From carriljc at cox.net Mon May 1 07:52:51 2006 From: carriljc at cox.net (jc home) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 05:52:51 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] LT1-16159278 O2 sensor readings?? Message-ID: <002501c66d1e$28852a20$a88f0444@oc.cox.net> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTION: Does the LT1 require both O2 sensors to read "good" in order to into "closed loop"? INFO: Reading a friend's LT1 using my Autoprom. The LT1 has 2 oxygen sensors, one of them was never going above ~450v, and the car never went into closed loop. We swapped leads, and then the opposite side sensor would never change, we checked continuity to the ECM and it appears the lead is good. At this point it would seem that the lead is fine, the sensors are fine, and that ends up making us think that perhaps the ECM is shot. I then burned him a chip with VATS turned off (just to eliminate the pro-made chip as a problem). Well, the problem is still there, one O2 sensor doesn't react, the sensors seem fine, the leads seem fine....do y'all suppose that the actual ECM could be shot? Hence the question: Does the LT1 need both O2 sensor sides to be "good" prior to going into closed loop? The one side that appears bad just hangs out at ~450v. When we swap the O2 sensor leads the opposite one looks bad. Continuity is sat from the sensor connection to the ECM. Even opened up the ECM to check that the connection at the terminals to the circuit board had continuity....that's sat. Looking more and more like the ECM, eh? I'm usually playing with my 730 ECM and it only has one O2 sensor; it goes into closed loop as soon as that one looks good.... I gather that the LT1 needs both O2 sensors to look SAT for it to go into closed loop? Anyone know if this is true? From red83brick at yahoo.com Mon May 1 09:23:39 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 07:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Corvette ECM 1226026 In-Reply-To: <44510584.3090100@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <20060501142339.30858.qmail@web31111.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The chip in that ECM is one time burn only. The processor is slower than a typical TBI ecm, making a switch to the 7747 or 8746 an easy decision for most. It takes much less time to rewire for a 7747 and use the already fully hacked ECM instead of finding a way to put a programable chip in the Vette ECM and hacking out the tables. William Lucke wrote: I don't know about the ECM, but I happened upon this a while back: http://www.x-ram.com/ Performance manifold for Crossfire injection. Will > From: "Mrfun71" > Subject: [Gmecm] Corvette ECM 1226026 > > Hello everybody, got a question for the group. I have been doing some searching and can't find much on the 1226026. It's out off an early eighties corvette with dual TBI. I've seen some people have done some ECM conversions to the 747 and the 8625, which I have in my 93 blazer. I've checked the Tunercat and Datamaster sites to find nobody has anything. Does anybody know of anything on this ECM to help me get it programmed. > > Thanks! > Andy > mrfun71 at chartermi.net _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. From joshua.p.williams at hotmail.com Thu May 4 14:41:30 2006 From: joshua.p.williams at hotmail.com (Joshua Williams) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:41:30 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Can I burn the eeprom using a picstart plus programmer from Microchip? Message-ID: Does anybody know if this is doable? If so can you point me in the right direction? I've got an 85 TA with the 305 TBI in it, and a picstart programmer. If this isn't doable, what's the "cheapest" direction hardware wise to get me going? _________________________________________________________________ Join the next generation of Hotmail and you could win the adventure of a lifetime http://www.imagine-msn.com/minisites/sweepstakes/mail/register.aspx From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Fri May 5 09:29:50 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Can I burn the eeprom using a picstart plus programmer from Microchip? Message-ID: Joshua, if your picstart software has a setting for programming EPROMS then it will work. But if it's list of supported devices is only PICs, then it won't work. I suspect this will be the case. You can go to the gmecm page (www.diy-efi.org/gmecm) and read the FAQ to learn about burners and erasers. But before investing your money there, look into upgrading your computer to use a flash chip instead of an EPROM. Much easier and faster. There should be some info in the gmecm archives, if not search in the diy_prom section of thirdgen.org. --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Williams > Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 2:42 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] Can I burn the eeprom using a picstart plus > programmer from Microchip? > > Does anybody know if this is doable? If so can you point me > in the right direction? I've got an 85 TA with the 305 TBI > in it, and a picstart programmer. If this isn't doable, > what's the "cheapest" direction hardware wise to get me going? > _________________________________________________________________ -- 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 Wed May 10 04:04:42 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:04:42 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> After a couple of years of researching and playing with GMECM, I thought I was getting my head around it but, having started thinking about changing the code in my 16149396 (1227727 with SRAM) from $8D/ANHT to something possibly better hacked and easier for me to understand all the arrays/tables required in applying it to a 2 litre 4 cylinder naturally aspirated engine that will rev to 7000+RPM, I am now confused and need help/advice. I've read quite a lot recently about Turbo Sunbird code and it being identical to Sy/Ty code. What I've read tells me that both originally ran on 1227749 hardware, that they are part of the $58 family, and that the EPROM size fitted to this hardware was 16k, whereas 1227727 & 1227730 hardware came with 32k EPROMs fitted (what I have). Also, that it is possible to run $58 code on a 1227730/1227727 if a few ECM pins are wired differently. I don't have or want IAC or EGR or any transmission connections, so I think the only one that might matter here is the wire to connect to my injectors. Have I got the above correct? :-) So, if I am to do the switch from $8D/ANHT to $58/Sunbird code, and get back up to where I am now, I need a .BIN (I have something called Sunbird.bin, but no idea what 4 letter designation this relates to) and I need a commented hack - for ALDL monitoring, reference, and code modification (I've done a nifty change to ANHT that I really need to recreate with any new code). A .ECU would be nice, but I am capable and happy to generate one from the hack. I've looked at the .BINs and hacks on www.moates.net (which seems to be a copy of the www.diy-efi.org equivalent, but with hacks) and found 4 1227749 $58 4.3 Turbo .BINs (1576BBZA58, 1618BBZB58, 4175AYBN58, BBZB1580 - all 16k) and one $58 hack (AYBN - which is configured for 6cyl but mentions Turbo Sunbird in the header, and the accompanying .BIN is 32k !!! - This confused me, can anyone explain?) Could somebody with a good overview of GMECM put me straight, please. :-) Is the Turbo Sunbird code the best start point for a 2.0 4cyl NA engine? Is it the exact same code as the 6cyl 4.3 Turbos, but with different lookup values? Will Sunbird code run on 16149396/1227727 hardware (I'm in the UK, so getting new ECM hardware is not trivial) with a dizzy reluctor trigger feeding an 8 pin GM HEI? (I don't have/want EGR, IAC, or any transmission related stuff - just something that will run my NA engine's ignition and injection - after tuning (obviously) - but with clear visibility about what needs to be set, and what it actually does.) BTW: I have a WBO2 for tuning, and a MAP sensor with the following ID: 460 7236 (which I believe to be a 1 bar sensor, but this number does not match that on a web site of GM sensors!) If so, please advise which .BIN should I start with, and which hack? And can I reuse my MAP sensor (I believe the $58 code has an option for a 1 bar sensor)? Help! (Sorry for all the questions.) Robin From tsokorai at xperts.cl Wed May 10 08:28:29 2006 From: tsokorai at xperts.cl (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:28:29 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition Message-ID: <200605100928.30408.tsokorai@xperts.cl> I'm thinking of trying to simulate the crank trigger by using a software-generated waveform (the 6 x 60? + 10? sync trigger pulses) from my PC soundcard's output. Any ideas if this would