful.
> 
> Mark 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> 


From aoturneriii at tds.net  Tue Jun  6 09:53:15 2006
From: aoturneriii at tds.net (Arby)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:53:15 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 1227747 Questions
Message-ID: <004f01c68978$f2b3d370$0300a8c0@NATALIE>


What is an ADU error, code 55, on a 747 computer?  Is it possible to damage the computer by firing 454 injectors only using 2 outputs instead of all 4?  Also, is it common to have frequent breaks in the DataStream when trying to datalog the 747 using WINALDL? 

Thank you,

From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Jun  6 12:19:01 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:19:01 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net><023601c687f3$99b7a570$020101c0@gandalf>
	<BAY107-DAV18D965B211490E0726C1A7B4970@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <002601c6898d$8b63ded0$020101c0@gandalf>

Thanks Mark. I've yet to find the bug (been fighting other ECM 'fires') but
I intend to find out what's going on...

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Mansur" <mmansur at hotmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 04 June 2006 19:33
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol


> Hi Robin -
>
> I've had much recent experience with $58 in my work to make TunerPro much
> more robust.
>
> Indeed $58 is rather chatty and timing sensitive. The ECM/BCC send "I'm
> alive" chatter message ($F0 $55 $BB) every 200ms (if I remember
correctly).
> In order to get that to stop, you need to listen for the chatter message
and
> respond with a MODE 1 dump request in the window between the chatter
> messages. Some docs seem to mention that you can send the message at any
> point between, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I send the mode 1
> request 1ms after I receive the $BB. Note that many other ECMs that
function
> like this actually require a mode 8 command to silence chatter (and a Mode
0
> to restart normal comms), but $58 requires a mode 1 dump. If you get a
> successful reply from the mode 1 dump request, the ECM will be silent for
as
> long as you continue to send requests to the ECM. If your requests cease
for
> 5 seconds, the chatter will once again begin.
>
> What you describe does indeed sound like a bug in your test program (are
you
> flushing the FIFO as you should be?).
>
> More helpful information from Blacky can be found here:
> http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/archive/html_gm_archive_num_12/msg08681.html
>
> Hope this helps, and good luck!
>
> Mark
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
>
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> I think you're dead right about the timing sensitivity. I'm really
surprised
> that GM made the $58 code behave differently from the $8D, though. My
> current $58 test program waits until it sees the $BB checkum of the
chatter
> message and immediately after sends a request for Mode 1 data - which the
> $58 responds to with data, and the chatter message is inhibited for a few
> seconds. It seems that, if the Mode 1 request doesn't come out at just the
> right time, it is ignored and the chatter messages just churn out. That
> isn't the case with $8D. The weird thing is that, with my test program,
the
> $58 code gives me the Mode 1 data 3 times consecutively from my program
> start and then ignores subsequent requests! If I stop and restart my
program
> it does the same again. This sounds like a bug in my program, but I tried
> the program with ANHT/$8D and it worked fine! I know the $58 should work
> repeatedly because, once locked on, ALDLMON works. This is really
confusing
> me ATM! :-)
>
> BTW: Yes, the Turbo P4 doc is the one I was referring to. Following what
it
> describes, I've been testing the Mode 4 ability to turn the fan on, like I
> did for ANHT/$8D, and having problems with that too, using $58! I expected
> it to work straight away! :-(
>
> BR,
>
> Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Jun  6 12:20:41 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:20:41 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] 'Improper shutdown'
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <002701c6898d$8b935340$020101c0@gandalf>

Been looking at my Sunbird mode words and wondering: what's an 'improper
shutdown'?

Robin



From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  7 21:04:44 2006
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 19:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <002701c6898d$8b935340$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <20060608020444.29196.qmail@web35912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past?  the 
7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?  I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who 
presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere.  The 
question is, how do I coerce it out of them?  I'm specifically looking 
for a schematic of a '2240.


I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr 
charges a fee for access to their schematics..

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From perfdyn at cwnet.com  Thu Jun  8 01:12:39 2006
From: perfdyn at cwnet.com (Carl Rumberger)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:12:39 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <20060606.003857.-185273.2.dgilbert78@juno.com>
Message-ID: <00f401c68ac2$e54c4ff0$4f2afea9@DellNotebook>

Mark/Darryl/Andrew:

See the two added response sections below.

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dgilbert78 at juno.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747


> EST timing. I once had a small cap problem that I fought for awhile with
> erratic timing. I benched the dist in a vise, connected a few wires and
> played with it a lot. used the timing light to watch the dist. Found that
> had to much end play in the shaft. Could fire the dist by simply moving
> the shaft up and down.

Normal rotation strengthens and weakens the magnetic field, generating a
oscillating voltage in the pick-up windings. Anything that changes the field
strength can generate a signal to trigger the module. Moving the shaft up
and down moves the trigger wheel in and out of the pick-up coil,
strengthening and weakening the magnetic field. Thus it would be possible to
trigger the module by moving the shaft up and down.

The real question is does that occur in normal operation in the engine? The
answer is no. Under normal operation the camshaft drives the dist. gear,
distributor, and oil pump at a relatively constant speed. The combination of
the gears, being cut at an angle, and the power required to drive the oil
pump, generates a considerable upwards thrust. This thrust on the
distributor gear, forces it(and the shaft) up against the distributor's
tanged washer and the trust shim. It stays in this up position as long as
there is rotation and load from the oil pump. It is normal for GM
distributors to have .050" - .080" end play with no adverse effect on
timing.

Now if the camshaft rotation oscillates(drive problems or cam walk) or the
oil pump load varies(binding or cavitation) then this could lead to a up and
down movement of the shaft and spark timing problems, but of course the
distributor didn't create the condition. And though you may be able to mask
the symptoms by removing end play, the real fix lays elsewhere.

>Watch out for cracked magnet material, makes extra
> poles i think. Shimmed shaft endplay so would not cause spark when shaft
> moved vertically . It is truly amazing just how slow you can rotate the
> shaft and still produce a spark. I think the internal coil module has 1
> less pin, but is basically the same module. In bypass the ECM has no
> control, it is all internal. If jumping timing it is the ECM telling the
> module to fire when not in bypass. If you have a knock module it could be
> detecting knocks and retarding the spark at random. Could be false
> knocks. An O scope at times like this works wonders. I have a complete
> break out box i made for the 1227747, I can scope any wire or measure any
> voltage if i need to work on something that is giving me problems. I had
> a small cap and augured the top of the cap out at each tower so I could
> watch the spark inside the cap when running, that showed me a lot,
> uncovered a timing error on my part. I do not know if you can do that on
> the big cap with the coil in top (i assume you have the coil in top) Good
> luck
> Darryl...
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:11:51 -0700 "Mark Romans" <romans at starstream.net>
> writes:
> > Hi DarrylAndrew:
> >
> > We switched the wires on the module and it seems to have killed
> > the module.  What's weird is that your description is so exactly
> > what the
> > symtoms are.

I appear to have gotten in on this series late and am not exactly sure what
the symptoms are but there seems to be a concern about possible reverse
polarity of the pick-up coil. The effects of reversed polarity are unstable
triggering at low RPM, timing shift of near 40 degrees(see other response
below)(of course this could be offset by changing/correcting the initial
timing), incorrect rotor fazing(this can cause significant problems), and
timing shift with RPM. Reversing the polarity as an experiment shouldn't do
any damage to the module unless the shift in rotor fazing caused such an
increase in required spark voltage that the coil secondary windings arced
through the insulation to the primary windings. Of course the primary
windings are connected to the module and the resulting voltage spikes could
possibly do it damage, though the likelihood is pretty low.

The low tech way to check for correct polarity is to disconnect the timing
connector(put the ignition in bypass) and check the timing with a timing
light. Turn the engine off and align the crank timing marks to where they
were observed with the timing light. Remove the dist. cap and rotor so as to
view the alignment of the pick-up coil inner rotating points and the outer
stationary points. If the point are aligned the polarity is correct. If the
rotating points are near midway between the stationary points the polarity
is reversed.

Is the distributor commercially rebuilt(the housing will be abrasively
blasted). If so, I have seen several rebuilt distributors where the pick-up
coil was incorrectly assembled with the magnet upside down. This reverses
the magnetic polarity which in turn reverses the output polarity.

> > Keep in mind this is a big cap HEI with an internal module.
> >
> > The timing varies by huge amounts and greatly by engine rpm.
> >
> > It idles fine in EST bypass.
> >
> > Everything has been replaced.  One more thing is that this is an EST
> > HEI
> > modified to fit
> > a 350 Buick running a 747 ecm.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 5:09 PM
> > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
> >
> >
> > >I wasn't talking about the 4 wires from the module to the ecm. I
> > was
> > >talking about the two wires from the ignition pickup coil inside
> > the
> > >distributor to the module. If the wires are switched the timing
> > pickup is
> > >coming off the curved section of the waveform instead of the
> > vertical slope
> > >in the center. This can offset the timing by as much as 40 degress
> > and will
> > >vary greatly by engine rpm. (See the piggyback igintion module
> > discussion I
> > >started a couple of months ago.) The wires should be white and
> > green (at
> > >least off the pickup coil) I don't remember which is positive and
> > which is
> > >negative.
> > >
> > >  Also since you are obviously having problems and must have
> > extended the
> > > pickup coil wires to have a external module: If you need the
> > module more
> > > than 1.5" away (The length of  stock pickup coil wires) the
> > spliced in
> > > wires need to be twisted for noise reduction. (If you peel the
> > insulation
> > > off a piece of network cable you will get the idea)




From romans at starstream.net  Thu Jun  8 08:51:48 2006
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 06:51:48 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <20060606.003857.-185273.2.dgilbert78@juno.com>
	<00f401c68ac2$e54c4ff0$4f2afea9@DellNotebook>
Message-ID: <001b01c68b02$afda42b0$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

Thanks Carl!  This one is really starting to drive everyone crazy!
Mark
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Rumberger" <perfdyn at cwnet.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747


> Mark/Darryl/Andrew:
>
> See the two added response sections below.
>
> Carl
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <dgilbert78 at juno.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
>
>
>> EST timing. I once had a small cap problem that I fought for awhile with
>> erratic timing. I benched the dist in a vise, connected a few wires and
>> played with it a lot. used the timing light to watch the dist. Found that
>> had to much end play in the shaft. Could fire the dist by simply moving
>> the shaft up and down.
>
> Normal rotation strengthens and weakens the magnetic field, generating a
> oscillating voltage in the pick-up windings. Anything that changes the 
> field
> strength can generate a signal to trigger the module. Moving the shaft up
> and down moves the trigger wheel in and out of the pick-up coil,
> strengthening and weakening the magnetic field. Thus it would be possible 
> to
> trigger the module by moving the shaft up and down.
>
> The real question is does that occur in normal operation in the engine? 
> The
> answer is no. Under normal operation the camshaft drives the dist. gear,
> distributor, and oil pump at a relatively constant speed. The combination 
> of
> the gears, being cut at an angle, and the power required to drive the oil
> pump, generates a considerable upwards thrust. This thrust on the
> distributor gear, forces it(and the shaft) up against the distributor's
> tanged washer and the trust shim. It stays in this up position as long as
> there is rotation and load from the oil pump. It is normal for GM
> distributors to have .050" - .080" end play with no adverse effect on
> timing.
>
> Now if the camshaft rotation oscillates(drive problems or cam walk) or the
> oil pump load varies(binding or cavitation) then this could lead to a up 
> and
> down movement of the shaft and spark timing problems, but of course the
> distributor didn't create the condition. And though you may be able to 
> mask
> the symptoms by removing end play, the real fix lays elsewhere.
>
>>Watch out for cracked magnet material, makes extra
>> poles i think. Shimmed shaft endplay so would not cause spark when shaft
>> moved vertically . It is truly amazing just how slow you can rotate the
>> shaft and still produce a spark. I think the internal coil module has 1
>> less pin, but is basically the same module. In bypass the ECM has no
>> control, it is all internal. If jumping timing it is the ECM telling the
>> module to fire when not in bypass. If you have a knock module it could be
>> detecting knocks and retarding the spark at random. Could be false
>> knocks. An O scope at times like this works wonders. I have a complete
>> break out box i made for the 1227747, I can scope any wire or measure any
>> voltage if i need to work on something that is giving me problems. I had
>> a small cap and augured the top of the cap out at each tower so I could
>> watch the spark inside the cap when running, that showed me a lot,
>> uncovered a timing error on my part. I do not know if you can do that on
>> the big cap with the coil in top (i assume you have the coil in top) Good
>> luck
>> Darryl...
>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:11:51 -0700 "Mark Romans" <romans at starstream.net>
>> writes:
>> > Hi DarrylAndrew:
>> >
>> > We switched the wires on the module and it seems to have killed
>> > the module.  What's weird is that your description is so exactly
>> > what the
>> > symtoms are.
>
> I appear to have gotten in on this series late and am not exactly sure 
> what
> the symptoms are but there seems to be a concern about possible reverse
> polarity of the pick-up coil. The effects of reversed polarity are 
> unstable
> triggering at low RPM, timing shift of near 40 degrees(see other response
> below)(of course this could be offset by changing/correcting the initial
> timing), incorrect rotor fazing(this can cause significant problems), and
> timing shift with RPM. Reversing the polarity as an experiment shouldn't 
> do
> any damage to the module unless the shift in rotor fazing caused such an
> increase in required spark voltage that the coil secondary windings arced
> through the insulation to the primary windings. Of course the primary
> windings are connected to the module and the resulting voltage spikes 
> could
> possibly do it damage, though the likelihood is pretty low.
>
> The low tech way to check for correct polarity is to disconnect the timing
> connector(put the ignition in bypass) and check the timing with a timing
> light. Turn the engine off and align the crank timing marks to where they
> were observed with the timing light. Remove the dist. cap and rotor so as 
> to
> view the alignment of the pick-up coil inner rotating points and the outer
> stationary points. If the point are aligned the polarity is correct. If 
> the
> rotating points are near midway between the stationary points the polarity
> is reversed.
>
> Is the distributor commercially rebuilt(the housing will be abrasively
> blasted). If so, I have seen several rebuilt distributors where the 
> pick-up
> coil was incorrectly assembled with the magnet upside down. This reverses
> the magnetic polarity which in turn reverses the output polarity.
>
>> > Keep in mind this is a big cap HEI with an internal module.
>> >
>> > The timing varies by huge amounts and greatly by engine rpm.
>> >
>> > It idles fine in EST bypass.
>> >
>> > Everything has been replaced.  One more thing is that this is an EST
>> > HEI
>> > modified to fit
>> > a 350 Buick running a 747 ecm.
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
>> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> > Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 5:09 PM
>> > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
>> >
>> >
>> > >I wasn't talking about the 4 wires from the module to the ecm. I
>> > was
>> > >talking about the two wires from the ignition pickup coil inside
>> > the
>> > >distributor to the module. If the wires are switched the timing
>> > pickup is
>> > >coming off the curved section of the waveform instead of the
>> > vertical slope
>> > >in the center. This can offset the timing by as much as 40 degress
>> > and will
>> > >vary greatly by engine rpm. (See the piggyback igintion module
>> > discussion I
>> > >started a couple of months ago.) The wires should be white and
>> > green (at
>> > >least off the pickup coil) I don't remember which is positive and
>> > which is
>> > >negative.
>> > >
>> > >  Also since you are obviously having problems and must have
>> > extended the
>> > > pickup coil wires to have a external module: If you need the
>> > module more
>> > > than 1.5" away (The length of  stock pickup coil wires) the
>> > spliced in
>> > > wires need to be twisted for noise reduction. (If you peel the
>> > insulation
>> > > off a piece of network cable you will get the idea)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> 



From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Thu Jun  8 14:46:43 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:46:43 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <09F1E021.2503F12E.DB881660@netscape.net>

Ryan Hess <rgmecm at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ?the 
>7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
Old fashioned reverse engineering.

>I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who 
>presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ?The 
>question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ?

Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There are a few rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
I'm specifically looking 
>for a schematic of a '2240.
>
>
>I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr 
>charges a fee for access to their schematics..

They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt ecm's.  They have no need to support the business of repairing and rebuilding computers.

I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And once you get service info, finding parts is even tougher.

Zaphod



__________________________________________________________________
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 rgmecm at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  8 15:25:19 2006
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <09F1E021.2503F12E.DB881660@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <20060608202519.75768.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer board, and worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.

Who would you suggest I request information from?  Delphi?  Who built their early 90's OBDI ECM's?  

As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found on ZR1 vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded it, but I believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to do?  They don't exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay for nearly $600.  If GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they be out of luck?  

This secretive environment is just terrible.  These things are approaching 15-20 years old now.  



davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess  wrote:

>
>Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ???the 
>7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
Old fashioned reverse engineering.

>I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who 
>presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The 
>question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ???

Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There are a few rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
I'm specifically looking 
>for a schematic of a '2240.
>
>
>I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr 
>charges a fee for access to their schematics..

They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt ecm's.  They have no need to support the business of repairing and rebuilding computers.

I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And once you get service info, finding parts is even tougher.

Zaphod



__________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From charles at taildragger.info  Thu Jun  8 15:39:51 2006
From: charles at taildragger.info (charles at taildragger.info)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:39:51 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <20060608202519.75768.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <09F1E021.2503F12E.DB881660@netscape.net>
	<20060608202519.75768.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <36313.205.175.225.5.1149799191.squirrel@www.taildragger.info>

Seems like there'd be a market for new ECM's that connect to all the
factory wiring, but use modern electronics.  Plus maybe do things a little
better (bigger BLM map, etc.) and with better instrumentation.

I don't think there's anything like this though, is there?  I mean,
besides DIY plans.

> Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer board,
> and worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.
>
> Who would you suggest I request information from?  Delphi?  Who built
> their early 90's OBDI ECM's?
>
> As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found on
> ZR1 vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded
> it, but I believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to
> do?  They don't exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on
> ebay for nearly $600.  If GM doesn't release the schematic for it,
> wouldn't they be out of luck?
>
> This secretive environment is just terrible.  These things are approaching
> 15-20 years old now.
>
>
>
> davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess  wrote:
>
>>
>>Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ???the
>>7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
> Old fashioned reverse engineering.
>
>>I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who
>>presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The
>>question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ???
>
> Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There are
> a few rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
> I'm specifically looking
>>for a schematic of a '2240.
>>
>>
>>I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr
>>charges a fee for access to their schematics..
>
> They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt
> ecm's.  They have no need to support the business of repairing and
> rebuilding computers.
>
> I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service
> information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And
> once you get service info, finding parts is even tougher.
>
> Zaphod
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>
>
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>



From squelch at ix.netcom.com  Thu Jun  8 16:01:39 2006
From: squelch at ix.netcom.com (squelch at ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:01:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <3954751.1149800500348.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

>As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found on ZR1 vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded it, but I believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to do?  They don't exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay for nearly $600.  If GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they be out of luck?  

Actually the 1228331 was used on the ZR-1 and the Lotus Carlton (Inline 6 twin turbo engine, never came to the states)  The 4 cylinder Lotus Esprit turbo uses a different Delphi/GM ECM, but it is also on the endangered list...



John 



From burntkat at sc.rr.com  Thu Jun  8 17:36:23 2006
From: burntkat at sc.rr.com (Burntkat@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:36:23 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <20060608202519.75768.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000401c68b4b$f8923fa0$079fa8c0@brigid>

That's when they introduce you to one of the Sales Droids-- 
"While we're waiting for that info, why don't we go look around the lot at
some of the new models?"

-Signed,
former GM sales droid

Seriously, on all accounts. You don't expect them to care about keeping old
models on the road, do you? That doesn't keep GM afloat. But then, neither
does their management OR business model, from the looks of things...




-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Ryan Hess
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:25 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic


As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found on
ZR1 vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded
it, but I believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to
do?  They don't exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay
for nearly $600.  If GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they
be out of luck?  




From jay at vessels-clan.com  Thu Jun  8 18:50:50 2006
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:50:50 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <36313.205.175.225.5.1149799191.squirrel@www.taildragger.info>
References: <09F1E021.2503F12E.DB881660@netscape.net>
	<20060608202519.75768.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<36313.205.175.225.5.1149799191.squirrel@www.taildragger.info>
Message-ID: <4488B7DA.2010807@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

charles at taildragger.info wrote:
> Seems like there'd be a market for new ECM's that connect to all the
> factory wiring, but use modern electronics.  Plus maybe do things a little
> better (bigger BLM map, etc.) and with better instrumentation.
> 
> I don't think there's anything like this though, is there?  I mean,
> besides DIY plans.

The biggest obsticles to building a "superECM" as suggested on a large 
scale are many, including potential patent infringement and emmissions 
certification.  I don't see a market for it, since most customers want a 
replacement part (i.e. don't care about better code or tuning tools) or 
they want a full-custom aftermarket ECM.  Those of us wanting a better 
GM ECM to hack/tune/play with are relatively few and our needs are 
served reasonably well with what we already have or are willing to build.

There is a group on Thirdgen rewriting the TBI code, but it runs on a 
stock GM ECM.

There are plenty of people willing to sell you an aftermarket ECM, like 
FAST.  They are all DIY tuning (with various levels of software and 
support) and most will run old and modern engines in many states of 
tune.  These are targeted mainly at the aftermarket performance crowd, 
and as such are usually tilted at those with hotter than stock engines, 
nitrous control, boost control, etc.  They are a good choice for cars 
whose ECMs are not hacked nearly as completely as GM offerings and for 
owners that do not want to go the DIY route on hacking/tuning.

The downsides are cost, availability in the event of failure (AutoZone 
stocks most common ECMs but not a FAST / Holley / etc. one, so don't 
break down somewhere with an ECM failure), and some limitations with 
handing some of the things that GM ECMs handle out of the box.  They are 
not pin-for-pin compatible but that's an easy problem to solve.

The biggest problem for many may be that they are not 
emmissions-certified, and I doubt an OBD-II car with such an aftermarket 
ECM would pass (even if it were running clean at the tailpipe) due to 
the OBD-II conversations the test centers have with the vehicle.

Jay Vessels
1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending)


From bcroe at juno.com  Thu Jun  8 21:41:22 2006
From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:41:22 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <20060608.214155.300.3.bcroe@juno.com>

There is a systematic way to get the schematic of a ckt board.  
Its harder if you can't identify some parts, but often a scope 
and a bench can discover the secrets.

Bruce (reverse engineered 79 Cadillac EFI) Roe

8 Jun 2006  Ryan Hess <rgmecm at yahoo.com> writes:
> Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer 
> board, and worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.


From 0708431308 at telia.com  Fri Jun  9 11:35:56 2006
From: 0708431308 at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Christian_m=F6ller?=)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:35:56 +0200
Subject: [Gmecm] Choke
Message-ID: <000601c68be2$c8911960$6401a8c0@HP>

Hello everybody!
I need some help with an "choke" issue,it starts up good but when i shift to
reverse or drive it stops or run rough.
I have a TBI and a 7747 setup on my jeep(amc 360)and RT-tuner to tune with.
Which tables do i use?
Is there any who can help me?
Thankyou Christian





From charles at taildragger.info  Fri Jun  9 12:09:40 2006
From: charles at taildragger.info (charles at taildragger.info)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:09:40 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Aftermarket ECM (was Acquiring ECM schematic_
In-Reply-To: <4488B7DA.2010807@vessels-clan.com>
References: <09F1E021.2503F12E.DB881660@netscape.net>
	<20060608202519.75768.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<36313.205.175.225.5.1149799191.squirrel@www.taildragger.info>
	<4488B7DA.2010807@vessels-clan.com>
Message-ID: <49384.205.175.225.5.1149872980.squirrel@www.taildragger.info>

You can really get a 7747 ECM (e.g.) at Autozone?  I tried on their web
site but couldn't find anything.  That's good to know if true.

Unfortunately, my ECM is modified to take EEPROMs, but I suppose I could
burn an old UV PROM for emergencies.

> Hi there!
>
> charles at taildragger.info wrote:
>> Seems like there'd be a market for new ECM's that connect to all the
>> factory wiring, but use modern electronics.  Plus maybe do things a
>> little
>> better (bigger BLM map, etc.) and with better instrumentation.
>>
>> I don't think there's anything like this though, is there?  I mean,
>> besides DIY plans.
>
> The biggest obsticles to building a "superECM" as suggested on a large
> scale are many, including potential patent infringement and emmissions
> certification.  I don't see a market for it, since most customers want a
> replacement part (i.e. don't care about better code or tuning tools) or
> they want a full-custom aftermarket ECM.  Those of us wanting a better
> GM ECM to hack/tune/play with are relatively few and our needs are
> served reasonably well with what we already have or are willing to build.
>
> There is a group on Thirdgen rewriting the TBI code, but it runs on a
> stock GM ECM.
>
> There are plenty of people willing to sell you an aftermarket ECM, like
> FAST.  They are all DIY tuning (with various levels of software and
> support) and most will run old and modern engines in many states of
> tune.  These are targeted mainly at the aftermarket performance crowd,
> and as such are usually tilted at those with hotter than stock engines,
> nitrous control, boost control, etc.  They are a good choice for cars
> whose ECMs are not hacked nearly as completely as GM offerings and for
> owners that do not want to go the DIY route on hacking/tuning.
>
> The downsides are cost, availability in the event of failure (AutoZone
> stocks most common ECMs but not a FAST / Holley / etc. one, so don't
> break down somewhere with an ECM failure), and some limitations with
> handing some of the things that GM ECMs handle out of the box.  They are
> not pin-for-pin compatible but that's an easy problem to solve.
>
> The biggest problem for many may be that they are not
> emmissions-certified, and I doubt an OBD-II car with such an aftermarket
> ECM would pass (even if it were running clean at the tailpipe) due to
> the OBD-II conversations the test centers have with the vehicle.
>
> Jay Vessels
> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending)
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>



From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net  Fri Jun  9 12:19:45 2006
From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:19:45 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <4489ADB1.4040701@highspeedlink.net>

The secretive environment may stem in part from EPA regulations. I 
mentioned DIY ECM programming to Allen Cline once and he commented that 
GM had no licensed anyone to do anything with the code and said that 
providing me with an uncertified program for the Cadillac Northstar 
could cost him his job, because it would amount to a violation of EPA 
regulations regarding MFG's putting out non-emissions compliant info/parts.

Heaven forbid that 0.0000000002% of cars on the road have tweaked 
ECM's... Typical government bullshit.



Will


> From: Ryan Hess <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer board, and worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.
> 
> Who would you suggest I request information from?  Delphi?  Who built their early 90's OBDI ECM's?  
> 
> As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found on ZR1 vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded it, but I believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to do?  They don't exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay for nearly $600.  If GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they be out of luck?  
> 
> This secretive environment is just terrible.  These things are approaching 15-20 years old now.  
> 
> 
> 
> davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess  wrote:
> 
>> Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ???the 
>> 7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
> Old fashioned reverse engineering.
> 
>> I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who 
>> presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The 
>> question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ???
> 
> Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There are a few rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
> I'm specifically looking 
>> for a schematic of a '2240.
>>
>>
>> I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr 
>> charges a fee for access to their schematics..
> 
> They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt ecm's.  They have no need to support the business of repairing and rebuilding computers.
> 
> I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And once you get service info, finding parts is even tougher.
> 
> Zaphod


From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net  Fri Jun  9 12:22:49 2006
From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:22:49 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 10
Message-ID: <4489AE69.5080702@highspeedlink.net>

APEX'i Power FC's are built along this line... pin/pin compatible with 
various OE ECM's, but programmable and with more "performance" oriented 
features. They are almost exclusively for Japanese imports, though. A 
friend has one in his turbo MR2 Spyder. It's an interesting gizmo. It's 
more limited than hacking a GM computer, but it gets the job done nicely.

DSMLink is a hack of the factory computer for DSM's (Eagle Talons, Mitsu 
Eclipses) that makes the factory computer reasonably tunable, although 
again, this does not have the capability of a hacked GM computer.




Will

> From: charles at taildragger.info
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> Seems like there'd be a market for new ECM's that connect to all the
> factory wiring, but use modern electronics.  Plus maybe do things a little
> better (bigger BLM map, etc.) and with better instrumentation.
> 
> I don't think there's anything like this though, is there?  I mean,
> besides DIY plans.
> 
>> Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer board,
>> and worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.
>>
>> Who would you suggest I request information from?  Delphi?  Who built
>> their early 90's OBDI ECM's?
>>
>> As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found on
>> ZR1 vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded
>> it, but I believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to
>> do?  They don't exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on
>> ebay for nearly $600.  If GM doesn't release the schematic for it,
>> wouldn't they be out of luck?
>>
>> This secretive environment is just terrible.  These things are approaching
>> 15-20 years old now.
>>
>>
>>
>> davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess  wrote:
>>
>>> Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ???the
>>> 7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
>> Old fashioned reverse engineering.
>>
>>> I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who
>>> presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The
>>> question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ???
>> Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There are
>> a few rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
>> I'm specifically looking
>>> for a schematic of a '2240.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr
>>> charges a fee for access to their schematics..
>> They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt
>> ecm's.  They have no need to support the business of repairing and
>> rebuilding computers.
>>
>> I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service
>> information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And
>> once you get service info, finding parts is even tougher.
>>
>> Zaphod


From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  9 13:03:54 2006
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <4489ADB1.4040701@highspeedlink.net>
Message-ID: <20060609180354.31657.qmail@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

And what about schematics?  <grin>

I think you can get away with anything if you slap the "for offroad use only" sticker on it.



William Lucke <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net> wrote: The secretive environment may stem in part from EPA regulations. I 
mentioned DIY ECM programming to Allen Cline once and he commented that 
GM had no licensed anyone to do anything with the code and said that 
providing me with an uncertified program for the Cadillac Northstar 
could cost him his job, because it would amount to a violation of EPA 
regulations regarding MFG's putting out non-emissions compliant info/parts.

Heaven forbid that 0.0000000002% of cars on the road have tweaked 
ECM's... Typical government bullshit.



Will


> From: Ryan Hess 
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer board, and worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.
> 
> Who would you suggest I request information from?  Delphi?  Who built their early 90's OBDI ECM's?  
> 
> As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found on ZR1 vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded it, but I believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to do?  They don't exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay for nearly $600.  If GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they be out of luck?  
> 
> This secretive environment is just terrible.  These things are approaching 15-20 years old now.  
> 
> 
> 
> davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess  wrote:
> 
>> Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ???the 
>> 7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
> Old fashioned reverse engineering.
> 
>> I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who 
>> presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The 
>> question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ???
> 
> Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There are a few rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
> I'm specifically looking 
>> for a schematic of a '2240.
>>
>>
>> I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr 
>> charges a fee for access to their schematics..
> 
> They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt ecm's.  They have no need to support the business of repairing and rebuilding computers.
> 
> I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And once you get service info, finding parts is even tougher.
> 
> Zaphod
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From aoturneriii at tds.net  Fri Jun  9 13:50:32 2006
From: aoturneriii at tds.net (Arby)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:50:32 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Choke
References: <000601c68be2$c8911960$6401a8c0@HP>
Message-ID: <006501c68bf5$98837c00$0300a8c0@NATALIE>

In the constants table there is a value called IAC PARK OR NEUTRAL OFFSET. 
What it does, it moves the idle air motor the number of steps you enter to 
prevent the engine from stalling when you shift from park or neutral to 
another gear.  You might try messing with that value.  I really hope this 
helps.

Arby

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christian m?ller" <0708431308 at telia.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Choke


> Hello everybody!
> I need some help with an "choke" issue,it starts up good but when i shift 
> to
> reverse or drive it stops or run rough.
> I have a TBI and a 7747 setup on my jeep(amc 360)and RT-tuner to tune 
> with.
> Which tables do i use?
> Is there any who can help me?
> Thankyou Christian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm 



From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  9 21:13:31 2006
From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <20060610021331.19259.qmail@web60816.mail.yahoo.com>

I have some info that I think will be useful to all out there concerning triggering of the gm Ignition modules. The distributors don't produce an occilating wave form. (AC Sine wave) I dont know what it is called but here are pictures of both styles so you can see the difference. I also plagerized these from elsewhere so please don't send me nasty notes about not getting the exact patterns or going to the work of creating a website about it.
   
  The sine wave is produced from square teeth. Most mag pulse generators make one like this: www.picotech.com/auto/graphics/fuel_pump_waveform.png
   
  Triangular teeth (GM distributors) make this wave form (Please keep in mind this is only the positive side or upper half. The lower half or negative is a upside down mirror opposite) www.krchealth.com/images/waveform.jpg
   
  The vertical slope is what triggers the module. The module is looking for a specific voltage point to trigger the internal transistor. Too little voltage and nothing will happen. The vertical slope is used because it is always in the same place. If you wire the pickup coil backwards or the magnet is on upside down, the slope will show up first. The timing will be off by about 40 degrees and will change drastically as the engine rpms change (The pattern changes size as the magnetic field speeds up.)
   
  Since I know there will be questions and challenges about timing on a conventional crank sensor with a sine wave: Anything with a crank sensor requires an analog to digital converter. (AD converter) It is additional electronics which were not available in the 70's when gm started using modules instead of points. They also require more space than is available inside a distributor. And also cost a lot more.
   
  In short, the polarity is vital. Triggering off a slope will get you an injector pulse, but will never get you an accurate timing control without an AD converter and a lot of extra homework.

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From bcroe at juno.com  Fri Jun  9 23:02:06 2006
From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 23:02:06 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <20060609.232052.924.3.bcroe@juno.com>

I'm going to add to this.  That second image isn't the whole 
story, because there is no flat horizontal line at left except 
when the shaft first starts turning.  More importantly, the 
waveform is balanced above and below ground, or + and 
- portions if you like.  The very sharp edge occurs when the 
magnetic field stops building, and starts declining; that 
is about as the pole pieces are closest.  This always 
occurs the same spot, though velocity may change the 
amplitude and period of the waveform.  

The module senses the crossing of voltage from one 
polarity to the other; the voltage it switches at is zero, position 
of which is not affected by amplitude.  The module is supposed 
to fire on the very rapid transition, which will be very accurate.  
If the wires are reversed, the module will fire on the very slow 
changing part of the waveform crossing zero, which is way off 
in time and not so accurate.  My recollection is that proper 
firing is on the negative edge (relative to ground).  

Bruce Roe

9 Jun 2006  Andrew Gibson <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com> writes:
> I have some info that I think will be useful to all out there 
> concerning triggering of the gm Ignition modules. The distributors 
> don't produce an occilating wave form. (AC Sine wave) I dont know 
> what it is called but here are pictures of both styles so you can 
> see the difference. I also plagerized these from elsewhere so please 
> don't send me nasty notes about not getting the exact patterns or 
> going to the work of creating a website about it.
>    
>   The sine wave is produced from square teeth. Most mag pulse 
> generators make one like this: 
> www.picotech.com/auto/graphics/fuel_pump_waveform.png
>    
>   Triangular teeth (GM distributors) make this wave form (Please 
> keep in mind this is only the positive side or upper half. The lower 
> half or negative is a upside down mirror opposite) 
> www.krchealth.com/images/waveform.jpg
>    
>   The vertical slope is what triggers the module. The module is 
> looking for a specific voltage point to trigger the internal 
> transistor. Too little voltage and nothing will happen. The vertical 
> slope is used because it is always in the same place. If you wire 
> the pickup coil backwards or the magnet is on upside down, the slope 
> will show up first. The timing will be off by about 40 degrees and 
> will change drastically as the engine rpms change (The pattern 
> changes size as the magnetic field speeds up.)
>    
>   Since I know there will be questions and challenges about timing 
> on a conventional crank sensor with a sine wave: Anything with a 
> crank sensor requires an analog to digital converter. (AD converter) 
> It is additional electronics which were not available in the 70's 
> when gm started using modules instead of points. They also require 
> more space than is available inside a distributor. And also cost a 
> lot more.
>    
>   In short, the polarity is vital. Triggering off a slope will get 
> you an injector pulse, but will never get you an accurate timing 
> control without an AD converter and a lot of extra homework.


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 10 04:42:37 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:42:37 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <20060609.232052.924.3.bcroe@juno.com>
Message-ID: <028501c68c72$36867660$020101c0@gandalf>

Please excuse my ignorance.

Is the upshot of this discussion that dizzy triggering does or does not
provide adequately accurate timing (for ignition/injection), IFF the two
wires of the reluctor trigger are connected the correct way around to the
HEI?

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: <bcroe at juno.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 10 June 2006 05:02
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747


> I'm going to add to this.  That second image isn't the whole
> story, because there is no flat horizontal line at left except
> when the shaft first starts turning.  More importantly, the
> waveform is balanced above and below ground, or + and
> - portions if you like.  The very sharp edge occurs when the
> magnetic field stops building, and starts declining; that
> is about as the pole pieces are closest.  This always
> occurs the same spot, though velocity may change the
> amplitude and period of the waveform.
>
> The module senses the crossing of voltage from one
> polarity to the other; the voltage it switches at is zero, position
> of which is not affected by amplitude.  The module is supposed
> to fire on the very rapid transition, which will be very accurate.
> If the wires are reversed, the module will fire on the very slow
> changing part of the waveform crossing zero, which is way off
> in time and not so accurate.  My recollection is that proper
> firing is on the negative edge (relative to ground).
>
> Bruce Roe
>
> 9 Jun 2006  Andrew Gibson <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com> writes:
> > I have some info that I think will be useful to all out there
> > concerning triggering of the gm Ignition modules. The distributors
> > don't produce an occilating wave form. (AC Sine wave) I dont know
> > what it is called but here are pictures of both styles so you can
> > see the difference. I also plagerized these from elsewhere so please
> > don't send me nasty notes about not getting the exact patterns or
> > going to the work of creating a website about it.
> >
> >   The sine wave is produced from square teeth. Most mag pulse
> > generators make one like this:
> > www.picotech.com/auto/graphics/fuel_pump_waveform.png
> >
> >   Triangular teeth (GM distributors) make this wave form (Please
> > keep in mind this is only the positive side or upper half. The lower
> > half or negative is a upside down mirror opposite)
> > www.krchealth.com/images/waveform.jpg
> >
> >   The vertical slope is what triggers the module. The module is
> > looking for a specific voltage point to trigger the internal
> > transistor. Too little voltage and nothing will happen. The vertical
> > slope is used because it is always in the same place. If you wire
> > the pickup coil backwards or the magnet is on upside down, the slope
> > will show up first. The timing will be off by about 40 degrees and
> > will change drastically as the engine rpms change (The pattern
> > changes size as the magnetic field speeds up.)
> >
> >   Since I know there will be questions and challenges about timing
> > on a conventional crank sensor with a sine wave: Anything with a
> > crank sensor requires an analog to digital converter. (AD converter)
> > It is additional electronics which were not available in the 70's
> > when gm started using modules instead of points. They also require
> > more space than is available inside a distributor. And also cost a
> > lot more.
> >
> >   In short, the polarity is vital. Triggering off a slope will get
> > you an injector pulse, but will never get you an accurate timing
> > control without an AD converter and a lot of extra homework.
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>



From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Sat Jun 10 07:36:01 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:36:01 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <20060608202519.75768.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8C85AA1914DC60D-1048-1DC58@mblkn-m14.sysops.aol.com>

AFAIK The 8331 guys have to stick together.  When Chevrolet announced 
no more parts for the ZR1 everything suddenly disappeared.  I suppose 
the guys who can afford that car can also afford the parts?  It must be 
really tough if you're not a resident of the US.

I have to think the wise answer is to move on to the next generation of 
engine control hardware, at least for us.  The later pcm's have more of 
everything... but we really aren't using them.  Why?  Same old story.  
Not enough info about the code, not enough tools to work with them.

It's really, really too bad that GM / Delco / Delphi never saw fit to 
release a reasonably priced aftermarket ecm.  Even an "offroad only" 
limited function code for a specific OBDII pcm would have been nice.

Zaphod

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Hess <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic

   Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer 
board, and
worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.

Who would you suggest I request information from?  Delphi?  Who built 
their
early 90's OBDI ECM's?

As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found 
on ZR1
vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded 
it, but I
believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to do?  
They don't
exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay for nearly 
$600.  If
GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they be out of luck?

This secretive environment is just terrible.  These things are 
approaching 15-20
years old now.



davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess  wrote:

>
>Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ???the
>7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
Old fashioned reverse engineering.

>I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who
>presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The
>question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ???

Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There 
are a few
rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
I'm specifically looking
>for a schematic of a '2240.
>
>
>I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr
>charges a fee for access to their schematics..

They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt 
ecm's.
They have no need to support the business of repairing and rebuilding 
computers.

I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service
information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And 
once you
get service info, finding parts is even tougher.

Zaphod



__________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com


From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Sat Jun 10 07:42:30 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:42:30 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <4489ADB1.4040701@highspeedlink.net>
References: <4489ADB1.4040701@highspeedlink.net>
Message-ID: <8C85AA278BA06F6-1048-1DC8E@mblkn-m14.sysops.aol.com>

Yeah, the concern over liability is everywhere in GM land.  I called GM 
customer service line looking for specs for a cam once, a cam sold for 
"offroad use only", and when I mentioned that I was going to use it in 
an offroad engine in a modified vehicle (racecar) the person at the 
other end wouldn't talk to me any more.  I had to call back and I made 
sure to only answer questions I was asked. :)

-----Original Message-----
From: William Lucke <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:19:45 -0400
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic

   The secretive environment may stem in part from EPA regulations. I 
mentioned DIY ECM programming to Allen Cline once and he commented that 
GM had no licensed anyone to do anything with the code and said that 
providing me with an uncertified program for the Cadillac Northstar 
could cost him his job, because it would amount to a violation of EPA 
regulations regarding MFG's putting out non-emissions compliant 
info/parts.

  Heaven forbid that 0.0000000002% of cars on the road have tweaked 
ECM's... Typical government bullshit.


 Will

 > From: Ryan Hess <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
 > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
  > > Wow, I did not know that. I can't imagine going through a 4 layer 
board, and worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.
  > > Who would you suggest I request information from? Delphi? Who 
built their early 90's OBDI ECM's? > > As sort of an aside, GM stopped 
making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found on ZR1 vettes and the turbo 
lotus. There was another part # that superceeded it, but I believe it 
too had been discontinued. What are those people to do? They don't 
exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay for nearly 
$600. If GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they be out 
of luck? > > This secretive environment is just terrible. These things 
are approaching 15-20 years old now. > > > > 
davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess wrote:
  > >> Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? 
???the >> 7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
 > Old fashioned reverse engineering.
  > >> I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who >> presumably has 
a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The >> question is, 
how do I coerce it out of them? ???
  > > Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer? 
There are a few rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some 
way.
 > I'm specifically looking >> for a schematic of a '2240.
 >>
 >>
  >> I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr 
>> charges a fee for access to their schematics..
  > > They may not release schematics at all. GM is a provider of 
rebuilt ecm's. They have no need to support the business of repairing 
and rebuilding computers.
  > > I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco 
service information for audio products, even those which are 15 years 
old. And once you get service info, finding parts is even tougher.
 > > Zaphod
 _______________________________________________
 Gmecm mailing list
 Gmecm at diy-efi.org
 http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com


From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Sat Jun 10 07:56:32 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:56:32 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Clearing fault codes
In-Reply-To: <000601c68945$e5733800$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net>
	<000601c68945$e5733800$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <8C85AA46E93B0E6-1048-1DCE2@mblkn-m14.sysops.aol.com>

I haven't had any luck using aftermarket laptop software to clear 7749 
MALF's.  I can't remember if the dealer scantool was effective for 
this.  I generally pull the plug if I need to clear the codes right now.

There is code in the $58 which causes the ecm to automatically clear 
MALF's from memory after a specific number of key cycles.  I set that 
to 5, figuring that a current code will continue to be current, and a 
passing code due to my error with an eprom or running too much boost 
shouldn't hang around at all.


Zaphod

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:47:50 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Clearing fault codes

   I've been trying to get rid of some spurious fault codes and I've 
realised
that I'm not exactly sure how they latch.

If the fault (e.g. 33 - MAP too HIGH) goes away, after it has been 
present,
should the flag automatically clear? Or is a total ECM reset required? 
I've
had no luck with using ALDL commands to clear malfs. Is it required to
remove all power from the ECM? If so, for how long?

Robin

_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com



From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Sat Jun 10 07:56:48 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:56:48 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 'Improper shutdown'
In-Reply-To: <002701c6898d$8b935340$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net>
	<002701c6898d$8b935340$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <8C85AA4780E01CD-1048-1DCE7@mblkn-m14.sysops.aol.com>

Good question.  I believe it's an engine shutdown without interruption 
to ignition power.  It's a stall IOW.

Zaphod

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:20:41 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] 'Improper shutdown'

   Been looking at my Sunbird mode words and wondering: what's an 
'improper
shutdown'?

Robin

_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com



From bcroe at juno.com  Sat Jun 10 10:53:42 2006
From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:53:42 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <20060610.105343.316.1.bcroe@juno.com>

It is extremely important to have the wires connected the correct way.  

Bruce Roe

10 Jun 2006  "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> Please excuse my ignorance.
> 
> Is the upshot of this discussion that dizzy triggering does or does 
> not
> provide adequately accurate timing (for ignition/injection), IFF the 
> two
> wires of the reluctor trigger are connected the correct way around 
> to the
> HEI?
> 
> Robin


From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 10 12:58:01 2006
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <8C85AA1914DC60D-1048-1DC58@mblkn-m14.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <20060610175801.17216.qmail@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Lets try this again...  my first message bounced from the mail server.

I may have acquired an 8331.  Anybody wanna see what's inside?  :D  
Anybody want anything specific done?  I was thinking about taking high res 
pics, and putting them up on the DIY-EFI ftp or something.  Don't know 
how, but I don't have it yet...  I'm trying to get the wiring diagram 
as well.

in re: the OBDII...  All we really need is someone to leak the source 
code for one. 

Ryan

davesnot


davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: AFAIK The 8331 guys have to stick together.  When Chevrolet announced 
no more parts for the ZR1 everything suddenly disappeared.  I suppose 
the guys who can afford that car can also afford the parts?  It must be 
really tough if you're not a resident of the US.

I have to think the wise answer is to move on to the next generation of 
engine control hardware, at least for us.  The later pcm's have more of 
everything... but we really aren't using them.  Why?  Same old story.  
Not enough info about the code, not enough tools to work with them.

It's really, really too bad that GM / Delco / Delphi never saw fit to 
release a reasonably priced aftermarket ecm.  Even an "offroad only" 
limited function code for a specific OBDII pcm would have been nice.

Zaphod

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Hess 
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic

   Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer 
board, and
worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.

Who would you suggest I request information from?  Delphi?  Who built 
their
early 90's OBDI ECM's?

As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found 
on ZR1
vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded 
it, but I
believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to do?  
They don't
exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay for nearly 
$600.  If
GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they be out of luck?

This secretive environment is just terrible.  These things are 
approaching 15-20
years old now.



davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess  wrote:

>
>Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ???the
>7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
Old fashioned reverse engineering.

>I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who
>presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The
>question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ???

Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There 
are a few
rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
I'm specifically looking
>for a schematic of a '2240.
>
>
>I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr
>charges a fee for access to their schematics..

They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt 
ecm's.
They have no need to support the business of repairing and rebuilding 
computers.

I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service
information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And 
once you
get service info, finding parts is even tougher.

Zaphod



__________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 10 15:50:00 2006
From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <20060610205000.25887.qmail@web60823.mail.yahoo.com>

>I'm going to add to this.  That second image isn't the whole 
>story, because there is no flat horizontal line at left except 
>when the shaft first starts turning.  More importantly, the 
>waveform is balanced above and below ground, or + and 
>- portions if you like.  The very sharp edge occurs when the 
>magnetic field stops building, and starts declining; that 
>is about as the pole pieces are closest.  This always 
>occurs the same spot, though velocity may change the 
>amplitude and period of the waveform.  

  You nailed it there Bruce. I had to "borrow" some pics from the net 
  since this is a text only mailing list. And I couldn't find the exact one I wanted.
   
  >The module senses the crossing of voltage from one 
>polarity to the other; the voltage it switches at is zero, position 
>of which is not affected by amplitude.The module is supposed 
>to fire on the very rapid transition, which will be very accurate.  
>If the wires are reversed, the module will fire on the very slow 
>changing part of the waveform crossing zero, which is way off 
>in time and not so accurate.  My recollection is that proper 
>firing is on the negative edge (relative to ground).  

  Sort of. It doesn't look for the voltage transistion. It's looking for a threshold volatge.
  If you manage to get your hands of a schematic of the insides of a gm hei
  module (4 or 7 pin doesn't matter) the system is controlled by a transistor. For those 
  who don't know transistors are a voltage gate controlled by a lower voltage. They can 
  either be positively or negatively controlled. In the case of the module they are positive 
  controlled. To open they need a minimum threshold voltage applied to the gate. This 
  voltage varies from transistor to transistor. Transistors don't care about opposing 
  voltage applied. (aka: the bottom half of the scope pattern)
   
  Knowing this the hei module is looking for a trigger voltage. Since the pickup produces 
  about 800-900mv it could be anywhere up to about 700 mv. Although it is more likely 
  about 250mv. When the input signal reaches the trigger voltage the transistor is 
  activated, signal strengthened (amplified), run through a flip flop circuit and the coil is 
  turned of which then makes spark. The vertical line in the signal is always centered so 
  it is ideal for that control.
   
  If you wire the pickup backwards, the module is still looking for the positive trigger 
  voltage. Since it will now be on the slope of the pattern and the slope is always 
  moving due to production defects, magnetic field variences, temperature, etc.  timing 
  become uncontrollable.
   
  So yes to Robin, the polarity of the pickup coil is vital to the operation of a GM efi 
  system with distributor. It's pretty darn important on the carburated ones too.
   

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From aoturneriii at tds.net  Sat Jun 10 16:29:29 2006
From: aoturneriii at tds.net (Arby)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:29:29 -0400
Subject: Fw: [Gmecm] 1227747 Questions
Message-ID: <00dc01c68cd4$f69604e0$0300a8c0@NATALIE>

Could someone please bite on these questions?  There probably silly but I'm 
stuck in a rut and I could use some expert help.  It will be greatly 
appreciated.


What is an ADU error, code 55, on a 747 computer?  Is it possible to damage 
the computer by firing 454 injectors only using 2 outputs instead of all 4? 
Also, is it common to have frequent breaks in the DataStream when trying to 
datalog the 747 using WINALDL?