work or wont? ... any other ideas of how bench testing such module? (without expensive DIS tester, of course ;) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From dgilbert78 at juno.com Wed May 10 10:44:28 2006 From: dgilbert78 at juno.com (Darryl M Gilbert) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:44:28 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition Message-ID: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> Should work. but I would use a bit from the parallel port, write it in plain ole basic, should be easy. Can poke to the port and control any of the 8 bits. It is also bi directional so you can use it to sense stuff also Darryl.... On Wed, 10 May 2006 09:28:29 -0400 "Tomas J. Sokorai Sch." writes: > I'm thinking of trying to simulate the crank trigger by using a > software-generated waveform (the 6 x 60? + 10? sync trigger pulses) > from my > PC soundcard's output. > Any ideas if this would work or wont? ... any other ideas of how > bench testing > such module? (without expensive DIS tester, of course ;) > > -- > Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > From squelch at ix.netcom.com Wed May 10 14:18:11 2006 From: squelch at ix.netcom.com (squelch at ix.netcom.com) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:18:11 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition Message-ID: <22401399.1147288692026.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I was thinking of using some 555 timers but haven't gotten around to it yet. John -----Original Message----- >From: "Tomas J. Sokorai Sch." >Sent: May 10, 2006 8:28 AM >To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition > >I'm thinking of trying to simulate the crank trigger by using a >software-generated waveform (the 6 x 60? + 10? sync trigger pulses) from my >PC soundcard's output. >Any ideas if this would work or wont? ... any other ideas of how bench testing >such module? (without expensive DIS tester, of course ;) > >-- >Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From davesnothereman at netscape.net Wed May 10 14:22:38 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 15:22:38 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com> <08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> Hi. $58 for the 7749 will work in an NA application. It's going to expect the 2 BAR MAP sensor. To use the 1 BAR sensor you'll need to re-scale some of the tables. The turbo Sunbird was the first to use the $58 code. The Syclone and Typhoon were second. It's better to start with a calibration for a 4 cylinder car. The $58 calibration does not have tables which extend to 7000 rpm, although it does provide a means to adjust fuel and spark after rpm exceeds the maximum tables entries. It probably won't be an issue. At that engine speed you're not usually looking for high resolution tuning. Other people have used the 7749 calibration in a 7727 / 7730. I believe there's a page on the thirdgen.org site which details the correct pinout, but I might be wrong. The turbo Sunbird calibration is 16k large. It will fit on a 32k eprom and work. You will need to move it to the "top" of the chip. Look for instructions on "bin stacking" for one method to do this. The memcal must match the calibration in the number of cylinders it's designed for or else there will be a "cylinder select" error set. To make the "special secret super duper code modification" you'll probably need to learn the $58 code. There may not be an equivalent function in the $58 as you worked with in the $8D. HTH Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:04:42 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one After a couple of years of researching and playing with GMECM, I thought I was getting my head around it but, having started thinking about changing the code in my 16149396 (1227727 with SRAM) from $8D/ANHT to something possibly better hacked and easier for me to understand all the arrays/tables required in applying it to a 2 litre 4 cylinder naturally aspirated engine that will rev to 7000+RPM, I am now confused and need help/advice. I've read quite a lot recently about Turbo Sunbird code and it being identical to Sy/Ty code. What I've read tells me that both originally ran on 1227749 hardware, that they are part of the $58 family, and that the EPROM size fitted to this hardware was 16k, whereas 1227727 & 1227730 hardware came with 32k EPROMs fitted (what I have). Also, that it is possible to run $58 code on a 1227730/1227727 if a few ECM pins are wired differently. I don't have or want IAC or EGR or any transmission connections, so I think the only one that might matter here is the wire to connect to my injectors. Have I got the above correct? :-) So, if I am to do the switch from $8D/ANHT to $58/Sunbird code, and get back up to where I am now, I need a .BIN (I have something called Sunbird.bin, but no idea what 4 letter designation this relates to) and I need a commented hack - for ALDL monitoring, reference, and code modification (I've done a nifty change to ANHT that I really need to recreate with any new code). A .ECU would be nice, but I am capable and happy to generate one from the hack. I've looked at the .BINs and hacks on www.moates.net (which seems to be a copy of the www.diy-efi.org equivalent, but with hacks) and found 4 1227749 $58 4.3 Turbo .BINs (1576BBZA58, 1618BBZB58, 4175AYBN58, BBZB1580 - all 16k) and one $58 hack (AYBN - which is configured for 6cyl but mentions Turbo Sunbird in the header, and the accompanying .BIN is 32k !!! - This confused me, can anyone explain?) Could somebody with a good overview of GMECM put me straight, please. :-) Is the Turbo Sunbird code the best start point for a 2.0 4cyl NA engine? Is it the exact same code as the 6cyl 4.3 Turbos, but with different lookup values? Will Sunbird code run on 16149396/1227727 hardware (I'm in the UK, so getting new ECM hardware is not trivial) with a dizzy reluctor trigger feeding an 8 pin GM HEI? (I don't have/want EGR, IAC, or any transmission related stuff - just something that will run my NA engine's ignition and injection - after tuning (obviously) - but with clear visibility about what needs to be set, and what it actually does.) BTW: I have a WBO2 for tuning, and a MAP sensor with the following ID: 460 7236 (which I believe to be a 1 bar sensor, but this number does not match that on a web site of GM sensors!) If so, please advise which .BIN should I start with, and which hack? And can I reuse my MAP sensor (I believe the $58 code has an option for a 1 bar sensor)? Help! (Sorry for all the questions.) 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 tsokorai at xperts.cl Wed May 10 15:05:23 2006 From: tsokorai at xperts.cl (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:05:23 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition In-Reply-To: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> Message-ID: <200605101605.24328.tsokorai@xperts.cl> On Wednesday 10 May 2006 11:44, Darryl M Gilbert wrote: > Should work. but I would use a bit from the parallel port, write it in > plain ole basic, should be easy. Can poke to the port and control any of > the 8 bits. It is also bi directional so you can use it to sense stuff > also The problem with this, is that you need analog circuitry to make the AC signal crossing the 0V with each pulse, to fully emulate the variable reluctance sensor output. And the other problem is to get a real accurate timing from a program running on a multitasking operating system (unless you run your parallel program under real DOS or a hard realtime OS) to try to simulate the crank up to at least 6000 RPM. -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From dgilbert78 at juno.com Wed May 10 16:40:16 2006 From: dgilbert78 at juno.com (Darryl M Gilbert) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:40:16 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition Message-ID: <20060510.174017.