Thank you,
Arby
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm 



From 0708431308 at telia.com  Sat Jun 10 16:59:38 2006
From: 0708431308 at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Christian_m=F6ller?=)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:59:38 +0200
Subject: SV: [Gmecm] 1227747 Questions
In-Reply-To: <00dc01c68cd4$f69604e0$0300a8c0@NATALIE>
Message-ID: <000601c68cd9$2b249f10$6401a8c0@HP>

Hello Arby!I have used 7747 and 454 injectors for two years and do not have
any problems.
The pins are connected to the same spot inside the computor.
By the way...i tryed to rise two steps in IAC PARK AND NEUTRAL OFFSET,much
better but when i drive away(touch the trottle)it stops.Is there any other
parameters to work with?
Christian

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr?n: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] F?r Arby
Skickat: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:29 PM
Till: gmecm at diy-efi.org
?mne: Fw: [Gmecm] 1227747 Questions

Could someone please bite on these questions?  There probably silly but I'm 
stuck in a rut and I could use some expert help.  It will be greatly 
appreciated.


What is an ADU error, code 55, on a 747 computer?  Is it possible to damage 
the computer by firing 454 injectors only using 2 outputs instead of all 4? 
Also, is it common to have frequent breaks in the DataStream when trying to 
datalog the 747 using WINALDL?

Thank you,
Arby
_______________________________________________
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 ttownsley at sprynet.com  Sat Jun 10 18:59:12 2006
From: ttownsley at sprynet.com (Tyler Townsley)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:59:12 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <20060610175801.17216.qmail@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060610175801.17216.qmail@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <448B5CD0.4080202@sprynet.com>

You can still get a rebuilt zr1 ecm with your core(all years have been 
superceeded with one number, just use your year specific eprom). So 
someone out there has the spects as it not GM doing the work. There is a 
complete hac for the 90-91 calibration. A 90 zr1 is a steal right now. 
Parts and info is avaiable on the zr1 net and corvette forums.

Tyler

Ryan Hess wrote:

>Lets try this again...  my first message bounced from the mail server.
>
>I may have acquired an 8331.  Anybody wanna see what's inside?  :D  
>Anybody want anything specific done?  I was thinking about taking high res 
>pics, and putting them up on the DIY-EFI ftp or something.  Don't know 
>how, but I don't have it yet...  I'm trying to get the wiring diagram 
>as well.
>
>in re: the OBDII...  All we really need is someone to leak the source 
>code for one. 
>
>Ryan
>
>davesnot
>
>
>davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: AFAIK The 8331 guys have to stick together.  When Chevrolet announced 
>no more parts for the ZR1 everything suddenly disappeared.  I suppose 
>the guys who can afford that car can also afford the parts?  It must be 
>really tough if you're not a resident of the US.
>
>I have to think the wise answer is to move on to the next generation of 
>engine control hardware, at least for us.  The later pcm's have more of 
>everything... but we really aren't using them.  Why?  Same old story.  
>Not enough info about the code, not enough tools to work with them.
>
>It's really, really too bad that GM / Delco / Delphi never saw fit to 
>release a reasonably priced aftermarket ecm.  Even an "offroad only" 
>limited function code for a specific OBDII pcm would have been nice.
>
>Zaphod
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ryan Hess 
>To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>Sent: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
>
>   Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer 
>board, and
>worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.
>
>Who would you suggest I request information from?  Delphi?  Who built 
>their
>early 90's OBDI ECM's?
>
>As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found 
>on ZR1
>vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded 
>it, but I
>believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to do?  
>They don't
>exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay for nearly 
>$600.  If
>GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they be out of luck?
>
>This secretive environment is just terrible.  These things are 
>approaching 15-20
>years old now.
>
>
>
>davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess  wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ???the
>>7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
>>    
>>
>Old fashioned reverse engineering.
>
>  
>
>>I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who
>>presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The
>>question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ???
>>    
>>
>
>Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There 
>are a few
>rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
>I'm specifically looking
>  
>
>>for a schematic of a '2240.
>>
>>
>>I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr
>>charges a fee for access to their schematics..
>>    
>>
>
>They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt 
>ecm's.
>They have no need to support the business of repairing and rebuilding 
>computers.
>
>I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service
>information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And 
>once you
>get service info, finding parts is even tougher.
>
>Zaphod
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>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
>_______________________________________________
>Gmecm mailing list
>Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Gmecm mailing list
>Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>
>
>___________________________________________________
>Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
>Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
>http://mail.netscape.com
>_______________________________________________
>Gmecm mailing list
>Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>_______________________________________________
>Gmecm mailing list
>Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>
>
>  
>




From dgilbert78 at juno.com  Sat Jun 10 20:31:39 2006
From: dgilbert78 at juno.com (dgilbert78 at juno.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:31:39 -0400
Subject: SV: [Gmecm] 1227747 Questions
Message-ID: <20060610.213139.-71327.0.dgilbert78@juno.com>

Hello: Make absolutely sure that the vacuum ported to the MAP is not
restricted in any way. lots of times there is a vacuum leak in the MAP
hose or the port in the TBI is carboned up. Put a vacuum gauge on it and
looks just fine, but vacuum is delayed, and MAP is slow responding, hence
forth engine will be fuel starved and die when throttle is cracked.
good luck
Darryl....
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:59:38 +0200 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Christian_m=F6ller?=
<0708431308 at telia.com> writes:
> Hello Arby!I have used 7747 and 454 injectors for two years and do 
> not have
> any problems.
> The pins are connected to the same spot inside the computor.
> By the way...i tryed to rise two steps in IAC PARK AND NEUTRAL 
> OFFSET,much
> better but when i drive away(touch the trottle)it stops.Is there any 
> other
> parameters to work with?
> Christian
> 
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Fr?n: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] 
> F?r Arby
> Skickat: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:29 PM
> Till: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> ?mne: Fw: [Gmecm] 1227747 Questions
> 
> Could someone please bite on these questions?  There probably silly 
> but I'm 
> stuck in a rut and I could use some expert help.  It will be greatly 
> 
> appreciated.
> 
> 
> What is an ADU error, code 55, on a 747 computer?  Is it possible to 
> damage 
> the computer by firing 454 injectors only using 2 outputs instead of 
> all 4? 
> Also, is it common to have frequent breaks in the DataStream when 
> trying to 
> datalog the 747 using WINALDL?
> 
> Thank you,
> Arby
> _______________________________________________
> 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 efi at dyakron.com  Sun Jun 11 06:51:49 2006
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:51:49 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Clearing fault codes
In-Reply-To: <8C85AA46E93B0E6-1048-1DCE2@mblkn-m14.sysops.aol.com>
References: <000601c68945$e5733800$020101c0@gandalf>
	<C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net>
	<000601c68945$e5733800$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060611075029.0340d010@dyakron.com>

IIRC, diacon could clear them in my 91 GMC with a 749 and #58 mask
mv

At 08:56 AM 6/10/2006 -0400, you wrote:

>I haven't had any luck using aftermarket laptop software to clear 7749 
>MALF's.  I can't remember if the dealer scantool was effective for 
>this.  I generally pull the plug if I need to clear the codes right now.
>
>There is code in the $58 which causes the ecm to automatically clear 
>MALF's from memory after a specific number of key cycles.  I set that to 
>5, figuring that a current code will continue to be current, and a passing 
>code due to my error with an eprom or running too much boost shouldn't 
>hang around at all.
>
>
>Zaphod



From darrenfreed at shaw.ca  Sun Jun 11 13:11:30 2006
From: darrenfreed at shaw.ca (Darren Freed)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:11:30 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
Message-ID: <448C5CD2.7020607@shaw.ca>

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.

Someone mentioned the capability of GM pcms vs the aftermarket - I 
totally agree that GM pcms have _way_ more capability than anything in 
the aftermarket.  With Steve Ravet's VPW interface, a little daughter 
board off the edge connector and a little code tweaking, we can have on 
the fly tuning with all the stock GM pcm capability.  This could be 
applied to any 96-98 4 cyl, v6 or v8 pcm.  I'm not sure about later 
years, since it appears they dropped the edge connecter with newer pcms.

Now I need a nice little GUI in which to do the .bin editing...

Darren


From tpepmeie at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 11 14:47:34 2006
From: tpepmeie at yahoo.com (Todd A. Pepmeier)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 15:47:34 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <448B5CD0.4080202@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.30.1311919708.4730.gmecm@diy-efi.org>

Malcolm Robb has done a really nice job with hi-res pics of the 8331 ecm.
Can be found here:

http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/topcard.htm
http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/iocard.htm
http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/ecu.htm

All of the chips are labeled with part number, but it takes some
cross-referencing to figure out exactly what they are functionally.

Todd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
> Behalf Of Tyler Townsley
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 7:59 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> You can still get a rebuilt zr1 ecm with your core(all years have been
> superceeded with one number, just use your year specific eprom). So
> someone out there has the spects as it not GM doing the work. There is a
> complete hac for the 90-91 calibration. A 90 zr1 is a steal right now.
> Parts and info is avaiable on the zr1 net and corvette forums.
> 
> Tyler
> 
> Ryan Hess wrote:
> 
> >Lets try this again...  my first message bounced from the mail server.
> >
> >I may have acquired an 8331.  Anybody wanna see what's inside?  :D
> >Anybody want anything specific done?  I was thinking about taking high
> res
> >pics, and putting them up on the DIY-EFI ftp or something.  Don't know
> >how, but I don't have it yet...  I'm trying to get the wiring diagram
> >as well.
> >
> >in re: the OBDII...  All we really need is someone to leak the source
> >code for one.
> >
> >Ryan
> >
> >davesnot
> >
> >
> >davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: AFAIK The 8331 guys have to stick
> together.  When Chevrolet announced
> >no more parts for the ZR1 everything suddenly disappeared.  I suppose
> >the guys who can afford that car can also afford the parts?  It must be
> >really tough if you're not a resident of the US.
> >
> >I have to think the wise answer is to move on to the next generation of
> >engine control hardware, at least for us.  The later pcm's have more of
> >everything... but we really aren't using them.  Why?  Same old story.
> >Not enough info about the code, not enough tools to work with them.
> >
> >It's really, really too bad that GM / Delco / Delphi never saw fit to
> >release a reasonably priced aftermarket ecm.  Even an "offroad only"
> >limited function code for a specific OBDII pcm would have been nice.
> >
> >Zaphod
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ryan Hess
> >To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >Sent: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
> >Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> >
> >   Wow, I did not know that.  I can't imagine going through a 4 layer
> >board, and
> >worse, trying to figure out what IC does what.
> >
> >Who would you suggest I request information from?  Delphi?  Who built
> >their
> >early 90's OBDI ECM's?
> >
> >As sort of an aside, GM stopped making/supporting the 1228331 ECM found
> >on ZR1
> >vettes and the turbo lotus.  There was another part # that superceeded
> >it, but I
> >believe it too had been discontinued.  What are those people to do?
> >They don't
> >exist in junkyards (I've looked), and there's *one* on ebay for nearly
> >$600.  If
> >GM doesn't release the schematic for it, wouldn't they be out of luck?
> >
> >This secretive environment is just terrible.  These things are
> >approaching 15-20
> >years old now.
> >
> >
> >
> >davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Ryan Hess  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Question: how have ECM schematics been acquired in the past? ???the
> >>7730/49 on ludis' site, etc?
> >>
> >>
> >Old fashioned reverse engineering.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'm in contact with an ECM remanufacturer, who
> >>presumably has a great deal of knowledge locked away somewhere. ???The
> >>question is, how do I coerce it out of them? ???
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Maybe you should request information as an ecm remanufacturer?  There
> >are a few
> >rebuilders, they must have obtained information in some way.
> >I'm specifically looking
> >
> >
> >>for a schematic of a '2240.
> >>
> >>
> >>I have to assume this is like the TV repair business, where the mfr
> >>charges a fee for access to their schematics..
> >>
> >>
> >
> >They may not release schematics at all.  GM is a provider of rebuilt
> >ecm's.
> >They have no need to support the business of repairing and rebuilding
> >computers.
> >
> >I know that it's easier to pull a hen's teeth than obtain Delco service
> >information for audio products, even those which are 15 years old.  And
> >once you
> >get service info, finding parts is even tougher.
> >
> >Zaphod
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________________________
> >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
> >_______________________________________________
> >Gmecm mailing list
> >Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >Gmecm mailing list
> >Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> >
> >
> >___________________________________________________
> >Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
> >Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
> >http://mail.netscape.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >Gmecm mailing list
> >Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >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 mrgrimes1 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 12 00:10:02 2006
From: mrgrimes1 at yahoo.com (Darrin Garrett)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Crankshaft  signal waveforms
Message-ID: <20060612051002.58049.qmail@web33406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

  Does anyone have a document source of signal waveforms for various crank shaft or distributor timing wheels?  Any wheel configuration would be appreciated. Thanks. 
   
  Darrin

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Jun 12 04:59:37 2006
From: Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk (Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:59:37 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <32880390.1150106377622.JavaMail.www@wwinf3202>

Fame :-)
I have worked out a partial circuit diagram. It's not complete, because I got confused with the DIS/Ignition drive circuits. I'm prepared to put what I've got on incomming - does it work yet ?
I can't speak for the ZR1 guys, but us Lotus Carlton owners have a very strong owners club in the UK. Of the 380 odd cars sold in the UK, over 200 are known to the club. In the past 5 years I'm aware of about 5 ECU failures. These appear to all be ignition related - misfires that can only be cured by swapping ECU's. I've got about 3 ECU's which have been replaced all with the same reported fault. Some day I'll get round to trying to fix them. My worry is that the fault will be in one one of the Delco specific chips on the iocard. If that happens, then we're going to need 'common' ECU's to scavenge parts from.
Does anyone have experiance of the typical ECU failure modes on the ZR1? 
Cheers,
Malcolm Robb
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd A. Pepmeier [SMTP:tpepmeie at yahoo.com]
Sent: 11 June 2006 20:48
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Malcolm Robb has done a really nice job with hi-res pics of the 8331 ecm.
Can be found here:
http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/topcard.htm
http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/iocard.htm
http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/ecu.htm
All of the chips are labeled with part number, but it takes some cross-referencing to figure out exactly what they are functionally.
Todd



From ttownsley at sprynet.com  Mon Jun 12 07:08:23 2006
From: ttownsley at sprynet.com (Tyler Townsley)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:08:23 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <32880390.1150106377622.JavaMail.www@wwinf3202>
References: <32880390.1150106377622.JavaMail.www@wwinf3202>
Message-ID: <448D5937.1040708@sprynet.com>

DIS system info:

 http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page09.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page11.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page12.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page13.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page14.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page15.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page16.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page17.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page18.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page19.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page20.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page21a.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page22.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page23.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page24.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page25.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page25a.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page25b.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page26.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page27a.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page28.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page29.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page29b.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page30.jpg

 

ECM Info:

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/misc/90ecm1.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/misc/90ecm2.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/misc/90ecm157.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/misc/90ecm158.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/misc/90ecm159.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/misc/90ecm160.jpg

http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/misc/90ecm161.jpg

Tyler

Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk wrote:

>Fame :-)
>I have worked out a partial circuit diagram. It's not complete, because I got confused with the DIS/Ignition drive circuits. I'm prepared to put what I've got on incomming - does it work yet ?
>I can't speak for the ZR1 guys, but us Lotus Carlton owners have a very strong owners club in the UK. Of the 380 odd cars sold in the UK, over 200 are known to the club. In the past 5 years I'm aware of about 5 ECU failures. These appear to all be ignition related - misfires that can only be cured by swapping ECU's. I've got about 3 ECU's which have been replaced all with the same reported fault. Some day I'll get round to trying to fix them. My worry is that the fault will be in one one of the Delco specific chips on the iocard. If that happens, then we're going to need 'common' ECU's to scavenge parts from.
>Does anyone have experiance of the typical ECU failure modes on the ZR1? 
>Cheers,
>Malcolm Robb
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd A. Pepmeier [SMTP:tpepmeie at yahoo.com]
>Sent: 11 June 2006 20:48
>To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
>Malcolm Robb has done a really nice job with hi-res pics of the 8331 ecm.
>Can be found here:
>http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/topcard.htm
>http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/iocard.htm
>http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/ecu.htm
>All of the chips are labeled with part number, but it takes some cross-referencing to figure out exactly what they are functionally.
>Todd
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gmecm mailing list
>Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>
>
>  
>




From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 12 08:17:38 2006
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <32880390.1150106377622.JavaMail.www@wwinf3202>
Message-ID: <20060612131738.36908.qmail@web35907.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Do you Carlton owners have a secret online source for the wiring diagrams?  I'd like to compare those to the ZR1.  I assume you guys run sequential as well?

Ryan

Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk wrote: Fame :-)
I have worked out a partial circuit diagram. It's not complete, because I got confused with the DIS/Ignition drive circuits. I'm prepared to put what I've got on incomming - does it work yet ?
I can't speak for the ZR1 guys, but us Lotus Carlton owners have a very strong owners club in the UK. Of the 380 odd cars sold in the UK, over 200 are known to the club. In the past 5 years I'm aware of about 5 ECU failures. These appear to all be ignition related - misfires that can only be cured by swapping ECU's. I've got about 3 ECU's which have been replaced all with the same reported fault. Some day I'll get round to trying to fix them. My worry is that the fault will be in one one of the Delco specific chips on the iocard. If that happens, then we're going to need 'common' ECU's to scavenge parts from.
Does anyone have experiance of the typical ECU failure modes on the ZR1? 
Cheers,
Malcolm Robb
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd A. Pepmeier [SMTP:tpepmeie at yahoo.com]
Sent: 11 June 2006 20:48
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Malcolm Robb has done a really nice job with hi-res pics of the 8331 ecm.
Can be found here:
http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/topcard.htm
http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/iocard.htm
http://www.lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk/ecu.htm
All of the chips are labeled with part number, but it takes some cross-referencing to figure out exactly what they are functionally.
Todd

_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Jun 12 12:33:45 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:33:45 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <20060610205000.25887.qmail@web60823.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <04dd01c68e47$dd60f920$020101c0@gandalf>

>   So yes to Robin, the polarity of the pickup coil is vital to the
operation of a GM efi
>   system with distributor. It's pretty darn important on the carburated
ones too.

Sorry if I didn't word my question clearly. I meant to ask if, when the
polarity is wired up correctly, is the timing of the dizzy trigger regarded
as inferior to DIS or inadequate in any way for ignition/injection?

Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Jun 12 14:35:07 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:35:07 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] 'Improper shutdown'
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net><002701c6898d$8b935340$020101c0@gandalf>
	<8C85AA4780E01CD-1048-1DCE7@mblkn-m14.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <04ec01c68e58$c37fd9c0$020101c0@gandalf>

It may be something odd about my 'gash' installation, or there might be more
to it. I've seen the bit change value but I've seen 'improper' after a
non-stall shutdown and 'proper' after a stall shutdown! :-) Curious!

Thanks.

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: <davesnothereman at netscape.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 10 June 2006 13:56
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 'Improper shutdown'


> Good question.  I believe it's an engine shutdown without interruption
> to ignition power.  It's a stall IOW.
>
> Zaphod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Sent: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:20:41 +0100
> Subject: [Gmecm] 'Improper shutdown'
>
>    Been looking at my Sunbird mode words and wondering: what's an
> 'improper
> shutdown'?
>
> Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Jun 12 14:54:54 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:54:54 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Clearing fault codes
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net><000601c68945$e5733800$020101c0@gandalf>
	<8C85AA46E93B0E6-1048-1DCE2@mblkn-m14.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <04ed01c68e5a$185e4570$020101c0@gandalf>

Following the Turbo P4 doc, I've had another go with the Mode 4 command;
setting the discrete output enable control and state words to $00 and the
mode control enable word to $40, but the MALFs didn't go. There's something
odd about Mode 4 with the Sunbird, though, as when I tried using it to turn
the fan on, I succeeded but a very odd message came back (2nd byte = $52 -
i.e. less than the normal minimum of $55!) followed by ~ 20 data bytes. This
unlocks my test program. Anybody any idea why this 'length' byte is so odd?

I was also being really dopey with the manual approach to MALF clearing. I
(thought I) was disconnecting the main ECM power and wondering why the MALFs
weren't clearing (and wondering if my EPROM changes were wrong), and I
wasn't! Now I've rediscovered how I wired the ECM in to the car (which
provides a really easy method of disconnecting the constant +12v), I'm
successfully clearing the MALFs, so the s/w method isn't so important. The
power disconnect cleared my MALF 33 and it hasn't come back, so I think
raising the value of KKPM33 to 100kPa was the right thing to do - since I'm
running a 1BAR MAP sensor with the code in the 1BAR mode.

I also discovered another interesting 'feature' at the w/e. With ANHT/$8D
s/w (in my 1227727 h/w) my fan was driven by the fan #1 (low fan) code and
thresholds. With Sunbird/$58 s/w, my fan is apparently driven by the high
fan code and thresholds! This is the first apparent wiring difference that
I've encountered. TPS, MAP, HEI, ALDL, and CTS are all ok. All that leaves
for my (later) injection installation is MAT and the injector group fire
wires, I think. I'm hoping these will be as for the 1227727 pin-out as well.
:-)

Thanks,

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: <davesnothereman at netscape.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 10 June 2006 13:56
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Clearing fault codes


> I haven't had any luck using aftermarket laptop software to clear 7749
> MALF's.  I can't remember if the dealer scantool was effective for
> this.  I generally pull the plug if I need to clear the codes right now.
>
> There is code in the $58 which causes the ecm to automatically clear
> MALF's from memory after a specific number of key cycles.  I set that
> to 5, figuring that a current code will continue to be current, and a
> passing code due to my error with an eprom or running too much boost
> shouldn't hang around at all.
>
>
> Zaphod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Sent: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:47:50 +0100
> Subject: [Gmecm] Clearing fault codes
>
>    I've been trying to get rid of some spurious fault codes and I've
> realised
> that I'm not exactly sure how they latch.
>
> If the fault (e.g. 33 - MAP too HIGH) goes away, after it has been
> present,
> should the flag automatically clear? Or is a total ECM reset required?
> I've
> had no luck with using ALDL commands to clear malfs. Is it required to
> remove all power from the ECM? If so, for how long?
>
> Robin



From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net  Mon Jun 12 14:57:33 2006
From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:57:33 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <448DC72D.8030502@highspeedlink.net>

Thanks. Is there anything on page 10?



Will


> From: Tyler Townsley <ttownsley at sprynet.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> DIS system info:
> 
>  http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page09.jpg
> 
> http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page11.jpg
> 


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Jun 12 15:05:09 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:05:09 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net><023601c687f3$99b7a570$020101c0@gandalf>
	<BAY107-DAV18D965B211490E0726C1A7B4970@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <04f601c68e5b$830181c0$020101c0@gandalf>

I think I've got to the bottom of why my test program was breaking down
after 3 successful data message requests. It was our good friend,timing,
again. There was no bug in the program except for the fact that, after
dumping 3 messages worth of hex to the screen, at the next message request
the PC had to scroll the screen. The time taken to do that was enough to
ruin the handshake with the Sunbird code. Although the previous messages had
kicked the Sunbird code out of 'chatter' mode, I was displaying my data
request message bytes on consecutive lines, so there was a slight time delay
BETWEEN BYTES as the screen was scrolled between them being sent out. The
Sunbird code seems to be highly sensitive to this as well!!!

Despite hours of trying, I still haven't managed to get ALDLMON to lock on
quickly to the Sunbird ALDL. It gets there in the end as it keeps chucking
out a data request and eventually the timing must be right. I've tried to
patch in the equivalent of my 'C' code to the Pascal in ALDLMON (waiting for
the end of the chatter message and sending out a data request ASAP after),
but so far no joy and I don't know why. Very frustrating!!!

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Mansur" <mmansur at hotmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 04 June 2006 19:33
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol


> Hi Robin -
>
> I've had much recent experience with $58 in my work to make TunerPro much
> more robust.
>
> Indeed $58 is rather chatty and timing sensitive. The ECM/BCC send "I'm
> alive" chatter message ($F0 $55 $BB) every 200ms (if I remember
correctly).
> In order to get that to stop, you need to listen for the chatter message
and
> respond with a MODE 1 dump request in the window between the chatter
> messages. Some docs seem to mention that you can send the message at any
> point between, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I send the mode 1
> request 1ms after I receive the $BB. Note that many other ECMs that
function
> like this actually require a mode 8 command to silence chatter (and a Mode
0
> to restart normal comms), but $58 requires a mode 1 dump. If you get a
> successful reply from the mode 1 dump request, the ECM will be silent for
as
> long as you continue to send requests to the ECM. If your requests cease
for
> 5 seconds, the chatter will once again begin.
>
> What you describe does indeed sound like a bug in your test program (are
you
> flushing the FIFO as you should be?).
>
> More helpful information from Blacky can be found here:
> http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/archive/html_gm_archive_num_12/msg08681.html
>
> Hope this helps, and good luck!
>
> Mark
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
>
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> I think you're dead right about the timing sensitivity. I'm really
surprised
> that GM made the $58 code behave differently from the $8D, though. My
> current $58 test program waits until it sees the $BB checkum of the
chatter
> message and immediately after sends a request for Mode 1 data - which the
> $58 responds to with data, and the chatter message is inhibited for a few
> seconds. It seems that, if the Mode 1 request doesn't come out at just the
> right time, it is ignored and the chatter messages just churn out. That
> isn't the case with $8D. The weird thing is that, with my test program,
the
> $58 code gives me the Mode 1 data 3 times consecutively from my program
> start and then ignores subsequent requests! If I stop and restart my
program
> it does the same again. This sounds like a bug in my program, but I tried
> the program with ANHT/$8D and it worked fine! I know the $58 should work
> repeatedly because, once locked on, ALDLMON works. This is really
confusing
> me ATM! :-)
>
> BTW: Yes, the Turbo P4 doc is the one I was referring to. Following what
it
> describes, I've been testing the Mode 4 ability to turn the fan on, like I
> did for ANHT/$8D, and having problems with that too, using $58! I expected
> it to work straight away! :-(
>
> BR,
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 04 June 2006 16:29
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
>
>
> > Hi Robin,
> >
> > The $58 code is very timing sensitive.  It's been a while since I've
> played
> > with it so the details are a bit fuzzy,  but as I remember you have to
> send
> > a mode change within a couple hundred milliseconds of the 'chatter'
packet
> > to get it to shut up and start taking commands.  Once you change mode
> it'll
> > respond OK to your commands until it times out aned returns to 'chatter'
> > mode.  Do you have the Turbo-P4 doc?  It's spelled out pretty well in
> there,
> > look for 'turbo_p4' or something like that on incoming.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > > From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> > > Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > > Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:45:12 +0100
> > > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > > Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
> > >
> > > I've noticed different behaviour on ALDL between ANHT/$8D and
> Sunbird/$58
> > > code in my '727. The ANHT/$8D seems to behave more
> 'sensibly/predictably.'
> > > than the Sunbird/$58 code!
> > >
> > > I'm currently trying to find a robust algorithm to talk to the
> Sunbird/$58
> > > code. I have modified ALDLMON (which works but takes longer to lock on
> than
> > > it does with ANHT/$8D) and played around with some noddy programs of
my
> own
> > > (not w/o some issues, which I'm still trying to get to the bottom of).
> Has
> > > anybody played with ALDL from Sunbird/$58? The code chucks out $F0 $55
> $BB
> > > repeatedly. The Turbo code doc. indicates that the ALDL monitor should
> > > reply, but does not appear to say with what. Anybody know what the
> correct
> > > response is?
> > >
> > > Robin



From mmansur at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 12 15:14:30 2006
From: mmansur at hotmail.com (Mark Mansur)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:14:30 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
References: <C0A8748C.99B2%b.shaw@comcast.net><023601c687f3$99b7a570$020101c0@gandalf><BAY107-DAV18D965B211490E0726C1A7B4970@phx.gbl>
	<04f601c68e5b$830181c0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <BAY107-DAV98A4B974A296275936B76B48F0@phx.gbl>

Your timing issue sounds familiar. I just ran into a (perhaps identical, if 
not) similar issue over the weekend. Until Saturday, I could connect up to 
$58 just fine on the test bench with no packet errors. Strangely, on 
Saturday I began to get packet errors on certain UI screens in my test app. 
Only certain screens caused these errors; others did not. The same code is 
being run in all screens. This suggests a timing issue related to UI update. 
What doesn't make sense, though, is that there's no way that timing could 
affect my acquisition code, really. As you mention, only the inter-byte 
timing could be affected (since the message timing times out at ~5 seconds, 
and I'm definitely not going over that!). My inter-byte timing is long 
enough (I've got it at 50ms, I think. I'm not in front of the code at the 
moment). At least I thought.

I wonder if we're hitting the same issue.

What's more, although I can connect fine on the bench, when I try on my 
buddy's Typhoon, it won't connect reliably. Stupid $58 code is sensitive!

I'm going to try clearing out the message scheduler's table in the $58 code. 
That should shut the chatter up and hopefully open things up for simple 
connection, although doing so is only a short term solution (it's not right 
to expect users to do this).

Mark


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol


>I think I've got to the bottom of why my test program was breaking down
> after 3 successful data message requests. It was our good friend,timing,
> again. There was no bug in the program except for the fact that, after
> dumping 3 messages worth of hex to the screen, at the next message request
> the PC had to scroll the screen. The time taken to do that was enough to
> ruin the handshake with the Sunbird code. Although the previous messages 
> had
> kicked the Sunbird code out of 'chatter' mode, I was displaying my data
> request message bytes on consecutive lines, so there was a slight time 
> delay
> BETWEEN BYTES as the screen was scrolled between them being sent out. The
> Sunbird code seems to be highly sensitive to this as well!!!
>
> Despite hours of trying, I still haven't managed to get ALDLMON to lock on
> quickly to the Sunbird ALDL. It gets there in the end as it keeps chucking
> out a data request and eventually the timing must be right. I've tried to
> patch in the equivalent of my 'C' code to the Pascal in ALDLMON (waiting 
> for
> the end of the chatter message and sending out a data request ASAP after),
> but so far no joy and I don't know why. Very frustrating!!!
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Mansur" <mmansur at hotmail.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 04 June 2006 19:33
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
>
>
>> Hi Robin -
>>
>> I've had much recent experience with $58 in my work to make TunerPro much
>> more robust.
>>
>> Indeed $58 is rather chatty and timing sensitive. The ECM/BCC send "I'm
>> alive" chatter message ($F0 $55 $BB) every 200ms (if I remember
> correctly).
>> In order to get that to stop, you need to listen for the chatter message
> and
>> respond with a MODE 1 dump request in the window between the chatter
>> messages. Some docs seem to mention that you can send the message at any
>> point between, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I send the mode 1
>> request 1ms after I receive the $BB. Note that many other ECMs that
> function
>> like this actually require a mode 8 command to silence chatter (and a 
>> Mode
> 0
>> to restart normal comms), but $58 requires a mode 1 dump. If you get a
>> successful reply from the mode 1 dump request, the ECM will be silent for
> as
>> long as you continue to send requests to the ECM. If your requests cease
> for
>> 5 seconds, the chatter will once again begin.
>>
>> What you describe does indeed sound like a bug in your test program (are
> you
>> flushing the FIFO as you should be?).
>>
>> More helpful information from Blacky can be found here:
>> http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/archive/html_gm_archive_num_12/msg08681.html
>>
>> Hope this helps, and good luck!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
>>
>>
>> Hey Bill,
>>
>> I think you're dead right about the timing sensitivity. I'm really
> surprised
>> that GM made the $58 code behave differently from the $8D, though. My
>> current $58 test program waits until it sees the $BB checkum of the
> chatter
>> message and immediately after sends a request for Mode 1 data - which the
>> $58 responds to with data, and the chatter message is inhibited for a few
>> seconds. It seems that, if the Mode 1 request doesn't come out at just 
>> the
>> right time, it is ignored and the chatter messages just churn out. That
>> isn't the case with $8D. The weird thing is that, with my test program,
> the
>> $58 code gives me the Mode 1 data 3 times consecutively from my program
>> start and then ignores subsequent requests! If I stop and restart my
> program
>> it does the same again. This sounds like a bug in my program, but I tried
>> the program with ANHT/$8D and it worked fine! I know the $58 should work
>> repeatedly because, once locked on, ALDLMON works. This is really
> confusing
>> me ATM! :-)
>>
>> BTW: Yes, the Turbo P4 doc is the one I was referring to. Following what
> it
>> describes, I've been testing the Mode 4 ability to turn the fan on, like 
>> I
>> did for ANHT/$8D, and having problems with that too, using $58! I 
>> expected
>> it to work straight away! :-(
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: 04 June 2006 16:29
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
>>
>>
>> > Hi Robin,
>> >
>> > The $58 code is very timing sensitive.  It's been a while since I've
>> played
>> > with it so the details are a bit fuzzy,  but as I remember you have to
>> send
>> > a mode change within a couple hundred milliseconds of the 'chatter'
> packet
>> > to get it to shut up and start taking commands.  Once you change mode
>> it'll
>> > respond OK to your commands until it times out aned returns to 
>> > 'chatter'
>> > mode.  Do you have the Turbo-P4 doc?  It's spelled out pretty well in
>> there,
>> > look for 'turbo_p4' or something like that on incoming.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Bill
>> >
>> > > From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
>> > > Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> > > Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:45:12 +0100
>> > > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> > > Subject: [Gmecm] Sunbird/$58 ALDL protocol
>> > >
>> > > I've noticed different behaviour on ALDL between ANHT/$8D and
>> Sunbird/$58
>> > > code in my '727. The ANHT/$8D seems to behave more
>> 'sensibly/predictably.'
>> > > than the Sunbird/$58 code!
>> > >
>> > > I'm currently trying to find a robust algorithm to talk to the
>> Sunbird/$58
>> > > code. I have modified ALDLMON (which works but takes longer to lock 
>> > > on
>> than
>> > > it does with ANHT/$8D) and played around with some noddy programs of
> my
>> own
>> > > (not w/o some issues, which I'm still trying to get to the bottom 
>> > > of).
>> Has
>> > > anybody played with ALDL from Sunbird/$58? The code chucks out $F0 
>> > > $55
>> $BB
>> > > repeatedly. The Turbo code doc. indicates that the ALDL monitor 
>> > > should
>> > > reply, but does not appear to say with what. Anybody know what the
>> correct
>> > > response is?
>> > >
>> > > Robin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> 


From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Mon Jun 12 23:48:14 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:48:14 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C74341406117830103812E@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of 
> Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:00 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> Fame :-)
> I have worked out a partial circuit diagram. It's not 
> complete, because I got confused with the DIS/Ignition drive 
> circuits. I'm prepared to put what I've got on incomming - 
> does it work yet ?

The incoming directory is world writeable but not readable, in order to
prevent the bit torrent types from filling it up.  Upload it to
incoming, send a note to the list with the filenames and descriptions,
and I'll get them moved over to the "uploads" directory, which is
readable but not writeable.

--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 Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Mon Jun 12 23:55:56 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:55:56 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Crankshaft  signal waveforms
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C74341406117830103812F@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Darrin Garrett
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:10 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] Crankshaft signal waveforms
> 
>   Does anyone have a document source of signal waveforms for 
> various crank shaft or distributor timing wheels?  Any wheel 
> configuration would be appreciated. Thanks. 
>    
>   Darrin

Take a look in the incoming directory for files with "DIS" in them.
These are scans from GM training manuals that show the timing of the DIS
control signals, injector pulses, and the toothed wheel.

--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 Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Tue Jun 13 00:11:57 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:11:57 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301038131@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

> The module senses the crossing of voltage from one polarity 
> to the other; the voltage it switches at is zero, position of 
> which is not affected by amplitude.  The module is supposed 
> to fire on the very rapid transition, which will be very accurate.  
> If the wires are reversed, the module will fire on the very 
> slow changing part of the waveform crossing zero, which is 
> way off in time and not so accurate.  My recollection is that 
> proper firing is on the negative edge (relative to ground).  
> 
> Bruce Roe

My recollection is that the module fires on a threshold voltage, not at
zero.  The threshold voltage will vary in time from the zero crossing
depending on RPM, meaning that the module has some RPM based advance
built into the triggering circuit.  Somewhere in the archives is a
patent (and SAE article number) that describes this.  In fact I think
the datasheet of the triggering IC also has a good description.

For Robin's question, millions of TBI computers are triggered by this
HEI setup.

--steve


-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Jun 13 01:30:08 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:30:08 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301038131@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <058101c68eb3$e6afaa00$020101c0@gandalf>

> For Robin's question, millions of TBI computers are triggered by this
> HEI setup.

> --steve

Thanks Steve.

Robin


From wopontour at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 13 02:48:02 2006
From: wopontour at hotmail.com (WopOnTour)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:48:02 -0600
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
References: <448DC72D.8030502@highspeedlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY19-DAV1354EB2E0D09C1B03D89EBA8C0@phx.gbl>

IIRC that was a "NOTES:" page in that old LT5 training manual
WOT
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Lucke" <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic


> Thanks. Is there anything on page 10?
> 
> 
> 
> Will
> 
> 
>> From: Tyler Townsley <ttownsley at sprynet.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
>> 
>> DIS system info:
>> 
>>  http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page09.jpg
>> 
>> http://www.sirgalahad.org/tyler/prototype/page11.jpg
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>


From bcroe at juno.com  Tue Jun 13 01:01:13 2006
From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:01:13 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <20060613.204443.760.1.bcroe@juno.com>

I agree it fires at the threshold.  But the point is, the 
threshold is very near the polarity crossover voltage 
(zero) relative to the signal amplitude.  So amplitude 
variations (due to temp, velocity, etc) have negligible 
effect on timing.  There are no perfect circuits out 
there, and I won't have time to measure how close 
that threshold is to zero for a while.  Maybe you know?  

Bruce Roe

13 Jun 2006  "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com> writes:
> > The module senses the crossing of voltage from one polarity 
> > to the other; the voltage it switches at is zero, position of 
> > which is not affected by amplitude.  The module is supposed 
> > to fire on the very rapid transition, which will be very accurate. 
>  
> > If the wires are reversed, the module will fire on the very 
> > slow changing part of the waveform crossing zero, which is 
> > way off in time and not so accurate.  My recollection is that 
> > proper firing is on the negative edge (relative to ground).  
> > 
> > Bruce Roe
> 
> My recollection is that the module fires on a threshold voltage, not 
> at
> zero.  The threshold voltage will vary in time from the zero 
> crossing
> depending on RPM, meaning that the module has some RPM based advance
> built into the triggering circuit.  Somewhere in the archives is a
> patent (and SAE article number) that describes this.  In fact I 
> think
> the datasheet of the triggering IC also has a good description.
> 
> For Robin's question, millions of TBI computers are triggered by 
> this
> HEI setup.
> 
> --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 andrewsharyn at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 15 07:57:50 2006
From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 05:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747 
Message-ID: <20060615125750.82809.qmail@web60824.mail.yahoo.com>

>I agree it fires at the threshold.  But the point is, the 
>threshold is very near the polarity crossover voltage 
>(zero) relative to the signal amplitude.  So amplitude 
>variations (due to temp, velocity, etc) have negligible 
>effect on timing.  There are no perfect circuits out 
>there, and I won't have time to measure how close 
>that threshold is to zero for a while.  Maybe you know?  
   
  I don't know exactly. It will vary according to the mfr of the module (Patent rights) and 
  which transistor they used. Whatever it is it will be low, but must be over 100mV to 
  prevent accidental firing from ignition noise. I do know that if you turn a dist by hand at 
  about 5-10 rpm it will fire. So you can rest assured that it will be producing spark as 
  soon as the engine moves.
   

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 15 15:43:22 2006
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C74341406117830103812E@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <20060615204322.70818.qmail@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I hope somebody posts something soon... The wait is making me go out of my mind!  :)



Steve Ravet <Steve.Ravet at arm.com> wrote:  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of 
> Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:00 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> Fame :-)
> I have worked out a partial circuit diagram. It's not 
> complete, because I got confused with the DIS/Ignition drive 
> circuits. I'm prepared to put what I've got on incomming - 
> does it work yet ?

The incoming directory is world writeable but not readable, in order to
prevent the bit torrent types from filling it up.  Upload it to
incoming, send a note to the list with the filenames and descriptions,
and I'll get them moved over to the "uploads" directory, which is
readable but not writeable.

--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


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 15 20:40:46 2006
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] 28763 IC
Message-ID: <20060616014046.57751.qmail@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Anybody have any information on it? I think it controls the idle motor 
on cadillacs.  No information in the archives on it.  
Thanks,

Ryan

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk  Fri Jun 16 04:10:19 2006
From: Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk (Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:10:19 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Gmecm] (no subject)
Message-ID: <5296758.1150449019837.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201>

Things come to those that wait :-)

ftp://ftp.diy-efi.org/incoming/01228331.zip

Contains a 3 page schematic of the ECU (incomplete), and 6 pages of scans from the workshop manual with the pinout usage in an Lotus Carlton. 

I do have a full wiring loom diagram for the LC, completer with connector and pin part numbers, but it's approximately 3 feet tall and 8 feet long. Not sure how to scan that - it's almost like a roll of wallpaper.

Cheers,
Malcolm

PS Sorry about the format of my posts - I've set everything to plain text, but my ISP doesn't seem to understand!

-----Original Message-----
From:	Ryan Hess [SMTP:rgmecm at yahoo.com]
Sent:	15 June 2006 21:43
To:	gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject:	RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic

I hope somebody posts something soon... The wait is making me go out of my mind!  :)



Steve Ravet <Steve.Ravet at arm.com> wrote:  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of 
> Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:00 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> Fame :-)
> I have worked out a partial circuit diagram. It's not 
> complete, because I got confused with the DIS/Ignition drive 
> circuits. I'm prepared to put what I've got on incomming - 
> does it work yet ?

The incoming directory is world writeable but not readable, in order to
prevent the bit torrent types from filling it up.  Upload it to
incoming, send a note to the list with the filenames and descriptions,
and I'll get them moved over to the "uploads" directory, which is
readable but not writeable.

--steve




From Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk  Fri Jun 16 04:12:44 2006
From: Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk (Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:12:44 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <6784878.1150449164111.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201>

Things come to those that wait :-)

ftp://ftp.diy-efi.org/incoming/01228331.zip

Contains a 3 page schematic of the ECU (incomplete), and 6 pages of scans from the workshop manual with the pinout usage in an Lotus Carlton. 

I do have a full wiring loom diagram for the LC, completer with connector and pin part numbers, but it's approximately 3 feet tall and 8 feet long. Not sure how to scan that - it's almost like a roll of wallpaper.

Cheers,
Malcolm

PS Sorry about the format of my posts - I've set everything to plain text, but my ISP doesn't seem to understand!

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Hess [SMTP:rgmecm at yahoo.com]
Sent: 15 June 2006 21:43
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic

I hope somebody posts something soon... The wait is making me go out of my mind!  :)



Steve Ravet <Steve.Ravet at arm.com> wrote:  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of 
> Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:00 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> Fame :-)
> I have worked out a partial circuit diagram. It's not 
> complete, because I got confused with the DIS/Ignition drive 
> circuits. I'm prepared to put what I've got on incomming - 
> does it work yet ?

The incoming directory is world writeable but not readable, in order to
prevent the bit torrent types from filling it up.  Upload it to
incoming, send a note to the list with the filenames and descriptions,
and I'll get them moved over to the "uploads" directory, which is
readable but not writeable.

--steve




From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 16 10:51:07 2006
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <6784878.1150449164111.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201>
Message-ID: <20060616155107.1986.qmail@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Thanks much, Malcolm.  Now if Steve would just move it to the readable 
directory... :p

Now do you or anyone else have any suggestions on where to start with 
creating a schematic from an undocumented ECM?  I'm not familiar with 
the processes of going from a board to a schematic.   The ECM I have here 
(16132240) is extremely similar to the 8331, except that it uses some 
odd chip instead of an IAC driver.  Sequential V8, lots of I/O...  
Perhaps the biggest difference is it's cheap and in junkyards everywhere.  
Thanks,

Ryan


Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk wrote: Things come to those that wait :-)

ftp://ftp.diy-efi.org/incoming/01228331.zip

Contains a 3 page schematic of the ECU (incomplete), and 6 pages of scans from the workshop manual with the pinout usage in an Lotus Carlton. 

I do have a full wiring loom diagram for the LC, completer with connector and pin part numbers, but it's approximately 3 feet tall and 8 feet long. Not sure how to scan that - it's almost like a roll of wallpaper.

Cheers,
Malcolm

PS Sorry about the format of my posts - I've set everything to plain text, but my ISP doesn't seem to understand!

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Hess [SMTP:rgmecm at yahoo.com]
Sent: 15 June 2006 21:43
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic

I hope somebody posts something soon... The wait is making me go out of my mind!  :)



Steve Ravet  wrote:  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of 
> Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:00 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> Fame :-)
> I have worked out a partial circuit diagram. It's not 
> complete, because I got confused with the DIS/Ignition drive 
> circuits. I'm prepared to put what I've got on incomming - 
> does it work yet ?

The incoming directory is world writeable but not readable, in order to
prevent the bit torrent types from filling it up.  Upload it to
incoming, send a note to the list with the filenames and descriptions,
and I'll get them moved over to the "uploads" directory, which is
readable but not writeable.

--steve


_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups gets better. Check out the new email design. Plus there?s much more to come.  

From Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk  Fri Jun 16 12:16:33 2006
From: Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk (Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:16:33 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <26939029.1150478193884.JavaMail.www@wwinf3101>

It's just hard work. I'd suggest prinitng out my schematic, and some of those on Ludis's site. It's unlikely that there are very many different chips used in your ECM than in all the others. You'll find GM re-used known working circuits. The microprocessor section is likely to be identical. Where they re-used circuits, it's extremely likely that your ECM has exactly the same circuit diagram.

I was told the '8331 had everything, including the kitchen sink. Most of the circuitry is the same as on other ECM's. It's just the DIS/Ignition interface that's different. Oh - and the SFI stuff.

IAC valve is usually a 2 phase stepper motor. Is yours different? I know most European/Bosch systems use a kind of PWM driver.

Once you've decided basically what's going on, you have to sit down with a voltmeter set to 'ohms' or better still 'diode buzzer' and buzz out the connections between the individual components. Start with the power and ground connections, and then trace out the signal wiring. Boring and time consuming, but it's the only way I know.

Cheers,
Malcolm

-----Original Message-----
From:	Ryan Hess [SMTP:rgmecm at yahoo.com]
Sent:	16 June 2006 16:51
To:	gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject:	RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic


Thanks much, Malcolm.  Now if Steve would just move it to the readable 
directory... :p

Now do you or anyone else have any suggestions on where to start with 
creating a schematic from an undocumented ECM?  I'm not familiar with 
the processes of going from a board to a schematic.   The ECM I have here 
(16132240) is extremely similar to the 8331, except that it uses some 
odd chip instead of an IAC driver.  Sequential V8, lots of I/O...  
Perhaps the biggest difference is it's cheap and in junkyards everywhere.  
Thanks,

Ryan




From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 16 13:00:05 2006
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
In-Reply-To: <26939029.1150478193884.JavaMail.www@wwinf3101>
Message-ID: <20060616180005.80619.qmail@web35901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I was hoping you wouldn't say that.  ;)

I believe the 8331 uses the same processor as the 2240, the 16139860, aka the 6811 with 1k extra sram.  It uses a simular daughterboard for the CPU and memcal.  The idle control motor is actually just a motor that acts directly on the throttle.  +12V one way opens it, reverse the connections it closes it.  Actually Ludis got most of the hard work taken care of.  It's just figuring out what a few of these odd IC's do.  Such as this "16089396" which is an SOIC with 28 pins, and is probably some kind of ram...  Or what this 28763 does.  (possibly/probably the ISM driver)

Ryan

Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk wrote: It's just hard work. I'd suggest prinitng out my schematic, and some of those on Ludis's site. It's unlikely that there are very many different chips used in your ECM than in all the others. You'll find GM re-used known working circuits. The microprocessor section is likely to be identical. Where they re-used circuits, it's extremely likely that your ECM has exactly the same circuit diagram.

I was told the '8331 had everything, including the kitchen sink. Most of the circuitry is the same as on other ECM's. It's just the DIS/Ignition interface that's different. Oh - and the SFI stuff.

IAC valve is usually a 2 phase stepper motor. Is yours different? I know most European/Bosch systems use a kind of PWM driver.

Once you've decided basically what's going on, you have to sit down with a voltmeter set to 'ohms' or better still 'diode buzzer' and buzz out the connections between the individual components. Start with the power and ground connections, and then trace out the signal wiring. Boring and time consuming, but it's the only way I know.

Cheers,
Malcolm

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Hess [SMTP:rgmecm at yahoo.com]
Sent: 16 June 2006 16:51
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic


Thanks much, Malcolm.  Now if Steve would just move it to the readable 
directory... :p

Now do you or anyone else have any suggestions on where to start with 
creating a schematic from an undocumented ECM?  I'm not familiar with 
the processes of going from a board to a schematic.   The ECM I have here 
(16132240) is extremely similar to the 8331, except that it uses some 
odd chip instead of an IAC driver.  Sequential V8, lots of I/O...  
Perhaps the biggest difference is it's cheap and in junkyards everywhere.  
Thanks,

Ryan


_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 17 07:49:10 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:49:10 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] CTS and MAT lookup differences
References: <26939029.1150478193884.JavaMail.www@wwinf3101>
Message-ID: <09de01c6920c$7041a150$020101c0@gandalf>

Comparing the CTS and MAT lookup arrays and comments in ANHT/$8D and
Sunbird/$58 hacks that I have, I'm a bit confused:

o The ANHT 4k array shows A/D values increasing (from the top down): 1, 6,
22, and up by 16 (note: first step not 16)
o The ANHT 348R array shows A/D values increasing (from the top down): 0,
16, 32, and up by 16

Is the hack right? If so, why the difference in A/D values? Is it to cope
with high CTS non-linearity at high temperatures? Is it unreasonable of me
to assume that all 17 element A/D lookup arrays map to A/D values of equal
steps (i.e. 16)? :-)

If I understand A/Ds correctly (that they measure the voltage across the
sensor), then I can understand why the A/D value decreases when the
resistance of the sensor decreases - which is when the temperature of a
thyrister increases. So, I expect to see high temperatures for low A/D
values and low temperatures for high A/D values. This is how the ANHT CTS
arrays are set up in the hack that I have, and I'm happy that their
behaviour is consistent with this.

However, in the ANHT hack that I have, the ANHT MAT array shows low
temperatures at the top and shows low A/D values there too. Can this be
right? The Sunbird hack that I have shows high values at the top.

Also, the Turbo P4 doc says that MAT in deg C comes straight from the A/D
value. Is this right?

Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 17 09:57:53 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:57:53 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] CTS and MAT lookup differences
References: <26939029.1150478193884.JavaMail.www@wwinf3101>
	<09de01c6920c$7041a150$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <0a0f01c6921e$6e4d4630$020101c0@gandalf>

To add to this, I've just carried out a test of input MAT resistance (to
GND) vs. the Sunbird ALDL MAT value (Mode 1 data byte 23). Low values of
resistance gave low values of this MAT value, which makes me think this
value can't be straight A/D value, as resistance and A/D value should be
inversely proportional, instead of directly.