-172505.0.dgilbert78@juno.com> Hello: yes would have to be DOS or absolute code to take away any operating system. Probably a cap and a resistor network could make a differentiated outpus and closely mimick the sine you choose. Usually its crossover you are looking for, it just so happens a reluctor put sout a sine of sorts.I think its the crossover you are concerned about anyway. It would be a fun thing to play with. I use to do a lot of that stuff in control systems and CNC. anyway just a thought Good luck On Wed, 10 May 2006 16:05:23 -0400 "Tomas J. Sokorai Sch." writes: > On Wednesday 10 May 2006 11:44, Darryl M Gilbert wrote: > > Should work. but I would use a bit from the parallel port, write > it in > > plain ole basic, should be easy. Can poke to the port and control > any of > > the 8 bits. It is also bi directional so you can use it to sense > stuff > > also > > The problem with this, is that you need analog circuitry to make the > AC signal > crossing the 0V with each pulse, to fully emulate the variable > reluctance > sensor output. > And the other problem is to get a real accurate timing from a > program running > on a multitasking operating system (unless you run your parallel > program > under real DOS or a hard realtime OS) to try to simulate the crank > up to at > least 6000 RPM. > > -- > Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 11 04:31:43 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:31:43 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> > $58 for the 7749 will work in an NA application. It's going to expect the 2 BAR MAP sensor. To use the 1 BAR sensor you'll need to re-scale some of the tables. Doesn't %KAFOPT3% bit 5 tell the code whether a 1 or 2 bar MAP sensor is connected? Does this not cause everything to be scaled automatically? > The turbo Sunbird was the first to use the $58 code. The Syclone and Typhoon were second. It's better to start with a calibration for a 4 cylinder car. Agreed. So, could I take the AYBN commented hack for a 6cyl 4.3 Turbo Sy/Ty and overwrite the lookup values with those from a genuine 4cyl Sunbird .BIN? Are they a direct map? > The $58 calibration does not have tables which extend to 7000 rpm, although it does provide a means to adjust fuel and spark after rpm exceeds the maximum tables entries. It probably won't be an issue. At that engine speed you're not usually looking for high resolution tuning. Agreed. > Other people have used the 7749 calibration in a 7727 / 7730. I believe there's a page on the thirdgen.org site which details the correct pinout, but I might be wrong. This is where I found my pinout conversion info: http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/diy-prom/213539-58-frequently-asked-questi ons.html Is this the one you meant? I guess it just needs mapping from 730 to 727 pinout for my ECM. I was just looking for confirmation that I hadn't missed anything subtle, since the above (and other) discussions just talk about $58 code on a 730 (not a 727). > The turbo Sunbird calibration is 16k large. It will fit on a 32k eprom and work. You will need to move it to the "top" of the chip. Look for instructions on "bin stacking" for one method to do this. The memcal must match the calibration in the number of cylinders it's designed for or else there will be a "cylinder select" error set. No problems there. I've now looked at the AYBN hack and its associated .BIN. The hack is 16k and the .BIN has the first 16k padded with $FF - so already in the right format for my 32k EPROM. > To make the "special secret super duper code modification" you'll probably need to learn the $58 code. There may not be an equivalent function in the $58 as you worked with in the $8D. The 'not actually a quote from my Email' code modification allows OTF map changes from a laptop, so I'm pretty keen to be able to reproduce it! :-) I just wondered if there was a Sunbird specific hack that I've missed - that might make code changes easier. If not, am I right in thinking that AYBN is the best/most commented $58 hack to use? The comments with the AYBN code are a LOT sparser than ANHT :-( although the description of the lookup tables seems better - and the Sunbird document that I've seen is a massive help. :-) BTW: Is the Sunbird code/bin unique? Does it have a 4 letter name, like ANHT? Thanks, Robin > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Handley > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:04:42 +0100 > Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one > > > After a couple of years of researching and playing with GMECM, I thought I > was getting my head around it but, having started thinking about changing > the code in my 16149396 (1227727 with SRAM) from $8D/ANHT to something > possibly better hacked and easier for me to understand all the arrays/tables > required in applying it to a 2 litre 4 cylinder naturally aspirated engine > that will rev to 7000+RPM, I am now confused and need help/advice. > > I've read quite a lot recently about Turbo Sunbird code and it being > identical to Sy/Ty code. What I've read tells me that both originally ran on > 1227749 hardware, that they are part of the $58 family, and that the EPROM > size fitted to this hardware was 16k, whereas 1227727 & 1227730 hardware > came with 32k EPROMs fitted (what I have). Also, that it is possible to run > $58 code on a 1227730/1227727 if a few ECM pins are wired differently. I > don't have or want IAC or EGR or any transmission connections, so I think > the only one that might matter here is the wire to connect to my injectors. > Have I got the above correct? :-) > > So, if I am to do the switch from $8D/ANHT to $58/Sunbird code, and get back > up to where I am now, I need a .BIN (I have something called Sunbird.bin, > but no idea what 4 letter designation this relates to) and I need a > commented hack - for ALDL monitoring, reference, and code modification (I've > done a nifty change to ANHT that I really need to recreate with any new > code). A .ECU would be nice, but I am capable and happy to generate one from > the hack. > > I've looked at the .BINs and hacks on www.moates.net (which seems to be a > copy of the www.diy-efi.org equivalent, but with hacks) and found 4 1227749 > $58 4.3 Turbo .BINs (1576BBZA58, 1618BBZB58, 4175AYBN58, BBZB1580 - all 16k) > and one $58 hack (AYBN - which is configured for 6cyl but mentions Turbo > Sunbird in the header, and the accompanying .BIN is 32k !!! - This confused > me, can anyone explain?) > > Could somebody with a good overview of GMECM put me straight, please. :-) Is > the Turbo Sunbird code the best start point for a 2.0 4cyl NA engine? Is it > the exact same code as the 6cyl 4.3 Turbos, but with different lookup > values? Will Sunbird code run on 16149396/1227727 hardware (I'm in the UK, > so getting new ECM hardware is not trivial) with a dizzy reluctor trigger > feeding an 8 pin GM HEI? (I don't have/want EGR, IAC, or any transmission > related stuff - just something that will run my NA engine's ignition and > injection - after tuning (obviously) - but with clear visibility about what > needs to be set, and what it actually does.) BTW: I have a WBO2 for tuning, > and a MAP sensor with the following ID: 460 7236 (which I believe to be a 1 > bar sensor, but this number does not match that on a web site of GM > sensors!) > > If so, please advise which .BIN should I start with, and which hack? And can > I reuse my MAP sensor (I believe the $58 code has an option for a 1 bar > sensor)? > > Help! (Sorry for all the questions.) > > Robin From donsauman at cythera.net Thu May 11 05:45:46 2006 From: donsauman at cythera.net (Don Sauman) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:45:46 +0800 Subject: [Gmecm] Information needed In-Reply-To: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> Message-ID: <446315DA.7070600@cythera.net> Gents I have gradually put together the parts I need to install a 4L80E transmission into my Jeep wagon. The transmission is a 1996 and the controller I have obtained is from an ex Chevy ambulance NA diesel. It is a 16147609 with BACT ROM. Does anyone have any any progam info for this unit? Thanks Don -- Don Sauman 35 Asteroid Way Carlisle 6101 Western Australia P: 08 9361 0337 F: 08 9361 0581 M: 0427 389 547 From efi at dyakron.com Thu May 11 07:13:01 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:13:01 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition In-Reply-To: <200605101605.24328.tsokorai@xperts.cl> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com> > > >The problem with this, is that you need analog circuitry to make the AC >signal >crossing the 0V with each pulse, to fully emulate the variable reluctance >sensor output. >And the other problem is to get a real accurate timing from a program running >on a multitasking operating system (unless you run your parallel program >under real DOS or a hard realtime OS) to try to simulate the crank up to at >least 6000 RPM. If you have a scope capture of what the sensor output roughly looks like, I can grab some sensors of the scrap engine pile and you could easily cobble something mechanical that is powered by a small electric motor or Befored you so kindly helped me with my project, I was ready to go that route. Mechanical solutions to generate test signals aren't always a bad thing, they are just lower tech. MV From tsokorai at xperts.cl Fri May 12 09:49:29 2006 From: tsokorai at xperts.cl (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:49:29 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> On Thursday 11 May 2006 08:13, Mike V wrote: > cobble something mechanical that is powered by a small electric motor or > Befored you so kindly helped me with my project, I was ready to go that I'm glad I could help, and please do tell if you