Can anyone help? Unfortunately I don't have a GM MAT sensor to test to shed
further light. I have a Bosch one
(http://apps.bosch.com.au/motorsport/downloads/sensors_temperature.pdf) but
don't know if its compatible w/o changing the lookup tables.

R

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 17 June 2006 13:49
Subject: [Gmecm] CTS and MAT lookup differences


> Comparing the CTS and MAT lookup arrays and comments in ANHT/$8D and
> Sunbird/$58 hacks that I have, I'm a bit confused:
>
> o The ANHT 4k array shows A/D values increasing (from the top down): 1, 6,
> 22, and up by 16 (note: first step not 16)
> o The ANHT 348R array shows A/D values increasing (from the top down): 0,
> 16, 32, and up by 16
>
> Is the hack right? If so, why the difference in A/D values? Is it to cope
> with high CTS non-linearity at high temperatures? Is it unreasonable of me
> to assume that all 17 element A/D lookup arrays map to A/D values of equal
> steps (i.e. 16)? :-)
>
> If I understand A/Ds correctly (that they measure the voltage across the
> sensor), then I can understand why the A/D value decreases when the
> resistance of the sensor decreases - which is when the temperature of a
> thyrister increases. So, I expect to see high temperatures for low A/D
> values and low temperatures for high A/D values. This is how the ANHT CTS
> arrays are set up in the hack that I have, and I'm happy that their
> behaviour is consistent with this.
>
> However, in the ANHT hack that I have, the ANHT MAT array shows low
> temperatures at the top and shows low A/D values there too. Can this be
> right? The Sunbird hack that I have shows high values at the top.
>
> Also, the Turbo P4 doc says that MAT in deg C comes straight from the A/D
> value. Is this right?
>
> Robin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 17 10:40:48 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:40:48 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] CTS and MAT lookup differences
References: <26939029.1150478193884.JavaMail.www@wwinf3101><09de01c6920c$7041a150$020101c0@gandalf>
	<0a0f01c6921e$6e4d4630$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <0a1801c69224$6a4088d0$020101c0@gandalf>

I said:

> resistance and A/D value should be inversely proportional, instead of
directly

Which is rubbish. Apologies. By my own reasoning, resistance to ground and
A/D value should be directly proportional, as the A/D measures voltage and
voltage is proportional to resistance, given constant current.

My other questions are still valid, though, I think. :-)

Robin




From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 17 12:57:51 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:57:51 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] CTS and MAT lookup differences
References: <26939029.1150478193884.JavaMail.www@wwinf3101><09de01c6920c$7041a150$020101c0@gandalf>
	<0a0f01c6921e$6e4d4630$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <0a2a01c69237$92e62250$020101c0@gandalf>

I've now compared the Sunbird ALDL MAT raw values with ones computed from
the input resistances, (computed ones were based on the assumption of a 1k
pull-up resistor - observing that a quantity in the PROMgrammer export is
called 'MAT1K'. The match was very good. So I now believe that the ALDL MAT
values _are_ raw A/D values.

This is frustrating though as, in order to get my ALDL monitoring/logging
program to show MAT in deg C, I would have to insert a lookup table in its
code, equivalent to the one in the Sunbird code. This would be the first
occurance of this, so I'm a bit suspicious that I've got things wrong. Can
anybody comment?

Are the A/D->deg C lookup array values in the Sunbird/$58 code scaled using
the usual ARG = (deg C - 40) * (4/3) ?

I used this formula in reverse to calculate deg C from the Sunbird/$58 MAT
lookup array values, and referenced these to calculated resistance values,
based on A/D steps of 16 and a 1k pull-up resistor. I then compared these to
the values at: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/component_info/sensors.html. The
result was not a good match. Does this mean the A/D->deg C formula is wrong,
or the assumption of uniform A/D steps of 16 down the MAT lookup table?

Robin



From romans at starstream.net  Sat Jun 17 13:30:46 2006
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:30:46 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] URGENT!!   1227747 Edelbrock 42 PN 1399 binfile needed!!
References: <26939029.1150478193884.JavaMail.www@wwinf3101><09de01c6920c$7041a150$020101c0@gandalf><0a0f01c6921e$6e4d4630$020101c0@gandalf>
	<0a2a01c69237$92e62250$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <000601c6923c$2660f7e0$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

URGENT!! 1227747 Edelbrock 42 PN 1399 binfile needed!!   I broke a bin 
taking it out of the carrier and can't read it, does anyone have a copy?

Tennis shoe mode now!



Thanks!

Mark



From romans at starstream.net  Sat Jun 17 17:19:42 2006
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:19:42 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] URGENT!!   1227747 Edelbrock 42 PN 1399 binfile needed!!
References: <26939029.1150478193884.JavaMail.www@wwinf3101><09de01c6920c$7041a150$020101c0@gandalf><0a0f01c6921e$6e4d4630$020101c0@gandalf><0a2a01c69237$92e62250$020101c0@gandalf>
	<000601c6923c$2660f7e0$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>
Message-ID: <000601c6925c$21a64870$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

I was able to solder the two pins back on enough that I was able to read it!
SHEESH!  What a pain!
Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Romans" <romans at starstream.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: [Gmecm] URGENT!! 1227747 Edelbrock 42 PN 1399 binfile needed!!


> URGENT!! 1227747 Edelbrock 42 PN 1399 binfile needed!!   I broke a bin 
> taking it out of the carrier and can't read it, does anyone have a copy?
> 
> Tennis shoe mode now!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>


From holdenstarfire at optusnet.com.au  Sat Jun 17 20:45:26 2006
From: holdenstarfire at optusnet.com.au (holdenstarfire at optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:45:26 +1000
Subject: [Gmecm] CTS and MAT lookup differences
In-Reply-To: <0a2a01c69237$92e62250$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <000001c69278$e038afa0$6501a8c0@compaq>

No sure if the $58 is the same as other code of the same era but maybe
this helps
Adrian

;	#########################################################
;	#							#
;	#		MAT VARIABLE  (MATDEG)			#
;	#  							#
;	#  THIS TABLE PROVIDES A VALUE THAT SIMULATES A		#
;	#  LINEARIZED MANIFOLD AIR TEMPERATURE VARIABLE FROM	#
;	#  A RAW A/D MAT READING USING A 1K PULLUP OVER THE	#
;	#  ENTIRE TEMPERATURE RANGE.				#
;	#  							#
;	#  IT IS USED IN SYSTEMS THAT HAVE BOTH COOLANT AND MAT	#
;	#  SENSORS AND NEED TEMPERATURE VARIABLES WITH COMMON	#
;	#  SCALING.  THE MATDEG VAIABLE HAS THE SAME SCALING	#
;	#  AS THE COOLDEG VARIABLE, BUT SINCE ONLY A SINGLE 	#
;	#  1K PULLUP IS USED (INSTEAD OF THE DUAL-PULLUP SCHEME	#
;	#  USED FOR COOLDEG), MATDEG CAN BE INACCURATE AT 	#
;	#  BOTH TEMPERATURE EXTREMES.				#
;	#							#
;	#  NOTE THAT SOFTWARE MUST SUBTRACT 12 FROM THE RAW	#
;	#  A/D VALUE BEFORE THE TABLE LOOKUP TO IMPROVE THE	#
;	#  ACCURACY OF MATDEG AT THE TEMPERATURE EXTREMES.	#
;	#							#
;	#########################################################
;
FP41K:
;					DEG C
	db	$FB;			148.5
	db	$CB;			112.5
	db	$B4;			95
	db	$A3;			83.5
	db	$97;			73
	db	$8C;			65
	db	$82;			57.7
	db	$79;			51
	db	$71;			44.7
	db	$69;			38.5
	db	$60;			32
	db	$57;			25.5
	db	$4D;			18
	db	$41;			8.5
	db	$30;			-4
	db	$08;			-34
	db	$00;			V-COLD
;


-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
Behalf Of Robin Handley
Sent: Sunday, 18 June 2006 3:58 AM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] CTS and MAT lookup differences

I've now compared the Sunbird ALDL MAT raw values with ones computed
from
the input resistances, (computed ones were based on the assumption of a
1k
pull-up resistor - observing that a quantity in the PROMgrammer export
is
called 'MAT1K'. The match was very good. So I now believe that the ALDL
MAT
values _are_ raw A/D values.

This is frustrating though as, in order to get my ALDL
monitoring/logging
program to show MAT in deg C, I would have to insert a lookup table in
its
code, equivalent to the one in the Sunbird code. This would be the first
occurance of this, so I'm a bit suspicious that I've got things wrong.
Can
anybody comment?

Are the A/D->deg C lookup array values in the Sunbird/$58 code scaled
using
the usual ARG = (deg C - 40) * (4/3) ?

I used this formula in reverse to calculate deg C from the Sunbird/$58
MAT
lookup array values, and referenced these to calculated resistance
values,
based on A/D steps of 16 and a 1k pull-up resistor. I then compared
these to
the values at: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/component_info/sensors.html.
The
result was not a good match. Does this mean the A/D->deg C formula is
wrong,
or the assumption of uniform A/D steps of 16 down the MAT lookup table?

Robin

_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Jun 18 02:23:22 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:23:22 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] CTS and MAT lookup differences
References: <000001c69278$e038afa0$6501a8c0@compaq>
Message-ID: <0aa201c692a8$acd21d10$020101c0@gandalf>

Every bit helps. :-)

Thanks,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <holdenstarfire at optusnet.com.au>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 18 June 2006 02:45
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] CTS and MAT lookup differences


> No sure if the $58 is the same as other code of the same era but maybe
> this helps
> Adrian
> 
> ; #########################################################
> ; # #
> ; # MAT VARIABLE  (MATDEG) #
> ; #  #
> ; #  THIS TABLE PROVIDES A VALUE THAT SIMULATES A #
> ; #  LINEARIZED MANIFOLD AIR TEMPERATURE VARIABLE FROM #
> ; #  A RAW A/D MAT READING USING A 1K PULLUP OVER THE #
> ; #  ENTIRE TEMPERATURE RANGE. #
> ; #  #
> ; #  IT IS USED IN SYSTEMS THAT HAVE BOTH COOLANT AND MAT #
> ; #  SENSORS AND NEED TEMPERATURE VARIABLES WITH COMMON #
> ; #  SCALING.  THE MATDEG VAIABLE HAS THE SAME SCALING #
> ; #  AS THE COOLDEG VARIABLE, BUT SINCE ONLY A SINGLE #
> ; #  1K PULLUP IS USED (INSTEAD OF THE DUAL-PULLUP SCHEME #
> ; #  USED FOR COOLDEG), MATDEG CAN BE INACCURATE AT #
> ; #  BOTH TEMPERATURE EXTREMES. #
> ; # #
> ; #  NOTE THAT SOFTWARE MUST SUBTRACT 12 FROM THE RAW #
> ; #  A/D VALUE BEFORE THE TABLE LOOKUP TO IMPROVE THE #
> ; #  ACCURACY OF MATDEG AT THE TEMPERATURE EXTREMES. #
> ; # #
> ; #########################################################
> ;
> FP41K:
> ; DEG C
> db $FB; 148.5
> db $CB; 112.5
> db $B4; 95
> db $A3; 83.5
> db $97; 73
> db $8C; 65
> db $82; 57.7
> db $79; 51
> db $71; 44.7
> db $69; 38.5
> db $60; 32
> db $57; 25.5
> db $4D; 18
> db $41; 8.5
> db $30; -4
> db $08; -34
> db $00; V-COLD



From tpepmeie at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 18 18:58:35 2006
From: tpepmeie at yahoo.com (Todd A. Pepmeier)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:58:35 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <5296758.1150449019837.JavaMail.www@wwinf3201>
Message-ID: <mailman.31.1311919708.4730.gmecm@diy-efi.org>

Malcolm,
I could never view this on incoming.  Can you send me a copy?

Best,
Todd Pepmeier

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
> Behalf Of Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 5:10 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] (no subject)
> 
> Things come to those that wait :-)
> 
> ftp://ftp.diy-efi.org/incoming/01228331.zip
> 
> Contains a 3 page schematic of the ECU (incomplete), and 6 pages of scans
> from the workshop manual with the pinout usage in an Lotus Carlton.
> 
> I do have a full wiring loom diagram for the LC, completer with connector
> and pin part numbers, but it's approximately 3 feet tall and 8 feet long.
> Not sure how to scan that - it's almost like a roll of wallpaper.
> 
> Cheers,
> Malcolm
> 
> PS Sorry about the format of my posts - I've set everything to plain text,
> but my ISP doesn't seem to understand!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ryan Hess [SMTP:rgmecm at yahoo.com]
> Sent:	15 June 2006 21:43
> To:	gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject:	RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> I hope somebody posts something soon... The wait is making me go out of my
> mind!  :)
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Ravet <Steve.Ravet at arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
> > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of
> > Webmaster at lotus-carlton.fsnet.co.uk
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:00 AM
> > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> >
> > Fame :-)
> > I have worked out a partial circuit diagram. It's not
> > complete, because I got confused with the DIS/Ignition drive
> > circuits. I'm prepared to put what I've got on incomming -
> > does it work yet ?
> 
> The incoming directory is world writeable but not readable, in order to
> prevent the bit torrent types from filling it up.  Upload it to
> incoming, send a note to the list with the filenames and descriptions,
> and I'll get them moved over to the "uploads" directory, which is
> readable but not writeable.
> 
> --steve
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm




From jryan at caminofx.org  Sun Jun 18 19:42:10 2006
From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:42:10 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS
Message-ID: <d0477a73d715168b4d82ac1fa8ca67f1@caminofx.org>

I mostly lurk on this list, trying to absorb what information I can, 
but I finally have a question, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone 
has covered this before.

My Chevy El Camino has a VSS in the speedometer.  It appears to rely on 
a bar that spins with the speedometer cable that breaks a beam of 
light.  It occurred to me that if I could have a computer (a desktop or 
laptop computer) input the signal from the VSS, I would have an easy 
way of measuring the speedometer's accuracy.

So my questions are two:

1. What signal does the VSS module send to the ECM?  Does it change 
voltage or the number of pulses in the signal it sends to the ECM?
2. What would be required to change the signal from the VSS module into 
something readable by a PC through an RS-232 or parallel port?

I would be surprised if someone hasn't already come up with a way to do 
this, so if someone has some hints, I'd really appreciate it!

Thanks, and have a good day.

  ---> Jared Ryan <---
jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org

1984 Chevrolet El Camino
350 roller camshaft, 300 HP
TH-200-4R transmission
TBI



From bcroe at juno.com  Sun Jun 18 23:09:41 2006
From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:09:41 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS
Message-ID: <20060618.231537.1136.3.bcroe@juno.com>

I would suggest this to check accuracy.  Spin the speedo 
cable at a constant speed.  I use the induction motor (don't 
use a brush motor) on my drill press to spin a spare cable, 
motor reversed.  The pulleys let me pick several relevant 
speeds.  Use a stopwatch to time exactly how many 
seconds for the odometer to roll 1 mile.  Divide the seconds 
into 3600, and you have the exact MPH the speedo should 
be reading (as compared to what its really reading).  

If the speedo is adjusted to match the odometer as above, 
its then a matter of comparing your odometer against 
some good mile markers, change trans speedo gears to 
get a match.  Go 10 miles since individual mile markers 
may be off a bit.  There is no particular speed required 
to do this.  

Bruce Roe

18 Jun 2006  Jared Ryan <jryan at caminofx.org> writes:
> I mostly lurk on this list, trying to absorb what information I can, 
> but I finally have a question, and I wouldn't be surprised if 
> someone has covered this before.
> 
> My Chevy El Camino has a VSS in the speedometer.  It appears to rely 
> on 
> a bar that spins with the speedometer cable that breaks a beam of 
> light.  It occurred to me that if I could have a computer (a desktop 
> or 
> laptop computer) input the signal from the VSS, I would have an easy 
> 
> way of measuring the speedometer's accuracy.
> 
> So my questions are two:
> 
> 1. What signal does the VSS module send to the ECM?  Does it change 
> voltage or the number of pulses in the signal it sends to the ECM?
> 2. What would be required to change the signal from the VSS module 
> into 
> something readable by a PC through an RS-232 or parallel port?
> 
> I would be surprised if someone hasn't already come up with a way to 
> do 
> this, so if someone has some hints, I'd really appreciate it!
> 
> Thanks, and have a good day.
> 
>   ---> Jared Ryan <---
> jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org
> 
> 1984 Chevrolet El Camino
> 350 roller camshaft, 300 HP
> TH-200-4R transmission
> TBI
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> 



From burntkat at sc.rr.com  Mon Jun 19 00:11:41 2006
From: burntkat at sc.rr.com (Burntkat@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:11:41 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS
In-Reply-To: <20060618.231537.1136.3.bcroe@juno.com>
Message-ID: <000201c6935e$da3bf850$079fa8c0@brigid>

Just a note-

When finding "known good" mile for measurement-- don't depend necessarily on
highway mile markers, and especially not Google Earth.

Had to hoof it to Advance a few weeks back to get a starter- Google Earth
said it was a 3.4 mile round trip. I got curious and took my GPS and by the
time I got back home I'd walked exactly 5.7 miles. So while cool, Google
Earth isn't something I'd depend on- cheap GPS unit is MUCH more dependable.



-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of bcroe at juno.com
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:10 AM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS

I would suggest this to check accuracy.  Spin the speedo 
cable at a constant speed.  I use the induction motor (don't 
use a brush motor) on my drill press to spin a spare cable, 
motor reversed.  The pulleys let me pick several relevant 
speeds.  Use a stopwatch to time exactly how many 
seconds for the odometer to roll 1 mile.  Divide the seconds 
into 3600, and you have the exact MPH the speedo should 
be reading (as compared to what its really reading).  

If the speedo is adjusted to match the odometer as above, 
its then a matter of comparing your odometer against 
some good mile markers, change trans speedo gears to 
get a match.  Go 10 miles since individual mile markers 
may be off a bit.  There is no particular speed required 
to do this.  

Bruce Roe

18 Jun 2006  Jared Ryan <jryan at caminofx.org> writes:
> I mostly lurk on this list, trying to absorb what information I can, 
> but I finally have a question, and I wouldn't be surprised if 
> someone has covered this before.
> 
> My Chevy El Camino has a VSS in the speedometer.  It appears to rely 
> on 
> a bar that spins with the speedometer cable that breaks a beam of 
> light.  It occurred to me that if I could have a computer (a desktop 
> or 
> laptop computer) input the signal from the VSS, I would have an easy 
> 
> way of measuring the speedometer's accuracy.
> 
> So my questions are two:
> 
> 1. What signal does the VSS module send to the ECM?  Does it change 
> voltage or the number of pulses in the signal it sends to the ECM?
> 2. What would be required to change the signal from the VSS module 
> into 
> something readable by a PC through an RS-232 or parallel port?
> 
> I would be surprised if someone hasn't already come up with a way to 
> do 
> this, so if someone has some hints, I'd really appreciate it!
> 
> Thanks, and have a good day.
> 
>   ---> Jared Ryan <---
> jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org
> 
> 1984 Chevrolet El Camino
> 350 roller camshaft, 300 HP
> TH-200-4R transmission
> TBI
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Mon Jun 19 00:39:54 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:39:54 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301069357@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of bcroe at juno.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:01 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
> 
> I agree it fires at the threshold.  But the point is, the 
> threshold is very near the polarity crossover voltage
> (zero) relative to the signal amplitude.  So amplitude 
> variations (due to temp, velocity, etc) have negligible 
> effect on timing.  There are no perfect circuits out there, 
> and I won't have time to measure how close that threshold is 
> to zero for a while.  Maybe you know?  
> 
> Bruce Roe

I don't know, but I did some digging.  Here's a monthly archive that
contains a post from Bruce Plecan:

http://diy-efi.org/diy_efi/archive/archive_num_98

Search for "triggered", the second occurance should be his post, which
claims that advance is 1.5 degress per 1000 RPM.

The IC is a motorola MC3334, datasheets are probably floating around
even though the part is obsolete.  The SAE paper is SAE 750346 -- HEI-A
New Ignition System Through New Technology.

Here's a WWW page with some information, including a block
diagram/schematic of the trigger circuit:

http://www.cyberdave.org/HEICoilInfo.html



--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 ronin at aristotle.net  Mon Jun 19 00:50:43 2006
From: ronin at aristotle.net (Dave Williams)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:50:43 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] memcal report
Message-ID: <44963B33.7020200@aristotle.net>

  I'm running a Lumina DIS memcal (stock) with a 2.5 TBI Chevy four, 
with distributor.  Various people have claimed the DIS and distributor 
code have differences in dwell timing, among other things, but it 
starts, runs, and I've driven it around the neighborhood.  I don't have 
plates on the truck, so I haven't driven it any further.

  The other day, as an experiment, I plugged in a memcal for a 2.0 OHC 
port injection DIS motor.  The 2.5 started and ran.  I didn't drive it, 
and I have no idea what horrible mismatches there might have been with 
the gazintas and gazoutas, but it started and idled just like the Lumina 
memcal.

  I then tried a Turbo Sunbird memcal.  The 2.5 started and idled with 
that one, too.


  This indicates to me that the resistor networks are all pretty 
similar, at least enough for the engine to start and run.  It was 
interesting that TBI/PFI and DIS/dist didn't seem to make any difference.


From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun 19 10:57:22 2006
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS
In-Reply-To: <20060618.231537.1136.3.bcroe@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20060619155722.45432.qmail@web80512.mail.yahoo.com>

Another way to 'check' calibration vs. milemarkers is a handheld GPS


----- Original Message ----
From: bcroe at juno.com
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:09:41 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS


I would suggest this to check accuracy.  Spin the speedo 
cable at a constant speed.  I use the induction motor (don't 
use a brush motor) on my drill press to spin a spare cable, 
motor reversed.  The pulleys let me pick several relevant 
speeds.  Use a stopwatch to time exactly how many 
seconds for the odometer to roll 1 mile.  Divide the seconds 
into 3600, and you have the exact MPH the speedo should 
be reading (as compared to what its really reading).  

If the speedo is adjusted to match the odometer as above, 
its then a matter of comparing your odometer against 
some good mile markers, change trans speedo gears to 
get a match.  Go 10 miles since individual mile markers 
may be off a bit.  There is no particular speed required 
to do this.  

Bruce Roe

18 Jun 2006  Jared Ryan <jryan at caminofx.org> writes:
> I mostly lurk on this list, trying to absorb what information I can, 
> but I finally have a question, and I wouldn't be surprised if 
> someone has covered this before.
> 
> My Chevy El Camino has a VSS in the speedometer.  It appears to rely 
> on 
> a bar that spins with the speedometer cable that breaks a beam of 
> light.  It occurred to me that if I could have a computer (a desktop 
> or 
> laptop computer) input the signal from the VSS, I would have an easy 
> 
> way of measuring the speedometer's accuracy.
> 
> So my questions are two:
> 
> 1. What signal does the VSS module send to the ECM?  Does it change 
> voltage or the number of pulses in the signal it sends to the ECM?
> 2. What would be required to change the signal from the VSS module 
> into 
> something readable by a PC through an RS-232 or parallel port?
> 
> I would be surprised if someone hasn't already come up with a way to 
> do 
> this, so if someone has some hints, I'd really appreciate it!
> 
> Thanks, and have a good day.
> 
>   ---> Jared Ryan <---
> jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org
> 
> 1984 Chevrolet El Camino
> 350 roller camshaft, 300 HP
> TH-200-4R transmission
> TBI
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 kd6jib at gmail.com  Wed Jun 21 02:31:42 2006
From: kd6jib at gmail.com (Chris Morda)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:31:42 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] AD: FA: 1227165 ecm with 2.5 L4 chip
Message-ID: <4498F5DE.5040606@gmail.com>

I hope this is not considered rude here. I just thought somebody here 
might be interested in the following auctions:

16198445 (1227165) ECM with 1987 2.5L 4SPD chip
http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=91740236&site=0&ver=LCA080805&item=230000376749&lk=URL 
<http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=91740236&site=0&ver=LCA080805&item=230000376749&lk=URL>


1228062 ECM with unknown chip ATBA 7524. I think this is from a 4.3 TBI
http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=91740236&site=0&ver=LCA080805&item=230000380169&lk=URL 
<http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=91740236&site=0&ver=LCA080805&item=230000380169&lk=URL>

Thanks for your valuable time.
Chris


From flozano at twistedandes.com  Wed Jun 21 13:17:02 2006
From: flozano at twistedandes.com (Facundo Lozano)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:17:02 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 4.3 7747 tuned BIN
Message-ID: <001f01c6955e$edfd4220$6401a8c0@FACUHP>

Hello

I have a Friend with a 4.3 V6 TBI, with a 7747 ECM, and he was lost this Chip.
I hve a Chip Burner, But I need a .bin with a custom Chip for this engine.
Any one have some .bin without:
-EGR
-EST
-VSS
-Knock
-TCC

and may be with some tunes for this engine.
Please if anyone have some .bin, send me by email to facundo at lozano.cl

Thanks
Facundo

From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Thu Jun 22 07:35:01 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:35:01 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] MAT scaling formula
References: <44963B33.7020200@aristotle.net>
Message-ID: <041101c695f8$49cf7ac0$020101c0@gandalf>

Anybody know the formula to convert from stored MAT values to deg C - in the
Sunbird/$58 code?

Looking at the PROMgrammer deg C values, the formula isn't the same one as
for CTS. :-(

Robin



From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Thu Jun 22 11:09:35 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:09:35 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] MAT scaling formula
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301069CDF@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

The gmecm page lists values for both and the corresponding temperature.
The table on the WWW page was copied out of a service manual.

--steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Robin Handley
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:35 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] MAT scaling formula
> 
> Anybody know the formula to convert from stored MAT values to 
> deg C - in the
> Sunbird/$58 code?
> 
> Looking at the PROMgrammer deg C values, the formula isn't 
> the same one as for CTS. :-(
> 
> Robin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> 

-- 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 Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Thu Jun 22 11:31:50 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:31:50 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301069D04@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hess
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:51 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Acquiring ECM schematic
> 
> 
> Thanks much, Malcolm.  Now if Steve would just move it to the 
> readable directory... :p

It's moved.  I'm in single dad mode while my wife is out of town so a
little slow getting to things.  Only 66 unread posts to go.

--steve

-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Thu Jun 22 12:34:12 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:34:12 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] MAT scaling formula
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301069CDF@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <04aa01c69622$1713b5e0$020101c0@gandalf>

Do you mean the table of temperatures vs. resistance, or have I
misunderstood? I've been using that in my attempt to understand the MAT
lookup array.

I'm looking for the MAT equivalent of the CTS formula: deg C = (scaled_value
* 0.75) - 40.

When plugging in Sunbird/$58 MAT related values direct from the .BIN, the
above formula does not give the same deg C value as PROMgrammer.

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 June 2006 17:09
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] MAT scaling formula


The gmecm page lists values for both and the corresponding temperature.
The table on the WWW page was copied out of a service manual.

--steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Robin Handley
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:35 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] MAT scaling formula
>
> Anybody know the formula to convert from stored MAT values to
> deg C - in the
> Sunbird/$58 code?
>
> Looking at the PROMgrammer deg C values, the formula isn't
> the same one as for CTS. :-(
>
> Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Thu Jun 22 13:26:02 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:26:02 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301069357@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <04e401c69629$52ff81e0$020101c0@gandalf>

<SNIP>
I don't know, but I did some digging.  Here's a monthly archive that
contains a post from Bruce Plecan:

http://diy-efi.org/diy_efi/archive/archive_num_98

Search for "triggered", the second occurance should be his post, which
claims that advance is 1.5 degress per 1000 RPM.
</SNIP>

Trying to get my head around something that Ludis said in that archive:

"In batch PFI/TPI (at least for 1226870), hardware in the ECM divides the
distributor reference pulses by 2 (L4), 3 (V6), or 4 (V8).  The injector
firing is triggered by this divided signal.  The result is one firing
per cam revolution, aka two firings per intake valve opening."

This doesn't sound right to me. IME with L4 engines, the distributor is
driven directly off the cam shaft and so rotates once for every cam
rotations. The distributor has 4 trigger points (whether it's Hall or
reluctor). So, one rev of the cam shaft generates 4 pulses. The cam shaft
rotates once for a complete engine cycle - which includes each cylinder
firing once (hence the 4 trigger points per cam revolution). Therefore, if
the ECM (or, pedantically, the software :-) divides the distributor pulses
by 2, then the result will be 2 per cam revolution. If the injectors are all
triggered together by this divided signal then surely that means that they
will fire TWICE per cam revolution (not once).

Sanity check, anyone?

Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Thu Jun 22 13:59:51 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:59:51 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
Message-ID: <04f301c6962e$0d560100$020101c0@gandalf>

To add to this, the Turbo P4 doc, which claims to describe a PFI system,
discusses 3 fuel modes:

Synchronous - presumably fires every ref pulse? (the 'normal' mode)

Quasi-asynchronous - 'used when the synchronous fuel base pulse width
becomes so small...l' and 'fires the injectors every other ref pulse, for
twice what it would have for synchronous mode'

Asynchronous - 'used to deliver fuel pulses for acceleration enrichment'

So, I understand from this (if it's right), that, for an L4 engine, normally
the injector(s) fire 4 times per cam rev - i.e. the distributor pulse is not
divided at all.

Have I got this right?

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 June 2006 19:26
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747


> <SNIP>
> I don't know, but I did some digging.  Here's a monthly archive that
> contains a post from Bruce Plecan:
>
> http://diy-efi.org/diy_efi/archive/archive_num_98
>
> Search for "triggered", the second occurance should be his post, which
> claims that advance is 1.5 degress per 1000 RPM.
> </SNIP>
>
> Trying to get my head around something that Ludis said in that archive:
>
> "In batch PFI/TPI (at least for 1226870), hardware in the ECM divides the
> distributor reference pulses by 2 (L4), 3 (V6), or 4 (V8).  The injector
> firing is triggered by this divided signal.  The result is one firing
> per cam revolution, aka two firings per intake valve opening."
>
> This doesn't sound right to me. IME with L4 engines, the distributor is
> driven directly off the cam shaft and so rotates once for every cam
> rotations. The distributor has 4 trigger points (whether it's Hall or
> reluctor). So, one rev of the cam shaft generates 4 pulses. The cam shaft
> rotates once for a complete engine cycle - which includes each cylinder
> firing once (hence the 4 trigger points per cam revolution). Therefore, if
> the ECM (or, pedantically, the software :-) divides the distributor pulses
> by 2, then the result will be 2 per cam revolution. If the injectors are
all
> triggered together by this divided signal then surely that means that they
> will fire TWICE per cam revolution (not once).
>
> Sanity check, anyone?
>
> Robin
>



From efi at dyakron.com  Thu Jun 22 22:47:09 2006
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:47:09 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
In-Reply-To: <04e401c69629$52ff81e0$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301069357@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060622234449.03495990@dyakron.com>

At 07:26 PM 6/22/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>"In batch PFI/TPI (at least for 1226870), hardware in the ECM divides the
>distributor reference pulses by 2 (L4), 3 (V6), or 4 (V8).  The injector
>firing is triggered by this divided signal.  The result is one firing
>per cam revolution, aka two firings per intake valve opening."
>
>This doesn't sound right to me. IME with L4 engines, the distributor is
>driven directly off the cam shaft and so rotates once for every cam
>rotations. The distributor has 4 trigger points (whether it's Hall or
>reluctor). So, one rev of the cam shaft generates 4 pulses. The cam shaft
>rotates once for a complete engine cycle - which includes each cylinder
>firing once (hence the 4 trigger points per cam revolution). Therefore, if
>the ECM (or, pedantically, the software :-) divides the distributor pulses
>by 2, then the result will be 2 per cam revolution. If the injectors are all
>triggered together by this divided signal then surely that means that they
>will fire TWICE per cam revolution (not once).
His sentence makes sense if you substitute the word "crank" in place
of "cam".  



From efi at dyakron.com  Thu Jun 22 22:51:15 2006
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:51:15 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
In-Reply-To: <04f301c6962e$0d560100$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060622235057.03499af0@dyakron.com>

At 07:59 PM 6/22/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>So, I understand from this (if it's right), that, for an L4 engine, normally
>the injector(s) fire 4 times per cam rev - i.e. the distributor pulse is not
>divided at all.
>
>Have I got this right?

That is how I read it too.
mv



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Fri Jun 23 02:30:40 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:30:40 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301069357@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060622234449.03495990@dyakron.com>
Message-ID: <059801c69697$007f03f0$020101c0@gandalf>

> His sentence makes sense if you substitute the word "crank" in place
> of "cam".  

:-)

Robin


From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Fri Jun 23 06:07:33 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:07:33 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
In-Reply-To: <04e401c69629$52ff81e0$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301069357@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
	<04e401c69629$52ff81e0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <8C864CC5CCDF053-1118-1AB0@mblkn-m20.sysops.aol.com>

I think it makes more sense if you replace "cam" with "crank" in Ludis' post.  Seems like a reasonable substitution.  Otherwise, "2 firings per intake valve opening" and "one firing per cam revolution" indicates that the cam actuates the intake valve on every other rotation, which is extremely unlikely.  
 
Zaphod
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:26:02 +0100
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747


<SNIP>
I don't know, but I did some digging.  Here's a monthly archive that
contains a post from Bruce Plecan:

http://diy-efi.org/diy_efi/archive/archive_num_98

Search for "triggered", the second occurance should be his post, which
claims that advance is 1.5 degress per 1000 RPM.
</SNIP>

Trying to get my head around something that Ludis said in that archive:

"In batch PFI/TPI (at least for 1226870), hardware in the ECM divides the
distributor reference pulses by 2 (L4), 3 (V6), or 4 (V8).  The injector
firing is triggered by this divided signal.  The result is one firing
per cam revolution, aka two firings per intake valve opening."

This doesn't sound right to me. IME with L4 engines, the distributor is
driven directly off the cam shaft and so rotates once for every cam
rotations. The distributor has 4 trigger points (whether it's Hall or
reluctor). So, one rev of the cam shaft generates 4 pulses. The cam shaft
rotates once for a complete engine cycle - which includes each cylinder
firing once (hence the 4 trigger points per cam revolution). Therefore, if
the ECM (or, pedantically, the software :-) divides the distributor pulses
by 2, then the result will be 2 per cam revolution. If the injectors are all
triggered together by this divided signal then surely that means that they
will fire TWICE per cam revolution (not once).

Sanity check, anyone?

Robin

_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Fri Jun 23 06:27:14 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:27:14 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747
In-Reply-To: <04f301c6962e$0d560100$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <04f301c6962e$0d560100$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <8C864CF1C74CA5B-1118-1AF5@mblkn-m20.sysops.aol.com>

AFAIK, the 7749 fires injectors with each distributor pulse when synchronous mode is enabled.
 
Zaphod 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:59:51 +0100
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747


To add to this, the Turbo P4 doc, which claims to describe a PFI system,
discusses 3 fuel modes:

Synchronous - presumably fires every ref pulse? (the 'normal' mode)

Quasi-asynchronous - 'used when the synchronous fuel base pulse width
becomes so small...l' and 'fires the injectors every other ref pulse, for
twice what it would have for synchronous mode'

Asynchronous - 'used to deliver fuel pulses for acceleration enrichment'

So, I understand from this (if it's right), that, for an L4 engine, normally
the injector(s) fire 4 times per cam rev - i.e. the distributor pulse is not
divided at all.

Have I got this right?

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 June 2006 19:26
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Big cap HEI on 7747


> <SNIP>
> I don't know, but I did some digging.  Here's a monthly archive that
> contains a post from Bruce Plecan:
>
> http://diy-efi.org/diy_efi/archive/archive_num_98
>
> Search for "triggered", the second occurance should be his post, which
> claims that advance is 1.5 degress per 1000 RPM.
> </SNIP>
>
> Trying to get my head around something that Ludis said in that archive:
>
> "In batch PFI/TPI (at least for 1226870), hardware in the ECM divides the
> distributor reference pulses by 2 (L4), 3 (V6), or 4 (V8).  The injector
> firing is triggered by this divided signal.  The result is one firing
> per cam revolution, aka two firings per intake valve opening."
>
> This doesn't sound right to me. IME with L4 engines, the distributor is
> driven directly off the cam shaft and so rotates once for every cam
> rotations. The distributor has 4 trigger points (whether it's Hall or
> reluctor). So, one rev of the cam shaft generates 4 pulses. The cam shaft
> rotates once for a complete engine cycle - which includes each cylinder
> firing once (hence the 4 trigger points per cam revolution). Therefore, if
> the ECM (or, pedantically, the software :-) divides the distributor pulses
> by 2, then the result will be 2 per cam revolution. If the injectors are
all
> triggered together by this divided signal then surely that means that they
> will fire TWICE per cam revolution (not once).
>
> Sanity check, anyone?
>
> Robin
>

_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 24 04:01:10 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:01:10 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <04f301c6962e$0d560100$020101c0@gandalf>
	<8C864CF1C74CA5B-1118-1AF5@mblkn-m20.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <068e01c6976c$c0859580$020101c0@gandalf>

Anybody played with the shift light (pin A12) in a '727 or its equivalent in
a '749?

Going by the circuit diagram for a '727, ignition volts are supplied to the
non-ECM side of the shift light. My limited electrical knowledge tells me
that the ECM ground this pin when it wants the light to come on. So, when it
wants the light to be off, the pin should be at battery voltage. Is this
right? Same deal for the injector pins?

Could be my minimalist installation causing bypasses in logic (although
can't see why), but I see no voltage on the shift light pin, whether the RPM
is below the light on threshold or not. Am I missing something?

Robin



From bcroe at juno.com  Sat Jun 24 07:04:07 2006
From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:04:07 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
Message-ID: <20060624.070659.796.0.bcroe@juno.com>

I believe if you actually connect the light, it will then go 
to battery voltage when off.  Bruce Roe

24 Jun 2006  "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> Anybody played with the shift light (pin A12) in a '727 or its 
> equivalent in a '749?
> 
> Going by the circuit diagram for a '727, ignition volts are 
> supplied to the non-ECM side of the shift light. My limited 
> electrical knowledge tells me that the ECM ground this pin 
> when it wants the light to come on. So, when it wants the 
> light to be off, the pin should be at battery voltage. Is this
> right? Same deal for the injector pins?
> 
> Could be my minimalist installation causing bypasses in 
> logic (although can't see why), but I see no voltage on the 
> shift light pin, whether the RPM is below the light 
> on threshold or not. Am I missing something?
> 
> Robin


From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Sat Jun 24 11:06:06 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:06:06 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
Message-ID: <30842B19.3DD2398F.DB881660@netscape.net>

"Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Anybody played with the shift light (pin A12) in a '727 
How 'bout a 7730?

or its equivalent in
>a '749?
Yyyep.

>
>Going by the circuit diagram for a '727, ignition volts are supplied to the
>non-ECM side of the shift light. My limited electrical knowledge tells me
>that the ECM ground this pin when it wants the light to come on. So, when it
>wants the light to be off, the pin should be at battery voltage. 
... when the light is connected to battery power.

>Is this
>right? Same deal for the injector pins?
When the injectors are connected to ignition power.

>
>Could be my minimalist installation causing bypasses in logic (although
>can't see why), but I see no voltage on the shift light pin, whether the RPM
>is below the light on threshold or not. Am I missing something?
Use a test light from power to the pin.  Much more dramatic and effective.  Check all variables for shift light.  Some may not do what they seem based on labels.  VSS may be needed (vehicle moving bit may need to be set).

Can send 7749 code with working shift light (on at WOT and 6300 ish rpm).

Zaphod
>
>Robin
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 b.shaw at comcast.net  Sat Jun 24 11:20:12 2006
From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill - Comcast)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:20:12 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
In-Reply-To: <30842B19.3DD2398F.DB881660@netscape.net>
References: <30842B19.3DD2398F.DB881660@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <449D663C.5050004@comcast.net>

I'd love to see that code!

Bill
928s 5 sp. Vortech/749

davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote:
> ---snip---

> Use a test light from power to the pin.  Much more dramatic and effective.  Check all variables for shift light.  Some may not do what they seem based on labels.  VSS may be needed (vehicle moving bit may need to be set).
>
> Can send 7749 code with working shift light (on at WOT and 6300 ish rpm).
>
> Zaphod
>   
>>     



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 24 12:27:33 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:27:33 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <30842B19.3DD2398F.DB881660@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <072901c697b3$7bddc730$020101c0@gandalf>

Thanks all.

I tried putting a dash warning light between A12 and battery +ve and, whilst
it didn't come on below my desired RPM, it didn't come on above it either. I
was wondering if my lack of VSS might stuff me. I haven't checked out the
code, yet, just assumed that GM would be sensible enough to enable the light
come what may, for safety... I'll switch to looking at this part of the
code...

I'm now wondering what the difference is between A12 ('upshift light') and
C13 ('one to four light'). (I've never  had access to any of the vehicles
normally fitted with GMECMs.)

Based on the name 'upshift light', I had thought that A12 just comes on when
the RPM is above the value set in $013E - i.e. an alert to the driver to
change up, and very useful to have. Is this not how it works? I can't
imagine what C13 does. Can somebody help? :-)

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: <davesnothereman at netscape.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 24 June 2006 17:06
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Shift light


> "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Anybody played with the shift light (pin A12) in a '727
> How 'bout a 7730?
>
> or its equivalent in
> >a '749?
> Yyyep.
>
> >
> >Going by the circuit diagram for a '727, ignition volts are supplied to
the
> >non-ECM side of the shift light. My limited electrical knowledge tells me
> >that the ECM ground this pin when it wants the light to come on. So, when
it
> >wants the light to be off, the pin should be at battery voltage.
> ... when the light is connected to battery power.
>
> >Is this
> >right? Same deal for the injector pins?
> When the injectors are connected to ignition power.
>
> >
> >Could be my minimalist installation causing bypasses in logic (although
> >can't see why), but I see no voltage on the shift light pin, whether the
RPM
> >is below the light on threshold or not. Am I missing something?
> Use a test light from power to the pin.  Much more dramatic and effective.
Check all variables for shift light.  Some may not do what they seem based
on labels.  VSS may be needed (vehicle moving bit may need to be set).
>
> Can send 7749 code with working shift light (on at WOT and 6300 ish rpm).
>
> Zaphod
> >
> >Robin
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>



From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Sat Jun 24 12:32:06 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:32:06 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
Message-ID: <5C066D9D.15BB23C3.DB881660@netscape.net>

The code's stock.  The light will illuminate in gears 1 - 3, not in 4th or 5th.  I'm using an original manual transmission .bin.

You can adjust the tps required to enable the light in each gear with the gear specific minimum TPS% required to enable the light.


x013C  KTPSHYSM    Min. TPS For Shift Light On     0.00 %
0x013D  KRPMHYSM    Min. RPM For Shift Light On      0 RPM
0x013E  KRPMAX      RPM Over Which Shift Light is Always On     7,500 RPM
0x013F  KSHFMPHL    MPH Below Which Shift Light Off     0.0 MPH

0x0141  F47G1ST     1st Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On

        %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200  4600  5000 
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00

0x014C  KNVRAT1H    1st Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     215 RPM/MPH
0x014D  KNVRAT1L    1st Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     170 RPM/MPH
0x014E  KRPMIN1     1st Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
0x014F  KTPSNLT1    1st Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
0x0150  KGRDLY1     1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
0x0151  KTPSHYS1    1st Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
0x0152  KLITDLY1    1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.

0x0153  F47G2ND     2nd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On

        %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200  4600  5000 
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00

0x015E  KNVRAT2H    2nd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     122 RPM/MPH
0x015F  KNVRAT2L    2nd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     106 RPM/MPH
0x0160  KRPMIN2     2nd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
0x0161  KTPSNLT2    2nd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
0x0162  KGRDLY2     2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
0x0163  KTPSHYS2    2nd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
0x0164  KLITDLY2    2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.

0x0165  F47G3RD     3rd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On

        %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200  4600  5000 
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00

0x0170  KNVRAT3H    3rd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     74 RPM/MPH
0x0171  KNVRAT3L    3rd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     66 RPM/MPH
0x0172  KRPMIN3     3rd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
0x0173  KTPSNLT3    3rd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
0x0174  KGRDLY3     3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
0x0175  KTPSHYS3    3rd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
0x0176  KLITDLY3    3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.

0x0177  F47G4TH     4th Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On

        %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200  4600  5000 
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00

0x0182  KNVRAT4H    4th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     53 RPM/MPH
0x0183  KNVRAT4L    4th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
0x0184  KRPMIN4     4th Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     25 RPM
0x0185  KTPSNLT4    4th Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     100.00 %
0x0186  KGRDLY4     4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
0x0187  KTPSHYS4    4th Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
0x0188  KLITDLY4    4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
0x0189  KNVRAT5H    5th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
0x018A  KNVRAT5L    5th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     32 RPM/MPH

Zaphod 
Bill - Comcast <b.shaw at comcast.net> wrote:

>I'd love to see that code!
>
>Bill
>928s 5 sp. Vortech/749
>


__________________________________________________________________
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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 24 12:53:22 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:53:22 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <5C066D9D.15BB23C3.DB881660@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <073601c697b7$17846600$020101c0@gandalf>

How do you get a $013E value of 7500RPM?!? My version of PROMgrammer (1.0)
only goes up to 6375 - which equates to maximum RPM (255 * 25). :-O

Had a quick look at the code, and the check on RPM looked how I was
expecting it (against $013E), so I just did another test and watched the
ALDL this time. The top bit of the LCCPMW (tranmission locked/shift light
ON) switches from 0 to 1 when the RPM goes over the value I put in $013E,
and switches back to 0 when the RPM drops below the $013E value. This is
what I want a light to do. :-)

Maybe there's a VSS/TPS or other filter, in the part of the code that
actually drives the pin. I've started looking...

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: <davesnothereman at netscape.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 24 June 2006 18:32
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light


> The code's stock.  The light will illuminate in gears 1 - 3, not in 4th or
5th.  I'm using an original manual transmission .bin.
>
> You can adjust the tps required to enable the light in each gear with the
gear specific minimum TPS% required to enable the light.
>
>
> x013C  KTPSHYSM    Min. TPS For Shift Light On     0.00 %
> 0x013D  KRPMHYSM    Min. RPM For Shift Light On      0 RPM
> 0x013E  KRPMAX      RPM Over Which Shift Light is Always On     7,500 RPM
> 0x013F  KSHFMPHL    MPH Below Which Shift Light Off     0.0 MPH
>
> 0x0141  F47G1ST     1st Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
>
>         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
4600  5000
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
0.00  0.00
>
> 0x014C  KNVRAT1H    1st Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     215 RPM/MPH
> 0x014D  KNVRAT1L    1st Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     170 RPM/MPH
> 0x014E  KRPMIN1     1st Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
> 0x014F  KTPSNLT1    1st Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
> 0x0150  KGRDLY1     1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0151  KTPSHYS1    1st Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> 0x0152  KLITDLY1    1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>
> 0x0153  F47G2ND     2nd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
>
>         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
4600  5000
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
0.00  0.00
>
> 0x015E  KNVRAT2H    2nd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     122 RPM/MPH
> 0x015F  KNVRAT2L    2nd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     106 RPM/MPH
> 0x0160  KRPMIN2     2nd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
> 0x0161  KTPSNLT2    2nd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
> 0x0162  KGRDLY2     2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0163  KTPSHYS2    2nd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> 0x0164  KLITDLY2    2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>
> 0x0165  F47G3RD     3rd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
>
>         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
4600  5000
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
0.00  0.00
>
> 0x0170  KNVRAT3H    3rd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     74 RPM/MPH
> 0x0171  KNVRAT3L    3rd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     66 RPM/MPH
> 0x0172  KRPMIN3     3rd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
> 0x0173  KTPSNLT3    3rd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
> 0x0174  KGRDLY3     3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0175  KTPSHYS3    3rd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> 0x0176  KLITDLY3    3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>
> 0x0177  F47G4TH     4th Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
>
>         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
4600  5000
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
0.00  0.00
>
> 0x0182  KNVRAT4H    4th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     53 RPM/MPH
> 0x0183  KNVRAT4L    4th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
> 0x0184  KRPMIN4     4th Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     25 RPM
> 0x0185  KTPSNLT4    4th Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     100.00 %
> 0x0186  KGRDLY4     4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0187  KTPSHYS4    4th Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> 0x0188  KLITDLY4    4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0189  KNVRAT5H    5th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
> 0x018A  KNVRAT5L    5th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     32 RPM/MPH
>
> Zaphod
> Bill - Comcast <b.shaw at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >I'd love to see that code!
> >
> >Bill
> >928s 5 sp. Vortech/749
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 24 13:04:53 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:04:53 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <5C066D9D.15BB23C3.DB881660@netscape.net>
	<073601c697b7$17846600$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <074301c697b8$b2cbdfc0$020101c0@gandalf>

Looking at the code at: $E9D5, I think the shift light status should exactly
reflect the LCCPMW top bit. So maybe I'm looking at the wrong pin. I'll try
C13...

My other thought is that this is something that's moved because I'm running
'749 code in a '727...

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 24 June 2006 18:53
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light


> How do you get a $013E value of 7500RPM?!? My version of PROMgrammer (1.0)
> only goes up to 6375 - which equates to maximum RPM (255 * 25). :-O
>
> Had a quick look at the code, and the check on RPM looked how I was
> expecting it (against $013E), so I just did another test and watched the
> ALDL this time. The top bit of the LCCPMW (tranmission locked/shift light
> ON) switches from 0 to 1 when the RPM goes over the value I put in $013E,
> and switches back to 0 when the RPM drops below the $013E value. This is
> what I want a light to do. :-)
>
> Maybe there's a VSS/TPS or other filter, in the part of the code that
> actually drives the pin. I've started looking...
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <davesnothereman at netscape.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 24 June 2006 18:32
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light
>
>
> > The code's stock.  The light will illuminate in gears 1 - 3, not in 4th
or
> 5th.  I'm using an original manual transmission .bin.
> >
> > You can adjust the tps required to enable the light in each gear with
the
> gear specific minimum TPS% required to enable the light.
> >
> >
> > x013C  KTPSHYSM    Min. TPS For Shift Light On     0.00 %
> > 0x013D  KRPMHYSM    Min. RPM For Shift Light On      0 RPM
> > 0x013E  KRPMAX      RPM Over Which Shift Light is Always On     7,500
RPM
> > 0x013F  KSHFMPHL    MPH Below Which Shift Light Off     0.0 MPH
> >
> > 0x0141  F47G1ST     1st Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
> >
> >         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
> 4600  5000
>
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
> 0.00  0.00
> >
> > 0x014C  KNVRAT1H    1st Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     215 RPM/MPH
> > 0x014D  KNVRAT1L    1st Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     170 RPM/MPH
> > 0x014E  KRPMIN1     1st Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
> > 0x014F  KTPSNLT1    1st Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
> > 0x0150  KGRDLY1     1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> > 0x0151  KTPSHYS1    1st Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> > 0x0152  KLITDLY1    1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> >
> > 0x0153  F47G2ND     2nd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
> >
> >         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
> 4600  5000
>
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
> 0.00  0.00
> >
> > 0x015E  KNVRAT2H    2nd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     122 RPM/MPH
> > 0x015F  KNVRAT2L    2nd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     106 RPM/MPH
> > 0x0160  KRPMIN2     2nd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
> > 0x0161  KTPSNLT2    2nd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
> > 0x0162  KGRDLY2     2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> > 0x0163  KTPSHYS2    2nd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> > 0x0164  KLITDLY2    2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> >
> > 0x0165  F47G3RD     3rd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
> >
> >         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
> 4600  5000
>
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
> 0.00  0.00
> >
> > 0x0170  KNVRAT3H    3rd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     74 RPM/MPH
> > 0x0171  KNVRAT3L    3rd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     66 RPM/MPH
> > 0x0172  KRPMIN3     3rd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
> > 0x0173  KTPSNLT3    3rd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
> > 0x0174  KGRDLY3     3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> > 0x0175  KTPSHYS3    3rd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> > 0x0176  KLITDLY3    3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> >
> > 0x0177  F47G4TH     4th Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
> >
> >         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
> 4600  5000
>
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
> 0.00  0.00
> >
> > 0x0182  KNVRAT4H    4th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     53 RPM/MPH
> > 0x0183  KNVRAT4L    4th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
> > 0x0184  KRPMIN4     4th Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     25 RPM
> > 0x0185  KTPSNLT4    4th Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     100.00 %
> > 0x0186  KGRDLY4     4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> > 0x0187  KTPSHYS4    4th Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> > 0x0188  KLITDLY4    4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> > 0x0189  KNVRAT5H    5th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
> > 0x018A  KNVRAT5L    5th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     32 RPM/MPH
> >
> > Zaphod
> > Bill - Comcast <b.shaw at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I'd love to see that code!
> > >
> > >Bill
> > >928s 5 sp. Vortech/749
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 24 13:40:13 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:40:13 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <5C066D9D.15BB23C3.DB881660@netscape.net><073601c697b7$17846600$020101c0@gandalf>
	<074301c697b8$b2cbdfc0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <075701c697bd$a5fecc30$020101c0@gandalf>

> Looking at the code at: $E9D5, I think the shift light status should
exactly
> reflect the LCCPMW top bit. So maybe I'm looking at the wrong pin. I'll
try
> C13...

No light with that pin either. :-(

My reason for thinking it might be another PWM pin is that the $58 code
turns my fan on using the high (#2) fan settings. ANHT turned my fan on with
the low (#1) fan settings. I suppose I've got 2 options: try the light on
all the currently unused PWM o/p's or try to poke them all with my own
code...

Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Jun 24 14:24:12 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:24:12 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <5C066D9D.15BB23C3.DB881660@netscape.net><073601c697b7$17846600$020101c0@gandalf>
	<074301c697b8$b2cbdfc0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <076001c697c3$c7eb95c0$020101c0@gandalf>

Hmmm. ANHT/$8D seems to poke $3FD8 to turn on the shift light, and $58 seems
to poke $4002.

Anybody know if the '727 and '749 have identical PWM register memory
locations?

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 24 June 2006 19:04
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light


> Looking at the code at: $E9D5, I think the shift light status should
exactly
> reflect the LCCPMW top bit. So maybe I'm looking at the wrong pin. I'll
try
> C13...
>
> My other thought is that this is something that's moved because I'm
running
> '749 code in a '727...
>
> Robin



From gmecm at 4usapride.com  Sat Jun 24 15:11:24 2006
From: gmecm at 4usapride.com (Andrew G.)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:11:24 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <5C066D9D.15BB23C3.DB881660@netscape.net><073601c697b7$17846600$020101c0@gandalf>
	<074301c697b8$b2cbdfc0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <02ae01c697ca$62246c60$6701a8c0@ANDREW2>

According to http://www.thirdgen.org/1990conversion, running '749 code in a 
'730 moves the shift light from F1 to F4
And viewing Ludis' page http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/quadplugecm.html 
suggests you might want to try using pin A19 instead (mapping the '730 to 
'727)

--andrew

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light


> Looking at the code at: $E9D5, I think the shift light status should 
> exactly
> reflect the LCCPMW top bit. So maybe I'm looking at the wrong pin. I'll 
> try
> C13...
>
> My other thought is that this is something that's moved because I'm 
> running
> '749 code in a '727...
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 24 June 2006 18:53
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light
>
>
>> How do you get a $013E value of 7500RPM?!? My version of PROMgrammer 
>> (1.0)
>> only goes up to 6375 - which equates to maximum RPM (255 * 25). :-O
>>
>> Had a quick look at the code, and the check on RPM looked how I was
>> expecting it (against $013E), so I just did another test and watched the
>> ALDL this time. The top bit of the LCCPMW (tranmission locked/shift light
>> ON) switches from 0 to 1 when the RPM goes over the value I put in $013E,
>> and switches back to 0 when the RPM drops below the $013E value. This is
>> what I want a light to do. :-)
>>
>> Maybe there's a VSS/TPS or other filter, in the part of the code that
>> actually drives the pin. I've started looking...
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <davesnothereman at netscape.net>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: 24 June 2006 18:32
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light
>>
>>
>> > The code's stock.  The light will illuminate in gears 1 - 3, not in 4th
> or
>> 5th.  I'm using an original manual transmission .bin.
>> >
>> > You can adjust the tps required to enable the light in each gear with
> the
>> gear specific minimum TPS% required to enable the light.
>> >
>> >
>> > x013C  KTPSHYSM    Min. TPS For Shift Light On     0.00 %
>> > 0x013D  KRPMHYSM    Min. RPM For Shift Light On      0 RPM
>> > 0x013E  KRPMAX      RPM Over Which Shift Light is Always On     7,500
> RPM
>> > 0x013F  KSHFMPHL    MPH Below Which Shift Light Off     0.0 MPH
>> >
>> > 0x0141  F47G1ST     1st Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
>> >
>> >         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
>> 4600  5000
>>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>> >           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
>> 0.00  0.00
>> >
>> > 0x014C  KNVRAT1H    1st Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     215 RPM/MPH
>> > 0x014D  KNVRAT1L    1st Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     170 RPM/MPH
>> > 0x014E  KRPMIN1     1st Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
>> > 0x014F  KTPSNLT1    1st Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
>> > 0x0150  KGRDLY1     1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>> > 0x0151  KTPSHYS1    1st Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
>> > 0x0152  KLITDLY1    1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>> >
>> > 0x0153  F47G2ND     2nd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
>> >
>> >         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
>> 4600  5000
>>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>> >           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
>> 0.00  0.00
>> >
>> > 0x015E  KNVRAT2H    2nd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     122 RPM/MPH
>> > 0x015F  KNVRAT2L    2nd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     106 RPM/MPH
>> > 0x0160  KRPMIN2     2nd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
>> > 0x0161  KTPSNLT2    2nd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
>> > 0x0162  KGRDLY2     2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>> > 0x0163  KTPSHYS2    2nd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
>> > 0x0164  KLITDLY2    2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>> >
>> > 0x0165  F47G3RD     3rd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
>> >
>> >         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
>> 4600  5000
>>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>> >           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
>> 0.00  0.00
>> >
>> > 0x0170  KNVRAT3H    3rd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     74 RPM/MPH
>> > 0x0171  KNVRAT3L    3rd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     66 RPM/MPH
>> > 0x0172  KRPMIN3     3rd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
>> > 0x0173  KTPSNLT3    3rd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
>> > 0x0174  KGRDLY3     3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>> > 0x0175  KTPSHYS3    3rd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
>> > 0x0176  KLITDLY3    3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>> >
>> > 0x0177  F47G4TH     4th Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
>> >
>> >         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200
>> 4600  5000
>>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>> >           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
>> 0.00  0.00
>> >
>> > 0x0182  KNVRAT4H    4th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     53 RPM/MPH
>> > 0x0183  KNVRAT4L    4th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
>> > 0x0184  KRPMIN4     4th Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     25 RPM
>> > 0x0185  KTPSNLT4    4th Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     100.00 %
>> > 0x0186  KGRDLY4     4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>> > 0x0187  KTPSHYS4    4th Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
>> > 0x0188  KLITDLY4    4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
>> > 0x0189  KNVRAT5H    5th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
>> > 0x018A  KNVRAT5L    5th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     32 RPM/MPH
>> >
>> > Zaphod
>> > Bill - Comcast <b.shaw at comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >I'd love to see that code!
>> > >
>> > >Bill
>> > >928s 5 sp. Vortech/749
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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 william.lucke at highspeedlink.net  Sat Jun 24 15:35:01 2006
From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:35:01 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 16, Issue 26
Message-ID: <449DA1F5.30608@highspeedlink.net>

There should be a pull-down resistor on the pin. Your meter will tell 
you it's grounded unless there's a measurable current flowing.



Will


> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
> 
> Anybody played with the shift light (pin A12) in a '727 or its equivalent in
> a '749?
> 
> Going by the circuit diagram for a '727, ignition volts are supplied to the
> non-ECM side of the shift light. My limited electrical knowledge tells me
> that the ECM ground this pin when it wants the light to come on. So, when it
> wants the light to be off, the pin should be at battery voltage. Is this
> right? Same deal for the injector pins?
> 
> Could be my minimalist installation causing bypasses in logic (although
> can't see why), but I see no voltage on the shift light pin, whether the RPM
> is below the light on threshold or not. Am I missing something?
> 
> Robin


From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net  Sat Jun 24 15:49:07 2006
From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:49:07 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
Message-ID: <449DA543.1030808@highspeedlink.net>

Robin,

Notice that the code Zaphod posted lays out N/V ratio windows for each 
gear. N/V is the ratio of engine RPM to vehicle speed.

IOW, without a VSS input, code that works like this will NEVER light the 
upshift light unless you program the upper bound for the N/V ratio 
window to infinity. I don't think that value fits into even a 16 bit 
location.

The upside is that you can program different RPM for different gears so 
you can REALLY have a shift light.



Will

> From: davesnothereman at netscape.net
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light
> 
> The code's stock.  The light will illuminate in gears 1 - 3, not in 4th or 5th.  I'm using an original manual transmission .bin.
> 
> You can adjust the tps required to enable the light in each gear with the gear specific minimum TPS% required to enable the light.
> 
> 
> x013C  KTPSHYSM    Min. TPS For Shift Light On     0.00 %
> 0x013D  KRPMHYSM    Min. RPM For Shift Light On      0 RPM
> 0x013E  KRPMAX      RPM Over Which Shift Light is Always On     7,500 RPM
> 0x013F  KSHFMPHL    MPH Below Which Shift Light Off     0.0 MPH
> 
> 0x0141  F47G1ST     1st Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
> 
>         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200  4600  5000 
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
> 
> 0x014C  KNVRAT1H    1st Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     215 RPM/MPH
> 0x014D  KNVRAT1L    1st Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     170 RPM/MPH
> 0x014E  KRPMIN1     1st Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
> 0x014F  KTPSNLT1    1st Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
> 0x0150  KGRDLY1     1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0151  KTPSHYS1    1st Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> 0x0152  KLITDLY1    1st Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 
> 0x0153  F47G2ND     2nd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
> 
>         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200  4600  5000 
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
> 
> 0x015E  KNVRAT2H    2nd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     122 RPM/MPH
> 0x015F  KNVRAT2L    2nd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     106 RPM/MPH
> 0x0160  KRPMIN2     2nd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
> 0x0161  KTPSNLT2    2nd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
> 0x0162  KGRDLY2     2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0163  KTPSHYS2    2nd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> 0x0164  KLITDLY2    2nd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 
> 0x0165  F47G3RD     3rd Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
> 
>         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200  4600  5000 
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
> 
> 0x0170  KNVRAT3H    3rd Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     74 RPM/MPH
> 0x0171  KNVRAT3L    3rd Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     66 RPM/MPH
> 0x0172  KRPMIN3     3rd Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     6,375 RPM
> 0x0173  KTPSNLT3    3rd Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     87.89 %
> 0x0174  KGRDLY3     3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0175  KTPSHYS3    3rd Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> 0x0176  KLITDLY3    3rd Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 
> 0x0177  F47G4TH     4th Gear - TPS Thresh. For Shiftlight On
> 
>         %       |  1000  1400  1800  2200  2600  3000  3400  3800  4200  4600  5000 
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>           (%TPS)|  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00
> 
> 0x0182  KNVRAT4H    4th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     53 RPM/MPH
> 0x0183  KNVRAT4L    4th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
> 0x0184  KRPMIN4     4th Gear - Min. RPM For Light On     25 RPM
> 0x0185  KTPSNLT4    4th Gear - Min. TPS For Light On     100.00 %
> 0x0186  KGRDLY4     4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0187  KTPSHYS4    4th Gear - TPS Hysteresis For Light On     0.00 %
> 0x0188  KLITDLY4    4th Gear - Light On Delay Time     0.0 Sec.
> 0x0189  KNVRAT5H    5th Gear - Upper N/V Ratio Window     42 RPM/MPH
> 0x018A  KNVRAT5L    5th Gear - Lower N/V Ratio Window     32 RPM/MPH
> 
> Zaphod 
> Bill - Comcast <b.shaw at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> I'd love to see that code!
>>
>> Bill
>> 928s 5 sp. Vortech/749


From Rexdina at aol.com  Sat Jun 24 17:48:10 2006
From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:48:10 EDT
Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e
Message-ID: <515.18b031a.31cf1b2a@aol.com>

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
 


From herningg at hotmail.com  Sat Jun 24 19:44:48 2006
From: herningg at hotmail.com (Garrett Herning)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:44:48 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e
In-Reply-To: <515.18b031a.31cf1b2a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY110-F132E175CEF8B718A9E4822D9780@phx.gbl>

Hi Harry,

No they are not interchangable by connector. Even though they use the same 
connector, they run different solenoids, sensors to different pins. Not sure 
about disabling the stock ECM for the trans, but I do know there are 2 
aftermarket controllers that are normally used when one of these are put 
into street rods...

www.compushift.com
http://www.powertraincontrolsolutions.com/

Also I know there are standalone GM controllers for the 4L80E normally used 
in diesle applications.

Hope this helps.

Garrett



>From: Rexdina at aol.com
>Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e
>Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:48:10 EDT
>
>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




From Rexdina at aol.com  Sat Jun 24 19:59:05 2006
From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:59:05 EDT
Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e
Message-ID: <38c.51e8276.31cf39d9@aol.com>

Thanks Garrett. That is kind of what I thought, but your input sure  helps.!
Harry


From Rexdina at aol.com  Sun Jun 25 14:03:22 2006
From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:03:22 EDT
Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e
Message-ID: <481.33dc73f.31d037fa@aol.com>

Is there a trick, easy method to retrive trouble codes from an OBD  II 2001 
GMC like the old paper clip trick on the OBD Is? Thanks.
Harry


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Jun 25 17:40:05 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:40:05 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <5C066D9D.15BB23C3.DB881660@netscape.net><073601c697b7$17846600$020101c0@gandalf><074301c697b8$b2cbdfc0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<02ae01c697ca$62246c60$6701a8c0@ANDREW2>
Message-ID: <08d401c698a8$55fb2d50$020101c0@gandalf>

Thanks Andrew! :-)

I've had Ludis' cross-reference for a long time, but had never done much
with it except compare 727 pin definitions with other sources. The other
sources described more pins.

Given the thirdgen.org cross-reference, it seems odd to me that Ludis'
cross-reference lumped the 730 and 749 together. There's probably more to
this than I currently understand.

Anyway, thanks to your help, I've put some effort into creating my own
cross-reference (of pins I care about), compiled from several sources and
backed up by my own experiences. The mapping 727->730->749->727 has produced
a result which is fully compatible with my practical experience. I.e. that
everything I had wired up and working for $8D, worked for $58 (with the
exception of the Fan 1/Fan 2 swap, and it would seem that the 730 and 749
didn't have a 2nd Fan so I can forgive that). This includes ALDL, which is
one of the ones listed on the thirdgen.org link, but comes back to the same
727 pins. However, as you brilliantly pointed out, the shift light pin
moves, and tracks back to 727 pin A19. I can't wait to try this in the
morning. :-)

Looks like the only other connections that I need to think twice about, when
I move to injection, are the injector pins.

Thanks,

Robin

P.S. I'll post a follow up message reporting the result of my test!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew G." <gmecm at 4usapride.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 24 June 2006 21:11
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light


> According to http://www.thirdgen.org/1990conversion, running '749 code in
a
> '730 moves the shift light from F1 to F4
> And viewing Ludis' page http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/quadplugecm.html
> suggests you might want to try using pin A19 instead (mapping the '730 to
> '727)
>
> --andrew
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light
>
>
> > Looking at the code at: $E9D5, I think the shift light status should
> > exactly
> > reflect the LCCPMW top bit. So maybe I'm looking at the wrong pin. I'll
> > try
> > C13...
> >
> > My other thought is that this is something that's moved because I'm
> > running
> > '749 code in a '727...
> >
> > Robin



From efi at dyakron.com  Sun Jun 25 18:31:01 2006
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:31:01 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
In-Reply-To: <08d401c698a8$55fb2d50$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <5C066D9D.15BB23C3.DB881660@netscape.net>
	<073601c697b7$17846600$020101c0@gandalf>
	<074301c697b8$b2cbdfc0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<02ae01c697ca$62246c60$6701a8c0@ANDREW2>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060625192952.03496670@dyakron.com>

At 11:40 PM 6/25/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>Looks like the only other connections that I need to think twice about, when
>I move to injection, are the injector pins.


Hi Robin,
it sounds like you've been working at a good pace.
Have you run the engine without a carb yet?
mv



From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net  Sun Jun 25 18:48:43 2006
From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:48:43 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e
Message-ID: <449F20DB.9080505@highspeedlink.net>

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


From herningg at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 25 19:36:17 2006
From: herningg at hotmail.com (Garrett Herning)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:36:17 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e
In-Reply-To: <449F20DB.9080505@highspeedlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY110-F40B8000CC90DC510B081C4D9790@phx.gbl>

Hi Will & Harry,

Will is right, you could get a 4L80E to run with some wiring and a relay. 
Where I work we make test tools that are used to shift trans in cars or on 
dyno's without the factory ECM. Since you have a 94, there is only 1 lockup 
solenoid for your 4L60E, same as the 4L80E (the 95 and up 4L60E had a lokup 
and a lockup feel solenoid) Shift Solenoid A is the same locgic, Shift 
solenoid B is inverted, Lockup and EPC are the same, and you wouldn't have a 
3-2 downshift solenoid on the 4L80E. I'm not sure if leaving that wire 
unconnected would throw codes or not. Looks like the pressure switch logic 
is the same as well but I'd have to double check that against a GM manual. 
You'd have to make an adapter harness to reconfigure the wires from the 
4L60E harness to a 4L80E. I'd be happy to help you with that as I have the 
harness wiring diagrams if you want to go that far.

Garrett


>From: William Lucke <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
>Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>Subject: RE: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e
>Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:48:43 -0400
>
>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




From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Jun 26 02:41:01 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:41:01 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <5C066D9D.15BB23C3.DB881660@netscape.net><073601c697b7$17846600$020101c0@gandalf><074301c697b8$b2cbdfc0$020101c0@gandalf><02ae01c697ca$62246c60$6701a8c0@ANDREW2>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20060625192952.03496670@dyakron.com>
Message-ID: <08e701c698f4$2e0b9130$020101c0@gandalf>

> Hi Robin,
> it sounds like you've been working at a good pace.
> Have you run the engine without a carb yet?
> mv

Hey Mike,

I'm very pleased that I've managed to get to the point where I have the
Sunbird/$58 code running the ignition and fan as well as ANHT/$8D did. I've
put in a lot of time, and been lucky to receive lots of invaluable help from
you guys, for which I'm very grateful. :-) I have lots more work to do. My
$58 setup is still lagging behind $8D because of code changes that I made to
$8D. If I can reproduce those then I think the only thing really stopping me
making the hardware changes for fuel injection is the fact that I'm
currently getting more use and fun out of the car than I ever have. The move
to injection is planned for the end of the year, when the weather isn't so
good. I've been making notes as I've been going along, which might help
somebody wanting to do the same thing.

BR,

Robin



From perlon at passagen.se  Mon Jun 26 04:12:04 2006
From: perlon at passagen.se (Per Lonnborg)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:12:04 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Gmecm] Stoich AFR and constants table
Message-ID: <24113347.1151313124934.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps09.sth.basefarm.net>

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


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Jun 26 04:17:48 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:17:48 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
Message-ID: <091601c69901$66632b30$020101c0@gandalf>

> P.S. I'll post a follow up message reporting the result of my test!

WOOHOO ! It works! All the more satisfying since it was deduced logically!
Another function successfully working with 749 code running on a 727! :-)

Thanks again, Andrew.

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 25 June 2006 23:40
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light


> Thanks Andrew! :-)
>
> I've had Ludis' cross-reference for a long time, but had never done much
> with it except compare 727 pin definitions with other sources. The other
> sources described more pins.
>
> Given the thirdgen.org cross-reference, it seems odd to me that Ludis'
> cross-reference lumped the 730 and 749 together. There's probably more to
> this than I currently understand.
>
> Anyway, thanks to your help, I've put some effort into creating my own
> cross-reference (of pins I care about), compiled from several sources and
> backed up by my own experiences. The mapping 727->730->749->727 has
produced
> a result which is fully compatible with my practical experience. I.e. that
> everything I had wired up and working for $8D, worked for $58 (with the
> exception of the Fan 1/Fan 2 swap, and it would seem that the 730 and 749
> didn't have a 2nd Fan so I can forgive that). This includes ALDL, which is
> one of the ones listed on the thirdgen.org link, but comes back to the
same
> 727 pins. However, as you brilliantly pointed out, the shift light pin
> moves, and tracks back to 727 pin A19. I can't wait to try this in the
> morning. :-)
>
> Looks like the only other connections that I need to think twice about,
when
> I move to injection, are the injector pins.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
> P.S. I'll post a follow up message reporting the result of my test!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew G." <gmecm at 4usapride.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 24 June 2006 21:11
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light
>
>
> > According to http://www.thirdgen.org/1990conversion, running '749 code
in
> a
> > '730 moves the shift light from F1 to F4
> > And viewing Ludis' page http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/quadplugecm.html
> > suggests you might want to try using pin A19 instead (mapping the '730
to
> > '727)
> >
> > --andrew



From gmecm at 4usapride.com  Mon Jun 26 05:23:16 2006
From: gmecm at 4usapride.com (Andrew G.)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 06:23:16 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
References: <091601c69901$66632b30$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <041201c6990b$280e17a0$6701a8c0@ANDREW2>

I'm just glad that I could finally contribute something.  :)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light


>> P.S. I'll post a follow up message reporting the result of my test!
>
> WOOHOO ! It works! All the more satisfying since it was deduced logically!
> Another function successfully working with 749 code running on a 727! :-)
>
> Thanks again, Andrew.
>
> Robin
>




From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Mon Jun 26 11:50:00 2006
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:50:00 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Shift light
Message-ID: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net>

The 7749 and 7730 share the same board.  Software addresses different locations for the inputs / outputs.  These can often be changed.  As you've determined, shift light and TCC use the same pin after the swap.

Zaphod

"Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Thanks Andrew! :-)
>
>I've had Ludis' cross-reference for a long time, but had never done much
>with it except compare 727 pin definitions with other sources. The other
>sources described more pins.
>
>Given the thirdgen.org cross-reference, it seems odd to me that Ludis'
>cross-reference lumped the 730 and 749 together. There's probably more to
>this than I currently understand.
>
>Anyway, thanks to your help, I've put some effort into creating my own
>cross-reference (of pins I care about), compiled from several sources and
>backed up by my own experiences. The mapping 727->730->749->727 has produced
>a result which is fully compatible with my practical experience. I.e. that
>everything I had wired up and working for $8D, worked for $58 (with the
>exception of the Fan 1/Fan 2 swap, and it would seem that the 730 and 749
>didn't have a 2nd Fan so I can forgive that). This includes ALDL, which is
>one of the ones listed on the thirdgen.org link, but comes back to the same
>727 pins. However, as you brilliantly pointed out, the shift light pin
>moves, and tracks back to 727 pin A19. I can't wait to try this in the
>morning. :-)
>
>Looks like the only other connections that I need to think twice about, when
>I move to injection, are the injector pins.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Robin
>
>P.S. I'll post a follow up message reporting the result of my test!
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrew G." <gmecm at 4usapride.com>
>To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>Sent: 24 June 2006 21:11
>Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light
>
>
>> According to http://www.thirdgen.org/1990conversion, running '749 code in
>a
>> '730 moves the shift light from F1 to F4
>> And viewing Ludis' page http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/quadplugecm.html
>> suggests you might want to try using pin A19 instead (mapping the '730 to
>> '727)
>>
>> --andrew
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Shift light
>>
>>
>> > Looking at the code at: $E9D5, I think the shift light status should
>> > exactly
>> > reflect the LCCPMW top bit. So maybe I'm looking at the wrong pin. I'll
>> > try
>> > C13...
>> >
>> > My other thought is that this is something that's moved because I'm
>> > running
>> > '749 code in a '727...
>> >
>> > Robin
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Jun 27 15:09:26 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:09:26 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
References: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf>

Anybody know if the Sunbird/$58 code supposed to keep the fan running when
you turn the ignition off? There seem to be calibration timing values which
suggest it... but mine goes off (mind you, it is wired as the hot fan, and
that may be different. Trying to work my way through the fan code...

Robin



From nick_cooper at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 27 17:16:34 2006
From: nick_cooper at yahoo.com (Nick Cooper)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:16:34 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
In-Reply-To: <0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <JMENIINDOBNBDPAJGGIFEEMLFDAA.nick_cooper@yahoo.com>

I don't know about the $58 code, but the '165 system I have has a redundant
high temp switch that will keep the fan relay grounded, and the circuit
complete, even when the ignition is off. With a low temp switch, this could
keep the fan on at reasonable temps.

Maybe they did the same with the sunbird system.

Nick Cooper

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org]  On
Behalf Of Robin Handley
Sent:	Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:09 PM
To:	gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject:	[Gmecm] Ignition off fan

Anybody know if the Sunbird/$58 code supposed to keep the fan running when
you turn the ignition off? There seem to be calibration timing values which
suggest it... but mine goes off (mind you, it is wired as the hot fan, and
that may be different. Trying to work my way through the fan code...

Robin

_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm




From jlg-sep at comcast.net  Tue Jun 27 17:26:39 2006
From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:26:39 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
References: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net>
	<0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <001601c69a38$c2bd9bd0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP>

> Anybody know if the Sunbird/$58 code supposed to keep the fan running when
> you turn the ignition off? There seem to be calibration timing values 
> which
> suggest it... but mine goes off (mind you, it is wired as the hot fan, and
> that may be different. Trying to work my way through the fan code...

Yes, there is code which will allow the fans to run-on after ignition-off if 
the
coolant temp is above a threshold.  This feature is especially useful on the
turbo Sunbird when its been shut off immediately after a hard run on a hot
day.

-Scott



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Jun 27 17:34:11 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:34:11 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
References: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net><0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<001601c69a38$c2bd9bd0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP>
Message-ID: <0ad201c69a39$d3891e70$020101c0@gandalf>

Thanks Scott. Both fans?

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Peitzsch" <jlg-sep at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 27 June 2006 23:26
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan


> > Anybody know if the Sunbird/$58 code supposed to keep the fan running
when
> > you turn the ignition off? There seem to be calibration timing values
> > which
> > suggest it... but mine goes off (mind you, it is wired as the hot fan,
and
> > that may be different. Trying to work my way through the fan code...
>
> Yes, there is code which will allow the fans to run-on after ignition-off
if
> the
> coolant temp is above a threshold.  This feature is especially useful on
the
> turbo Sunbird when its been shut off immediately after a hard run on a hot
> day.
>
> -Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>



From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Tue Jun 27 18:06:05 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:06:05 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C7434140611783010989F4@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto: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 replace
an 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.



From jlg-sep at comcast.net  Tue Jun 27 19:09:48 2006
From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:09:48 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
References: <5B0A4D5A.4DA1353C.DB881660@netscape.net><0ab701c69a25$99bebec0$020101c0@gandalf><001601c69a38$c2bd9bd0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP>
	<0ad201c69a39$d3891e70$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <003801c69a47$2b8d16a0$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP>

Sadly, no.  The '749 ECM lacks quad driver U20, which would normally
have driven the Secondary Cooling Fan output at pin F8.  Its sister ECMs
(the '727 and '730) have this driver and the capability to run both fans.

Since you're reworking code anyhow, or at least on your way, you might
consider redirecting the secondary fan output to another existing quad 
driver
channel whose original function can be eliminated in your application.

-Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan


> Thanks Scott. Both fans?
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Peitzsch" <jlg-sep at comcast.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 27 June 2006 23:26
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
>
>
>> > Anybody know if the Sunbird/$58 code supposed to keep the fan running
> when
>> > you turn the ignition off? There seem to be calibration timing values
>> > which
>> > suggest it... but mine goes off (mind you, it is wired as the hot fan,
> and
>> > that may be different. Trying to work my way through the fan code...
>>
>> Yes, there is code which will allow the fans to run-on after ignition-off
> if
>> the
>> coolant temp is above a threshold.  This feature is especially useful on
> the
>> turbo Sunbird when its been shut off immediately after a hard run on a 
>> hot
>> day.
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Jun 27 21:14:56 2006
From: craig at moates.net (craig at moates.net)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:14:56 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!
Message-ID: <00b601c69a58$a63ca670$6400a8c0@Compaq>

Hi there everyone,

Sorry for dropping off the list for a couple years here. Anyways, just wanted to say hello as I resubscribed. I'll to what I can to participate in discussions and add what I can.

Best regards,
Craig Moates


From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 27 21:22:48 2006
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!
In-Reply-To: <00b601c69a58$a63ca670$6400a8c0@Compaq>
Message-ID: <20060628022248.29661.qmail@web80506.mail.yahoo.com>

Welcome back, I have valued your comments in the past and your expertise w/ programming components. thanks!


----- Original Message ----
From: craig at moates.net
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:14:56 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!


Hi there everyone,

Sorry for dropping off the list for a couple years here. Anyways, just wanted to say hello as I resubscribed. I'll to what I can to participate in discussions and add what I can.

Best regards,
Craig Moates
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm

From efi at dyakron.com  Tue Jun 27 21:57:40 2006
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:57:40 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!
In-Reply-To: <00b601c69a58$a63ca670$6400a8c0@Compaq>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627225712.0349a400@dyakron.com>

Welcome back Craig.  Any new projects?
Mike V

At 09:14 PM 6/27/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi there everyone,
>
>Sorry for dropping off the list for a couple years here. Anyways, just 
>wanted to say hello as I resubscribed. I'll to what I can to participate 
>in discussions and add what I can.
>
>Best regards,
>Craig Moates



From craig at moates.net  Wed Jun 28 00:46:31 2006
From: craig at moates.net (craig at moates.net)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:46:31 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627225712.0349a400@dyakron.com>
Message-ID: <002101c69a76$3587f9c0$6400a8c0@Compaq>

Hi Mike,

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.

Got my project car running pretty good, 441ci SBC Dart block, uses the 730 
with 60# injectors and a 6-spd / 9" rear tucked in an old 87 TA. Made 
680hp/630tq NA on the engine stand. It has been one of those "Everything is 
Custom" projects. Even something as simple as an alternator bracket turns 
into a fabrication exercise. But that's the fun of it!

But yeah, some new stuff.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike V" <efi at dyakron.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!


> Welcome back Craig.  Any new projects?
> Mike V
>
> At 09:14 PM 6/27/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hi there everyone,
>>
>>Sorry for dropping off the list for a couple years here. Anyways, just 
>>wanted to say hello as I resubscribed. I'll to what I can to participate 
>>in discussions and add what I can.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Craig Moates
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>
> 



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Wed Jun 28 03:38:48 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:38:48 +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>
Message-ID: <0b1301c69a8e$48aae270$020101c0@gandalf>

Thanks Scott, although I'm confused. The $58 code has lookup values for two
fans, so I had assumed that the Sunbird and/or Sy/Ty had two fans. Am I
wrong? Since I have proved that the high fan temperatures drive my fan, it
would be weird if the low fan temperatures weren't used for something...
What am I missing?

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Peitzsch" <jlg-sep at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 28 June 2006 01:09
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan


> Sadly, no.  The '749 ECM lacks quad driver U20, which would normally
> have driven the Secondary Cooling Fan output at pin F8.  Its sister ECMs
> (the '727 and '730) have this driver and the capability to run both fans.
>
> Since you're reworking code anyhow, or at least on your way, you might
> consider redirecting the secondary fan output to another existing quad
> driver
> channel whose original function can be eliminated in your application.
>
> -Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
>
>
> > Thanks Scott. Both fans?
> >
> > Robin
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Scott Peitzsch" <jlg-sep at comcast.net>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Sent: 27 June 2006 23:26
> > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
> >
> >
> >> > Anybody know if the Sunbird/$58 code supposed to keep the fan running
> > when
> >> > you turn the ignition off? There seem to be calibration timing values
> >> > which
> >> > suggest it... but mine goes off (mind you, it is wired as the hot
fan,
> > and
> >> > that may be different. Trying to work my way through the fan code...
> >>
> >> Yes, there is code which will allow the fans to run-on after
ignition-off
> > if
> >> the
> >> coolant temp is above a threshold.  This feature is especially useful
on
> > the
> >> turbo Sunbird when its been shut off immediately after a hard run on a
> >> hot
> >> day.
> >>
> >> -Scott



From low_sl2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 28 05:01:10 2006
From: low_sl2 at yahoo.com (Jeff Silva)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!
In-Reply-To: <002101c69a76$3587f9c0$6400a8c0@Compaq>
Message-ID: <20060628100110.92179.qmail@web36813.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Awesome.  Willing to help out the Saturn community?  We've been working
hard to figure out how to hack the OBD1 PCM.

We've put a Wiki together on what we've found so far. If anyone is up
to a challenge, by all means help us out. :)

http://emailer33.no-ip.org/mediawiki/

Good to see you back.

Jeff Silva
DifferentRacing.com


--- craig at moates.net wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Got my project car running pretty good, 441ci SBC Dart block, uses
> the 730 
> with 60# injectors and a 6-spd / 9" rear tucked in an old 87 TA. Made
> 
> 680hp/630tq NA on the engine stand. It has been one of those
> "Everything is 
> Custom" projects. Even something as simple as an alternator bracket
> turns 
> into a fabrication exercise. But that's the fun of it!
> 
> But yeah, some new stuff.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike V" <efi at dyakron.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!
> 
> 
> > Welcome back Craig.  Any new projects?
> > Mike V
> >
> > At 09:14 PM 6/27/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> >>Hi there everyone,
> >>
> >>Sorry for dropping off the list for a couple years here. Anyways,
> just 
> >>wanted to say hello as I resubscribed. I'll to what I can to
> participate 
> >>in discussions and add what I can.
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>Craig Moates
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From jlg-sep at comcast.net  Wed Jun 28 06:25:05 2006
From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:25:05 -0400
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>
Message-ID: <003301c69aa5$819c8e00$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP>

I did a poor job answering the question first time around.  The code does
support two fans, but the hardware does not.  The turbo Sunbird does
indeed have only one cooling fan as shown here:

ftp://ftp.diy-efi.org/pub/gmecm/manuals/1227749/749sunbird3.jpg

It runs in full speed mode when the ignition is on, and in slow speed
mode when its off to reduce current draw on the battery during the
fan run-on period.

-Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan


> Thanks Scott, although I'm confused. The $58 code has lookup values for 
> two
> fans, so I had assumed that the Sunbird and/or Sy/Ty had two fans. Am I
> wrong? Since I have proved that the high fan temperatures drive my fan, it
> would be weird if the low fan temperatures weren't used for something...
> What am I missing?
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Peitzsch" <jlg-sep at comcast.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 28 June 2006 01:09
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
>
>
>> Sadly, no.  The '749 ECM lacks quad driver U20, which would normally
>> have driven the Secondary Cooling Fan output at pin F8.  Its sister ECMs
>> (the '727 and '730) have this driver and the capability to run both fans.
>>
>> Since you're reworking code anyhow, or at least on your way, you might
>> consider redirecting the secondary fan output to another existing quad
>> driver
>> channel whose original function can be eliminated in your application.
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
>>
>>
>> > Thanks Scott. Both fans?
>> >
>> > Robin
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Scott Peitzsch" <jlg-sep at comcast.net>
>> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> > Sent: 27 June 2006 23:26
>> > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Anybody know if the Sunbird/$58 code supposed to keep the fan 
>> >> > running
>> > when
>> >> > you turn the ignition off? There seem to be calibration timing 
>> >> > values
>> >> > which
>> >> > suggest it... but mine goes off (mind you, it is wired as the hot
> fan,
>> > and
>> >> > that may be different. Trying to work my way through the fan code...
>> >>
>> >> Yes, there is code which will allow the fans to run-on after
> ignition-off
>> > if
>> >> the
>> >> coolant temp is above a threshold.  This feature is especially useful
> on
>> > the
>> >> turbo Sunbird when its been shut off immediately after a hard run on a
>> >> hot
>> >> day.
>> >>
>> >> -Scott



From darrenfreed at shaw.ca  Wed Jun 28 10:03:23 2006
From: darrenfreed at shaw.ca (Darren Freed)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:03:23 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
Message-ID: <2cbbb2fa4f.2fa4f2cbbb@shaw.ca>

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 <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
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
> 



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Wed Jun 28 13:28:07 2006
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:28:07 +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>
Message-ID: <0bc201c69ae0$9ad35210$020101c0@gandalf>

Aaah. Thanks again, Scott! :-) I see how, from the circuit diagram, when
ignition power is lost, the high speed fan relay drops off.

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? :-)

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...

Robin

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.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Peitzsch" <jlg-sep at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 28 June 2006 12:25
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan


> I did a poor job answering the question first time around.  The code does
> support two fans, but the hardware does not.  The turbo Sunbird does
> indeed have only one cooling fan as shown here:
>
> ftp://ftp.diy-efi.org/pub/gmecm/manuals/1227749/749sunbird3.jpg
>
> It runs in full speed mode when the ignition is on, and in slow speed
> mode when its off to reduce current draw on the battery during the
> fan run-on period.
>
> -Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Ignition off fan
>
>
> > Thanks Scott, although I'm confused. The $58 code has lookup values for
> > two
> > fans, so I had assumed that the Sunbird and/or Sy/Ty had two fans. Am I
> > wrong? Since I have proved that the high fan temperatures drive my fan,
it
> > would be weird if the low fan temperatures weren't used for something...
> > What am I missing?
> >
> > Robin



From jlg-sep at comcast.net  Wed Jun 28 16:17:35 2006
From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:17:35 -0400
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>
Message-ID: <000801c69af8$47101100$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP>

> 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



From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Wed Jun 28 21:35:51 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:35:51 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] OBD2 project
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098CE8@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

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.



From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Wed Jun 28 22:43:04 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:43:04 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] twiki help
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098CF8@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

I've downloaded a twiki for the gmecm and diy-efi pages.  I'm no admin
so I need some help with the installation and configuration.  It's on a
hosted site, and I don't have root access, which will make it that much
more fun.  If anyone has suggestions please get with me off list

thanks,
--steve

-------------------
Steve Ravet
ARM
steve.ravet at arm.com

-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.



From perlon at passagen.se  Thu Jun 29 05:06:35 2006
From: perlon at passagen.se (Per Lonnborg)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 12:06:35 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Ang: [Gmecm] Stoich AFR and constants table
Message-ID: <19545426.1151575595705.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps01.sth.basefarm.net>

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: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>?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
>




From gmecm at 4usapride.com  Thu Jun 29 06:16:13 2006
From: gmecm at 4usapride.com (Andrew G.)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:16:13 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!
References: <00b601c69a58$a63ca670$6400a8c0@Compaq>
Message-ID: <163601c69b6d$6f668c90$6701a8c0@ANDREW2>

Hiya Craig!

I was trolling through my new GMHTP this morning and what should I find but
the Roadrunner...  cool!

--andrew


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <craig at moates.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:14 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Hello Folks!


Hi there everyone,

Sorry for dropping off the list for a couple years here. Anyways, just 
wanted to say hello as I resubscribed. I'll to what I can to participate in 
discussions and add what I can.

Best regards,
Craig Moates
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm




From john.c.mccracken at comcast.net  Thu Jun 29 14:34:22 2006
From: john.c.mccracken at comcast.net (john.c.mccracken at comcast.net)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:34:22 +0000
Subject: [Gmecm] '7747:  Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus
Message-ID: <062920061934.2693.44A42B3D000DD02100000A852200750330020A050C0E9D0C0C03D20CD202080106@comcast.net>

Hello all,

I have a 4.2L powered Jeep on which I installed a '7747 controlled TBI system in 2001 - 2002.  At that time, I went through several iterations of programs eventually making the Jeep run consistently "fair".  Due to other things going on in life and career, I was content with "fair" ... but now I want to get back into the code and make it run "good".  

Some background:  I still have my Pocket Programmer II, EPROM eraser, Auto X-Ray, and a WinALDL cable (but I've never actually run WinALDL) ... and I see that WinBin and TunerCat are still available.  I still have my old ECU files and a history of my BIN files.  The Jeep is now a trail rig with limited on-road operation.  Its a 4.2L with stock intake manifold and headers.  I am running ECU controlled timing.  The cam is a little more than stock ... a Crower RV or off-road cam (I'm sure I can find cam data if necessary).

Because of some changes that I have made to this Jeep during my hiatus (making it a little closer to mechanically stock), I believe I would like to start over again with my program.  My first thought is to start with off-the-shelf Howell code.  Is that code available from anyone?  Barring that, can anyone recommend a good place to start (again).  Perhaps someone has a good running Jeep 4.2L code that they can share?

My major issues, currently, are:
1.  An unsteady idle ... particularly when its cool and cold outside.  I know that, because of a big Clifford intake manifold that I used to run, I fiddled with the IAC time delays and accelerator pump constants (and maybe some other stuff).
2.  It seems down on power compared to some carbureted Jeeps I've been in.
3.  Runs rich across the board (not drastically so), but is very rich in some areas (RPM and load).

Bottom line, I'm can't remember what all I did to the my code in the past in deviating from some start point (probably a Howell code); and I've made some mechanical modifications to the driveline.  I'd like to start again with a known and solid code.

Thanks in advance,
John
 

 

From craig at moates.net  Thu Jun 29 16:29:13 2006
From: craig at moates.net (Craig Moates)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:29:13 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
References: <2cbbb2fa4f.2fa4f2cbbb@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <23a801c69bc3$11007b10$0201a8c0@antec>

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" <darrenfreed at shaw.ca>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
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 <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> 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
>
>
>



From craig at moates.net  Thu Jun 29 16:41:54 2006
From: craig at moates.net (Craig Moates)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:41:54 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] '7747:  Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus
References: <062920061934.2693.44A42B3D000DD02100000A852200750330020A050C0E9D0C0C03D20CD202080106@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <23c901c69bc4$d71af040$0201a8c0@antec>

John,

Have you seen the new EBL and UltimateTBI stuff from here: http://www.dynamicefi.com/
Real nice, they put some good work into the development. High-speed data, imbedded functionality, and a new code base to deal with
pesky TBI-specific issues of the 747.

Best regards,
Craig Moates



----- Original Message -----
From: <john.c.mccracken at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:34 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] '7747: Back to tuning after 4-year hiatus


> Hello all,
>
> I have a 4.2L powered Jeep on which I installed a '7747 controlled TBI system in 2001 - 2002.  At that time, I went through
several iterations of programs eventually making the Jeep run consistently "fair".  Due to other things going on in life and career,
I was content with "fair" ... but now I want to get back into the code and make it run "good".
>
> Some background:  I still have my Pocket Programmer II, EPROM eraser, Auto X-Ray, and a WinALDL cable (but I've never actually run
WinALDL) ... and I see that WinBin and TunerCat are still available.  I still have my old ECU files and a history of my BIN files.
The Jeep is now a trail rig with limited on-road operation.  Its a 4.2L with stock intake manifold and headers.  I am running ECU
controlled timing.  The cam is a little more than stock ... a Crower RV or off-road cam (I'm sure I can find cam data if necessary).
>
> Because of some changes that I have made to this Jeep during my hiatus (making it a little closer to mechanically stock), I
believe I would like to start over again with my program.  My first thought is to start with off-the-shelf Howell code.  Is that
code available from anyone?  Barring that, can anyone recommend a good place to start (again).  Perhaps someone has a good running
Jeep 4.2L code that they can share?
>
> My major issues, currently, are:
> 1.  An unsteady idle ... particularly when its cool and cold outside.  I know that, because of a big Clifford intake manifold that
I used to run, I fiddled with the IAC time delays and accelerator pump constants (and maybe some other stuff).
> 2.  It seems down on power compared to some carbureted Jeeps I've been in.
> 3.  Runs rich across the board (not drastically so), but is very rich in some areas (RPM and load).
>
> Bottom line, I'm can't remember what all I did to the my code in the past in deviating from some start point (probably a Howell
code); and I've made some mechanical modifications to the driveline.  I'd like to start again with a known and solid code.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>
>
>



From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Thu Jun 29 16:50:25 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:50:25 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

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" <darrenfreed at shaw.ca>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> 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 <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > 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
> 


From craig at moates.net  Thu Jun 29 17:20:38 2006
From: craig at moates.net (Craig Moates)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:20:38 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec>

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" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
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" <darrenfreed at shaw.ca>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> 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 <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > 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





From darrenfreed at gmail.com  Fri Jun 30 03:21:29 2006
From: darrenfreed at gmail.com (Darren Freed)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:21:29 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
In-Reply-To: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec>
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
	<24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec>
Message-ID: <f61eb5c30606300121t5a55b954i5c2fbcc9ed27980a@mail.gmail.com>

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 <craig at moates.net> 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" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> 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" <darrenfreed at shaw.ca>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > 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 <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > > 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
>


From darrenfreed at gmail.com  Fri Jun 30 03:21:29 2006
From: darrenfreed at gmail.com (Darren Freed)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:21:29 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
In-Reply-To: <24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec>
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
	<24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec>
Message-ID: <f61eb5c30606300121t5a55b954i5c2fbcc9ed27980a@mail.gmail.com>

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 <craig at moates.net> 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" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> 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" <darrenfreed at shaw.ca>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > 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 <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > > 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
>


From craig at moates.net  Fri Jun 30 09:08:55 2006
From: craig at moates.net (Craig Moates)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:08:55 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com><24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec>
	<f61eb5c30606300121t5a55b954i5c2fbcc9ed27980a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec>

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" <darrenfreed at gmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
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 <craig at moates.net> 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" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > 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" <darrenfreed at shaw.ca>
> > > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > > 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 <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > > > 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
>
>



From craig at moates.net  Fri Jun 30 09:12:27 2006
From: craig at moates.net (Craig Moates)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:12:27 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] On the fly tuning
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C743414061178301098F61@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com><24ed01c69bca$40029d10$0201a8c0@antec><f61eb5c30606300121t5a55b954i5c2fbcc9ed27980a@mail.gmail.com>
	<004b01c69c4e$b97a9b00$0201a8c0@antec>
Message-ID: <007c01c69c4f$3796d8a0$0201a8c0@antec>

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" <craig at moates.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
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" <darrenfreed at gmail.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> 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 <craig at moates.net> 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" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > > 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" <darrenfreed at shaw.ca>
> > > > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > > > 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 <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > > > > 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
>
>



From Jim.Butler at motorola.com  Fri Jun 30 13:48:06 2006
From: Jim.Butler at motorola.com (Butler James-CJB006)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:48:06 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 4L80e/4L60e
In-Reply-To: <449F20DB.9080505@highspeedlink.net>
Message-ID: <FC4BBC43F25BF343B601C140A7FC530F01C10A39@de01exm68.ds.mot.com>

 
	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


From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Fri Jun 30 17:30:40 2006
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:30:40 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Have at it!
Message-ID: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C7434140611783010991B4@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>

This I'm pretty excited about.  I no longer have to have guilty feelings
about the broken links and missing articles on the WWW page that I never
got around to restoring.  That's because I've installed a TWiki, and
created webs for both gmecm and diy_efi.

If you already know what a TWiki is, then quit reading now and start
creating content for the gmecm and diy_efi pages.

If you don't, a TWiki is a WWW page that can be freely edited by anyone,
using only your normal browser window.  Every WWW page within the TWiki
has an "Edit" link at the bottom.  Click that and you'll be able to edit
the page.  Click "Save" and your changes will immediately be posted and
visible to everyone.  TWiki keeps track of previous versions of pages so
there's no need to worry about accidently deleting things or otherwise
screwing things up.  Every change can be undone, and previous versions
of pages are easily viewable.

My intent is to have everything that is currently on the diy_efi and
gmecm pages moved over to the TWiki so it can be easily maintained.
I'll do that as I get time, but YOU CAN HELP.  I've created a FAQ and
ECM info article on gmecm.  Both are currently empty.  Feel free to move
existing WWW page content to them, or to contribute new material to
them.  Feel free to create new articles, links, hierarchy, etc.  There
is no registration and no logon necessary, although it would be nice if
you did register, so the TWiki can keep track of who edited what.

There is a Sandbox web where you can go to practice, if you want.

Links to the TWiki are at the top of the list of links on each list's
respective WWW page.  Or start here:

http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl

The Gmecm and Diyefi links are on the left side of the page.

have fun,
--steve


-------------------
Steve Ravet
ARM
steve.ravet at arm.com

-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.



From harford at gmail.com  Fri Jun 30 18:08:09 2006
From: harford at gmail.com (Alex Harford)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:08:09 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Have at it!
In-Reply-To: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C7434140611783010991B4@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
References: <DBB2E4C4173F1749B6C7434140611783010991B4@NASDAQ.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <f9d2dfc50606301608p7d9be565ld2e489f103d79544@mail.gmail.com>

I put a bunch of info up on the 68HC11:

http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/MotorolaInfo

Follow the links to see what I've added.  The formatting may not be
quite right, feel free to fix it.

On 6/30/06, Steve Ravet <Steve.Ravet at arm.com> wrote:
> This I'm pretty excited about.  I no longer have to have guilty feelings
> about the broken links and missing articles on the WWW page that I never
> got around to restoring.  That's because I've installed a TWiki, and
> created webs for both gmecm and diy_efi.