need any further help :) > route. Mechanical solutions to generate test signals aren't always a bad > thing, they are just lower tech. Mechanical solutions are my last resort, as I'm a bit fabrication-skill impaired ;) I'm getting frustrated with this DIS setup. The used DIS module I had, was in fact dead (I opened it, and found one of the circuit wires on the clear gel burnt open), so I bought a completely new module. And I still can't get it to fire :( I made some captures of the crank sensor waveform, and it looks right and clean now that I changed to resistive ignition wires. My only hope is that the sensor output is too low for the module to fire. The BMW sensor has only 80 Ohm impedance, comprared to the 800 from a GM crank sensor ... so the amount of coil wire difference is pretty hefty. In fact with my voltmeter on AC scale, I can't get readings, but for what I read, the GM sensor should put out some average volts that way. If I can't get it to fire with the soundcard idea, I'm tossing the DIS and keeping the crappy distributor that I can't get a rotor for. -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Fri May 12 12:31:28 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:31:28 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition Message-ID: > My only hope is that the sensor output is too low for the > module to fire. > The BMW sensor has only 80 Ohm impedance, comprared to the > 800 from a GM crank sensor ... so the amount of coil wire > difference is pretty hefty. In fact with my voltmeter on AC > scale, I can't get readings, but for what I read, the GM > sensor should put out some average volts that way. > If I can't get it to fire with the soundcard idea, I'm > tossing the DIS and keeping the crappy distributor that I > can't get a rotor for. So your choices are non functional DIS, or rotorless distributor? That's a tough one... Is the rotor something that's available in the US? I think in this case putting a crank wheel on your drill, the drill in a vise, and the sensor zip tied to a piece of wood screwed to your workbench would be an easy way to test the module. Do you have the bypass line to the module asserted so it will fire the coil on it's own? --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 efi at dyakron.com Fri May 12 12:45:29 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 13:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition In-Reply-To: <200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com> <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060512133908.02d90be0@dyakron.com> I have Cam & Crank sensors, as well as coilpak from a later 3800 Series II (2000 Impla) that are yours if you want them. It looks like a more intricate set up than the older P4 stuff. Maybe I can spin the remains of the shortblock and sample the sensor output with the scope. It has no pistons or rods, so probably pretty easy to spin. Mike At 10:49 AM 5/12/2006 -0400, you wrote: >My only hope is that the sensor output is too low for the module to fire. >The BMW sensor has only 80 Ohm impedance, comprared to the 800 from a GM >crank >sensor ... so the amount of coil wire difference is pretty hefty. In fact >with my voltmeter on AC scale, I can't get readings, but for what I read, the >GM sensor should put out some average volts that way. >If I can't get it to fire with the soundcard idea, I'm tossing the DIS and >keeping the crappy distributor that I can't get a rotor for. From tsokorai at xperts.cl Fri May 12 16:27:01 2006 From: tsokorai at xperts.cl (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:27:01 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200605121727.02155.tsokorai@xperts.cl> On Friday 12 May 2006 13:31, Steve Ravet wrote: > So your choices are non functional DIS, or rotorless distributor? > That's a tough one... It's not completely "rotorless", as It's running now, but with a rotor from 1982 that's now *very* corroded on the tip and the contact to the cap's graphite is not in very good shape. It's a rotor that has a centrifugal contact to earth, so that it works as a rev limiter. Talk about overengineering a rotor ;) > > Is the rotor something that's available in the US? I don't think it's available over there, as it's a BMW from the old E21 "3" series, that was imported only in the 4cyl versions to the US, and mine is the 2.3 6cyl, k-jetronic mech. FI :( Well, if the DIS setup doesen't work out, I will try to ask the BMW dealership if they can get it from Germany or somewhere else, but I try to avoid "bend-over" prices, specially regarding a car that has a market value of less than the value of 95% of the cars on the street here :D > workbench would be an easy way to test the module. Do you have the > bypass line to the module asserted so it will fire the coil on it's own? asserted as in "5V applied"? I thought that the bypass line was kept at 0V first, and then when the ECM got over X RPM, the line was brought to 5V ? -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Fri May 12 18:16:44 2006 From: Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk (Terminal Crazy) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 00:16:44 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition In-Reply-To: <200605121727.02155.tsokorai@xperts.cl> References: <200605121727.02155.tsokorai@xperts.cl> Message-ID: <4e26168a1eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> On 12 May, Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. wrote: > On Friday 12 May 2006 13:31, Steve Ravet wrote: > > So your choices are non functional DIS, or rotorless distributor? > > That's a tough one... > It's not completely "rotorless", as It's running now, but with a rotor from > 1982 that's now *very* corroded on the tip and the contact to the cap's > graphite is not in very good shape. > It's a rotor that has a centrifugal contact to earth, so that it works as a > rev limiter. Talk about overengineering a rotor ;) > > > > Is the rotor something that's available in the US? > I don't think it's available over there, as it's a BMW from the old E21 "3" > series, that was imported only in the 4cyl versions to the US, and mine is > the 2.3 6cyl, k-jetronic mech. FI :( This sounds similar to the rotor on my old Mercedes 280CE (motors around 1973 - 78 ). They had a spring loaded slide on the top which shorted to ground at around 7000 rpm.. As an aside (going back 12 years) when i ordered a dizzy cap. The cap that came arrived with the big flat (cable comes out horizontal) fittings not the smaller ones like a spark plug(vertical output). This was also listed as fitting BMW 6pot motor. These all ran various versions of Bosch FI, so it might be worth checking out Mercedes dealers for similar parts. At a guess Porsches would have similar Bosch FI from around the same time and also made 4Cylinder engines. HTH -- Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6 terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk Lancashire England From OneOccy at hotmail.com Fri May 12 18:39:42 2006 From: OneOccy at hotmail.com (Occy) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:39:42 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition References: <200605121727.02155.tsokorai@xperts.cl> <4e26168a1eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: VW datsun nissan also of vintage, I once working at a datsun dealer had an efi problem, my number one rule was to check the brain as it was called in those days, and it had a vw brain in the datsun and as normal that wasn't the problem, this case was a fuel filter... they must all be the same. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terminal Crazy" > On 12 May, Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. wrote: > > On Friday 12 May 2006 13:31, Steve Ravet wrote: > > > So your choices are non functional DIS, or rotorless distributor? > > > That's a tough one... > > > It's not completely "rotorless", as It's running now, but with a rotor > > from > > 1982 that's now *very* corroded on the tip and the contact to the cap's > > graphite is not in very good shape. > > It's a rotor that has a centrifugal contact to earth, so that it works > > as a > > rev limiter. Talk about overengineering a rotor ;) > > > > > > > Is the rotor something that's available in the US? > > > I don't think it's available over there, as it's a BMW from the old E21 > > "3" > > series, that was imported only in the 4cyl versions to the US, and mine > > is > > the 2.3 6cyl, k-jetronic mech. FI :( > > This sounds similar to the rotor on my old Mercedes 280CE (motors around > 1973 - 78 ). They had a spring loaded slide on the top which shorted to > ground at around 7000 rpm.. As an aside (going back 12 years) when i > ordered a dizzy cap. The cap that came arrived with the big flat (cable > comes out horizontal) fittings not the smaller ones like a spark > plug(vertical output). This was also listed as fitting BMW 6pot motor. > These all ran various versions of Bosch FI, so it might be worth checking > out Mercedes dealers for similar parts. At a guess Porsches would have > similar Bosch FI from around the same time and also made 4Cylinder > engines. > > HTH > > -- > Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6 > terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk > Lancashire England > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From davesnothereman at netscape.net Fri May 12 23:16:01 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 00:16:01 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> The main VE tables cover up to 1 BAR. In 2 BAR mode, higher pressures use a fuel multiplier against the 100 kPa entry for the appropriate rpm. Spark tables cover the range from 30 kPa to 200 kPa. I haven't looked through the code to see if flipping the 1 BAR bit forces the code to use the 20 to 100 kPa entries, or if it rescales the table for 100 kPa max with 2x the resolution. If it's the latter, then the values in the timing tables would be incorrect for the MAP range they apply to. What I can say with certainty is that flipping the bit to 1 BAR and connecting to a 1 BAR sensor produced poor idle and driveability in my car. I had no desire to chase the reason, I simply switched to a 2 BAR sensor. I valued the time spent more than the potential for education. Wasn't making fun of you on the code modification. I hope it didn't read that way. That's just the way I talk sometimes. There used to be a turbo Sunbird calibration in the .bin library. I'm not sure where they disappeared to. Are you using a manual or automatic transmission? If you want to send your mystery sunbird.bin calibration I can probably identify it for you. There are several factory calibrations for the 'Birds. You can load the 4 cylinder calibration directly onto the memcal. There's no need to play with the 6 cylinder version. Yes, the information you linked to on Thirdgen.org looks like what I was thinking of. Ludis Langens made a nice equivalency chart for 7727 <-> 7730 pin functions. Sorry, I don't have a direct link. I just use Google. The AYBN hac which is floating around was likely authored by the same person who wrote the 8D hack. It's not complete, nor is it completely accurate. But it is a decent starting point. It's acceptable for use with the Sunbird code, although certain minor functions differ between the two applications. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:31:43 +0100 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one > $58 for the 7749 will work in an NA application. It's going to expect the 2 BAR MAP sensor. To use the 1 BAR sensor you'll need to re-scale some of the tables. Doesn't %KAFOPT3% bit 5 tell the code whether a 1 or 2 bar MAP sensor is connected? Does this not cause everything to be scaled automatically? > The turbo Sunbird was the first to use the $58 code. The Syclone and Typhoon were second. It's better to start with a calibration for a 4 cylinder car. Agreed. So, could I take the AYBN commented hack for a 6cyl 4.3 Turbo Sy/Ty and overwrite the lookup values with those from a genuine 4cyl Sunbird .BIN? Are they a direct map? > The $58 calibration does not have tables which extend to 7000 rpm, although it does provide a means to adjust fuel and spark after rpm exceeds the maximum tables entries. It probably won't be an issue. At that engine speed you're not usually looking for high resolution tuning. Agreed. > Other people have used the 7749 calibration in a 7727 / 7730. I believe there's a page on the thirdgen.org site which details the correct pinout, but I might be wrong. This is where I found my pinout conversion info: http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/diy-prom/213539-58-frequently-asked-que sti ons.html Is this the one you meant? I guess it just needs mapping from 730 to 727 pinout for my ECM. I was just looking for confirmation that I hadn't missed anything subtle, since the above (and other) discussions just talk about $58 code on a 730 (not a 727). > The turbo Sunbird calibration is 16k large. It will fit on a 32k eprom and work. You will need to move it to the "top" of the chip. Look for instructions on "bin stacking" for one method to do this. The memcal must match the calibration in the number of cylinders it's designed for or else there will be a "cylinder select" error set. No problems there. I've now looked at the AYBN hack and its associated .BIN. The hack is 16k and the .BIN has the first 16k padded with $FF - so already in the right format for my 32k EPROM. > To make the "special secret super duper code modification" you'll probably need to learn the $58 code. There may not be an equivalent function in the $58 as you worked with in the $8D. The 'not actually a quote from my Email' code modification allows OTF map changes from a laptop, so I'm pretty keen to be able to reproduce it! :-) I just wondered if there was a Sunbird specific hack that I've missed - that might make code changes easier. If not, am I right in thinking that AYBN is the best/most commented $58 hack to use? The comments with the AYBN code are a LOT sparser than ANHT :-( although the description of the lookup tables seems better - and the Sunbird document that I've seen is a massive help. :-) BTW: Is the Sunbird code/bin unique? Does it have a 4 letter name, like ANHT? Thanks, Robin > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Handley > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:04:42 +0100 > Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one > > > After a couple of years of researching and playing with GMECM, I thought I > was getting my head around it but, having started thinking about changing > the code in my 16149396 (1227727 with SRAM) from $8D/ANHT to something > possibly better hacked and easier for me to understand all the arrays/tables > required in applying it to a 2 litre 4 cylinder naturally aspirated engine > that will rev to 7000+RPM, I am now confused and need help/advice. > > I've read quite a lot recently about Turbo Sunbird code and it being > identical to Sy/Ty code. What I've read tells me that both originally ran on > 1227749 hardware, that they are part of the $58 family, and that the EPROM > size fitted to this hardware was 16k, whereas 1227727 & 1227730 hardware > came with 32k EPROMs fitted (what I have). Also, that it is possible to run > $58 code on a 1227730/1227727 if a few ECM pins are wired differently. I > don't have or want IAC or EGR or any transmission connections, so I think > the only one that might matter here is the wire to connect to my injectors. > Have I got the above correct? :-) > > So, if I am to do the switch from $8D/ANHT to $58/Sunbird code, and get back > up to where I am now, I need a .BIN (I have something called Sunbird.bin, > but no idea what 4 letter designation this relates to) and I need a > commented hack - for ALDL monitoring, reference, and code modification (I've > done a nifty change to ANHT that I really need to recreate with any new > code). A .ECU would be nice, but I am capable and happy to generate one from > the hack. > > I've looked at the .BINs and hacks on www.moates.net (which seems to be a > copy of the www.diy-efi.org equivalent, but with hacks) and found 4 1227749 > $58 4.3 Turbo .BINs (1576BBZA58, 1618BBZB58, 4175AYBN58, BBZB1580 - all 16k) > and one $58 hack (AYBN - which is configured for 6cyl but mentions Turbo > Sunbird in the header, and the accompanying .BIN is 32k !!! - This confused > me, can anyone explain?) > > Could somebody with a good overview of GMECM put me straight, please. :-) Is > the Turbo Sunbird code the best start point for a 2.0 4cyl NA engine? Is it > the exact same code as the 6cyl 4.3 Turbos, but with different lookup > values? Will Sunbird code run on 16149396/1227727 hardware (I'm in the UK, > so getting new ECM hardware is not trivial) with a dizzy reluctor trigger > feeding an 8 pin GM HEI? (I don't have/want EGR, IAC, or any transmission > related stuff - just something that will run my NA engine's ignition and > injection - after tuning (obviously) - but with clear visibility about what > needs to be set, and what it actually does.) BTW: I have a WBO2 for tuning, > and a MAP sensor with the following ID: 460 7236 (which I believe to be a 1 > bar sensor, but this number does not match that on a web site of GM > sensors!) > > If so, please advise which .BIN should I start with, and which hack? And can > I reuse my MAP sensor (I believe the $58 code has an option for a 1 bar > sensor)? > > Help! (Sorry for all the questions.) > > 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 Fri May 12 23:35:34 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 00:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition In-Reply-To: <200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com> <200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> Message-ID: <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> If you're fabrication skill impaired, are you able to trigger the GM DIS module correctly? Bosch trigger wheels which I've seen are typically not the 6+1 pulse design used by GM USA. I'd be working to match sensor and module. You should be seeing A/C signals from the sensor during cranking. The 7 pin DIS system typically fires at rpm as low as 300. An old power steering pump or water pump could be used as a test trigger wheel. Use a tape measure around the circumference to mark notch positions. In desperation one could use a hand file to make the notches. Spinning the wheel by hand will cause the module to fire coils. The 7th pulse, or "synch" signal, must occur every rotation of the crank or the module will not triger the coils. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:49:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition On Thursday 11 May 2006 08:13, Mike V wrote: > cobble something mechanical that is powered by a small electric motor or > Befored you so kindly helped me with my project, I was ready to go that I'm glad I could help, and please do tell if you need any further help :) > route. Mechanical solutions to generate test signals aren't always a bad > thing, they are just lower tech. Mechanical solutions are my last resort, as I'm a bit fabrication-skill impaired ;) I'm getting frustrated with this DIS setup. The used DIS module I had, was in fact dead (I opened it, and found one of the circuit wires on the clear gel burnt open), so I bought a completely new module. And I still can't get it to fire :( I made some captures of the crank sensor waveform, and it looks right and clean now that I changed to resistive ignition wires. My only hope is that the sensor output is too low for the module to fire. The BMW sensor has only 80 Ohm impedance, comprared to the 800 from a GM crank sensor ... so the amount of coil wire difference is pretty hefty. In fact with my voltmeter on AC scale, I can't get readings, but for what I read, the GM sensor should put out some average volts that way. If I can't get it to fire with the soundcard idea, I'm tossing the DIS and keeping the crappy distributor that I can't get a rotor for. -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. _______________________________________________ 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 13 13:53:22 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:53:22 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com><200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <0db601c676be$840f3210$020101c0@gandalf> I've been scratching my head over this for a while. Could somebody tell me if I've got these right: TBI = TPI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all cylinders/ports, and one great big injector at the body PFI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all cylinders/ports, and one injector near the engine end of each inlet runner (i.e. one injector per cylinder) What do you call a system which has multiple throttle bodies/butterflies (i.e. one throttle body/butterfly for each cylinder/port) and multiple injectors (i.e. one injector for each cylinder)? Robin From davesnothereman at netscape.net Sat May 13 14:23:31 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms In-Reply-To: <0db601c676be$840f3210$020101c0@gandalf> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com><200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <0db601c676be$840f3210$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C844D9DAA1F090-A6C-47A4@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> TBI = injection on the atmospheric side of the throttle butterflies. PFI = port fuel injection, injection on the engine side of the butterflies MPI = Mult- port injection, marketing name for PFI MPFI, same as MPI TPI, Tuned Port Injection, marketing name for specific intake system using PFI and curved, tuned length runners. DFI, Direct Fuel injection, fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. Look to exotic car makers for marketing names for multiple butterfly manifolds. As far as the injection type, use the position of the injectors relative to the throttle butterflies to determine injection type. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:53:22 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms I've been scratching my head over this for a while. Could somebody tell me if I've got these right: TBI = TPI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all cylinders/ports, and one great big injector at the body PFI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all cylinders/ports, and one injector near the engine end of each inlet runner (i.e. one injector per cylinder) What do you call a system which has multiple throttle bodies/butterflies (i.e. one throttle body/butterfly for each cylinder/port) and multiple injectors (i.e. one injector for each cylinder)? 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 efi at dyakron.com Sat May 13 14:25:59 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:25:59 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 3800 sensor wiring ? In-Reply-To: <0db601c676be$840f3210$020101c0@gandalf> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com> <200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513151814.02e21990@dyakron.com> I'm spinning a piston-less 2000MY 3800 series II V6 with a scope attached just for educational info. She's not giving me much info! I'm thinking I need to feed 5V somewhere, then watch the results. Does anyone have wiring pin-outs for the cam & crank sensors? Crank Sensor - 4 wires o Black / Wht stripe o White / Blk Stripe o Yellow o Blue Cam Sensor is 3 wires o Yellow / Blk Stripe o Brown / Wht Stripe o Black / Wht Stripe TIA - Mike V From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 13 14:40:29 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:40:29 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <0dc901c676c5$195f51f0$020101c0@gandalf> > The main VE tables cover up to 1 BAR. In 2 BAR mode, higher pressures > use a fuel multiplier against the 100 kPa entry for the appropriate > rpm. Spark tables cover the range from 30 kPa to 200 kPa. I haven't > looked through the code to see if flipping the 1 BAR bit forces the > code to use the 20 to 100 kPa entries, or if it rescales the table for > 100 kPa max with 2x the resolution. If it's the latter, then the > values in the timing tables would be incorrect for the MAP range they > apply to. According to PROMgrammer (which I can only assume is correct as it's a well constructed tool), it is the latter. Not an issue, I know I have to completely repopulate the SA and VE tables. :-) > What I can say with certainty is that flipping the bit to 1 BAR and > connecting to a 1 BAR sensor produced poor idle and driveability in my > car. I had no desire to chase the reason, I simply switched to a 2 BAR > sensor. I valued the time spent more than the potential for education. I'm in a different boat. I am applying GMECM hardware and software to an engine that never used it - so I know I've got mapping to do - but the saving grace is that I intend to keep things simple. Many 'tweak' arrays will get set to zero to make life bearable. After all, the GMECM has about 10x the number of adjustments that an aftermarket ECM provides (e.g. MegaSquirt, Emerald M3D) and plenty of people are blatting around with those running their engine's fuel and sparks. > Wasn't making fun of you on the code modification. I hope it didn't > read that way. That's just the way I talk sometimes. No offence taken. :-) > There used to be a turbo Sunbird calibration in the .bin library. I'm > not sure where they disappeared to. Are you using a manual or > automatic transmission? If you want to send your mystery sunbird.bin > calibration I can probably identify it for you. There are several > factory calibrations for the 'Birds. Happy to send you the .BIN (in fact I have ended up with 2 over the years - that have come from different sources, but they appear identical). I'm curious what, in the .BIN, tells you which calibration is. Is the following enough:? PROMID = $0D53 DATECODE = $0D2A SEQNUMB = $058C KKPGMID = $58 > You can load the 4 cylinder calibration directly onto the memcal. > There's no need to play with the 6 cylinder version. Thanks. > Yes, the information you linked to on Thirdgen.org looks like what I > was thinking of. Ludis Langens made a nice equivalency chart for 7727 > <-> 7730 pin functions. Sorry, I don't have a direct link. I just use > Google. This one: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/triplugecm.html ? > The AYBN hac which is floating around was likely authored by the same > person who wrote the 8D hack. It's not complete, nor is it completely > accurate. But it is a decent starting point. It's acceptable for use > with the Sunbird code, although certain minor functions differ between > the two applications. I've spent all day going through a document that was brought to my attention recently by another helpful lister, which was called Sunbird.doc. It seems to be a differently formatted version of this: http://www.sunflower.com/~leroy/P4/ I've been matching the calibration variables in that document with a text export of my Sunbird .BIN from PROMgrammer. There is a massive amount of agreement, but a few differences - which I wasn't expecting if the document and the .BIN are Sunbird. I'd love to understand how that document fits in with Sunbird and Sy/Ty $58 code. Can you help? Thanks, Robin > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Handley > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:31:43 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one > > > $58 for the 7749 will work in an NA application. It's going to > expect the > 2 BAR MAP sensor. To use the 1 BAR sensor you'll need to re-scale some > of > the tables. > > Doesn't %KAFOPT3% bit 5 tell the code whether a 1 or 2 bar MAP sensor is > connected? Does this not cause everything to be scaled automatically? > > > The turbo Sunbird was the first to use the $58 code. The Syclone and > Typhoon were second. It's better to start with a calibration for a 4 > cylinder car. > > Agreed. So, could I take the AYBN commented hack for a 6cyl 4.3 Turbo > Sy/Ty > and overwrite the lookup values with those from a genuine 4cyl Sunbird > .BIN? > Are they a direct map? > > > The $58 calibration does not have tables which extend to 7000 rpm, > although it does provide a means to adjust fuel and spark after rpm > exceeds > the maximum tables entries. It probably won't be an issue. At that > engine > speed you're not usually looking for high resolution tuning. > > Agreed. > > > Other people have used the 7749 calibration in a 7727 / 7730. I > believe > there's a page on the thirdgen.org site which details the correct > pinout, > but I might be wrong. > > This is where I found my pinout conversion info: > http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/diy-prom/213539-58-frequently-asked-que > sti > ons.html > > Is this the one you meant? I guess it just needs mapping from 730 to 727 > pinout for my ECM. I was just looking for confirmation that I hadn't > missed > anything subtle, since the above (and other) discussions just talk > about $58 > code on a 730 (not a 727). > > > The turbo Sunbird calibration is 16k large. It will fit on a 32k > eprom > and work. You will need to move it to the "top" of the chip. Look for > instructions on "bin stacking" for one method to do this. The memcal > must > match the calibration in the number of cylinders it's designed for or > else > there will be a "cylinder select" error set. > > No problems there. I've now looked at the AYBN hack and its associated > .BIN. > The hack is 16k and the .BIN has the first 16k padded with $FF - so > already > in the right format for my 32k EPROM. > > > To make the "special secret super duper code modification" you'll > probably > need to learn the $58 code. There may not be an equivalent function in > the > $58 as you worked with in the $8D. > > The 'not actually a quote from my Email' code modification allows OTF > map > changes from a laptop, so I'm pretty keen to be able to reproduce it! > :-) I > just wondered if there was a Sunbird specific hack that I've missed - > that > might make code changes easier. If not, am I right in thinking that > AYBN is > the best/most commented $58 hack to use? The comments with the AYBN > code are > a LOT sparser than ANHT :-( although the description of the lookup > tables > seems better - and the Sunbird document that I've seen is a massive > help. > :-) > > BTW: Is the Sunbird code/bin unique? Does it have a 4 letter name, like > ANHT? > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robin Handley > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:04:42 +0100 > > Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one > > > > > > After a couple of years of researching and playing with GMECM, I > thought I > > was getting my head around it but, having started thinking about > changing > > the code in my 16149396 (1227727 with SRAM) from $8D/ANHT to something > > possibly better hacked and easier for me to understand all the > arrays/tables > > required in applying it to a 2 litre 4 cylinder naturally aspirated > engine > > that will rev to 7000+RPM, I am now confused and need help/advice. > > > > I've read quite a lot recently about Turbo Sunbird code and it being > > identical to Sy/Ty code. What I've read tells me that both originally > ran > on > > 1227749 hardware, that they are part of the $58 family, and that the > EPROM > > size fitted to this hardware was 16k, whereas 1227727 & 1227730 > hardware > > came with 32k EPROMs fitted (what I have). Also, that it is possible > to > run > > $58 code on a 1227730/1227727 if a few ECM pins are wired > differently. I > > don't have or want IAC or EGR or any transmission connections, so I > think > > the only one that might matter here is the wire to connect to my > injectors. > > Have I got the above correct? :-) > > > > So, if I am to do the switch from $8D/ANHT to $58/Sunbird code, and > get > back > > up to where I am now, I need a .BIN (I have something called > Sunbird.bin, > > but no idea what 4 letter designation this relates to) and I need a > > commented hack - for ALDL monitoring, reference, and code modification > (I've > > done a nifty change to ANHT that I really need to recreate with any > new > > code). A .ECU would be nice, but I am capable and happy to generate > one > from > > the hack. > > > > I've looked at the .BINs and hacks on www.moates.net (which seems to > be a > > copy of the www.diy-efi.org equivalent, but with hacks) and found 4 > 1227749 > > $58 4.3 Turbo .BINs (1576BBZA58, 1618BBZB58, 4175AYBN58, BBZB1580 - > all > 16k) > > and one $58 hack (AYBN - which is configured for 6cyl but mentions > Turbo > > Sunbird in the header, and the accompanying .BIN is 32k !!! - This > confused > > me, can anyone explain?) > > > > Could somebody with a good overview of GMECM put me straight, please. > :-) > Is > > the Turbo Sunbird code the best start point for a 2.0 4cyl NA engine? > Is > it > > the exact same code as the 6cyl 4.3 Turbos, but with different lookup > > values? Will Sunbird code run on 16149396/1227727 hardware (I'm in > the UK, > > so getting new ECM hardware is not trivial) with a dizzy reluctor > trigger > > feeding an 8 pin GM HEI? (I don't have/want EGR, IAC, or any > transmission > > related stuff - just something that will run my NA engine's ignition > and > > injection - after tuning (obviously) - but with clear visibility about > what > > needs to be set, and what it actually does.) BTW: I have a WBO2 for > tuning, > > and a MAP sensor with the following ID: 460 7236 (which I believe to > be a > 1 > > bar sensor, but this number does not match that on a web site of GM > > sensors!) > > > > If so, please advise which .BIN should I start with, and which hack? > And > can > > I reuse my MAP sensor (I believe the $58 code has an option for a 1 > bar > > sensor)? > > > > Help! (Sorry for all the questions.) > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 13 15:47:58 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:47:58 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com><200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0db601c676be$840f3210$020101c0@gandalf> <8C844D9DAA1F090-A6C-47A4@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <0dd201c676ce$af31b9d0$020101c0@gandalf> Ah, so there can be multiple throttles/butterflies in all of them(?) Reason for asking is that the one throttle/butterfly and injector per cylinder is v. common amongst my fellow car builders, and I have been planning to go that way (replacing my DCOE 40s) with GMECM. Thanks, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 13 May 2006 20:23 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > TBI = injection on the atmospheric side of the throttle butterflies. > > PFI = port fuel injection, injection on the engine side of the > butterflies > > MPI = Mult- port injection, marketing name for PFI > > MPFI, same as MPI > > TPI, Tuned Port Injection, marketing name for specific intake system > using PFI and curved, tuned length runners. > > DFI, Direct Fuel injection, fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. > > Look to exotic car makers for marketing names for multiple butterfly > manifolds. As far as the injection type, use the position of the > injectors relative to the throttle butterflies to determine injection > type. > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Handley > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:53:22 +0100 > Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > I've been scratching my head over this for a while. Could somebody > tell me > if I've got these right: > > TBI = TPI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all > cylinders/ports, and one great big injector at the body > PFI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all > cylinders/ports, > and one injector near the engine end of each inlet runner (i.e. one > injector > per cylinder) > > What do you call a system which has multiple throttle bodies/butterflies > (i.e. one throttle body/butterfly for each cylinder/port) and multiple > injectors (i.e. one injector for each cylinder)? > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From stevie_g at swampfoxcustoms.com Sat May 13 16:28:35 2006 From: stevie_g at swampfoxcustoms.com (Swamp Fox) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 17:28:35 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] voltage regulators In-Reply-To: <0dd201c676ce$af31b9d0$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <000001c676d4$31291c80$0101a8c0@matrix22> Working on a '92 Saturn with a charging problem. Alternator puts out 14.5 volts on test stand but sends zero to battery when car is running. Less than one ohm resistance from alternator to battery terminal. I'm guessing the voltage regulator is somehow integrated into the PCM on these? From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Sat May 13 16:55:50 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 17:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators References: <000001c676d4$31291c80$0101a8c0@matrix22> Message-ID: <004d01c676d8$078d92d0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Just looked up the alternator online, standard 105 amp CS series alternator (looks like a CS121). Voltage regulator is built in, it's the part you plug the wiring harness into. I work at a parts store and have seen a few times where the plug was ether not plugged in at all or packed full of grease from the engine bay causing a poor connection. Will the car start at all on the battery? If it does your problem is with the cars wiring. http://www.alternatorparts.com/cs130_sbpage1.htm -- here are some instructions, page 4 has a fairly terrible picture that shows the regulator. btw, I have the CS 130 alternator torn down from my '92 caprice right now to replace the rectifier, brushes and bearings. Also powder coated it with single stage chrome on the case and mirror black with irredecent emerald on the fan and pulley, looks really good. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Swamp Fox" To: Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 5:28 PM Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators Working on a '92 Saturn with a charging problem. Alternator puts out 14.5 volts on test stand but sends zero to battery when car is running. Less than one ohm resistance from alternator to battery terminal. I'm guessing the voltage regulator is somehow integrated into the PCM on these? _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From bcroe at juno.com Sat May 13 17:22:37 2006 From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 17:22:37 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] voltage regulators Message-ID: <20060513.172238.764.0.bcroe@juno.com> I wouldn't replace the rectifiers unless they had failed. The solid state parts don't "wear out", the originals have demonstrated survival ability, and a replacement may be a cheap no name part with a considerably greater chance of failure. Bruce Roe 13 May 2006 "Jason M." writes: > btw, I have the CS 130 alternator torn down from my '92 caprice > right now to > replace the rectifier, brushes and bearings. From mdill12 at yahoo.com Sat May 13 17:48:12 2006 From: mdill12 at yahoo.com (MD) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. Message-ID: <20060513224812.22257.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> Hey guys, its been a long time since I was part of the the early DIY list. I have started working on a project that I need to see if there is some info on. Project discription AMC-360 V8 (GM TBI) -> 4L60E (1998 1500)-> NV241 transfercase into a Jeep Grand wagoneer. The hope is I can use a 1995-1996 ?? 16197427 ECU to control the show (TBI and 4L60E) Is this possable ? Does the 16197427 have the tranny smarts also. or is the tranny controlled by another box ? Has anyone figured out the table addresses for this ECU > Is there a better choice ? Any sugestions ? Thanks Mike D. --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sat May 13 18:32:38 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:32:38 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms Message-ID: <44666C96.7040405@highspeedlink.net> I have acquired two sets of 98-99 Suzuki GSXR 750 throttle bodies in order to go throttle per cylinder on my Cadillac Northstar. Sport bike throttles are very handy because they already include injector bosses and vacuum ports as well as a way to integrate them into a single actuation mechanism. The 98-99 GSXR 750's have the biggest per cylinder sport bike throttles (46mm). Suzuki GSXR 1300R (Hayabusa) throttles are much more common and are around 42mm. Beware that many of the most modern sport bikes use ECM controlled secondary throttles behind the rider controlled primary throttles to smooth the power delivery. You'll either need to chose a set without or remove the secondaries and plug the shaft holes if you buy a set with. Also check out: http://www.msefi.com/viewtopic.php?t=6627 for motorcycle throttle info. In extreme racing engines, particularly dragsters, it is possible to run both PFI and TBI at the same time... PFI supplies fuel at idle and low throttle and when the PFI injectors get maxed out, the larger TBI injectors start spraying. This allows the latent heat of vaporization of the fuel to cool the intake charge and supplants the need for intercooling in alcohol fueled forced induction cars. Will > From: "Robin Handley" > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > Ah, so there can be multiple throttles/butterflies in all of them(?) > > Reason for asking is that the one throttle/butterfly and injector per > cylinder is v. common amongst my fellow car builders, and I have been > planning to go that way (replacing my DCOE 40s) with GMECM. > > Thanks, > > Robin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: 13 May 2006 20:23 > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > >> TBI = injection on the atmospheric side of the throttle butterflies. >> >> PFI = port fuel injection, injection on the engine side of the >> butterflies >> >> MPI = Mult- port injection, marketing name for PFI >> >> MPFI, same as MPI >> >> TPI, Tuned Port Injection, marketing name for specific intake system >> using PFI and curved, tuned length runners. >> >> DFI, Direct Fuel injection, fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. >> >> Look to exotic car makers for marketing names for multiple butterfly >> manifolds. As far as the injection type, use the position of the >> injectors relative to the throttle butterflies to determine injection >> type. >> >> Zaphod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Handley >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:53:22 +0100 >> Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms >> >> I've been scratching my head over this for a while. Could somebody >> tell me >> if I've got these right: >> >> TBI = TPI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all >> cylinders/ports, and one great big injector at the body >> PFI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all >> cylinders/ports, >> and one injector near the engine end of each inlet runner (i.e. one >> injector >> per cylinder) >> >> What do you call a system which has multiple throttle bodies/butterflies >> (i.e. one throttle body/butterfly for each cylinder/port) and multiple >> injectors (i.e. one injector for each cylinder)? >> >> Robin From davesnothereman at netscape.net Sat May 13 18:42:02 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:42:02 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms In-Reply-To: <0dd201c676ce$af31b9d0$020101c0@gandalf> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com><200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0db601c676be$840f3210$020101c0@gandalf> <8C844D9DAA1F090-A6C-47A4@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> <0dd201c676ce$af31b9d0$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C844FDF7FF84C9-A6C-4C3B@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Yep. Injection type depends on placement of injectors, not number of throttle plates. Diesels have either indirect or direct injection and no throttle plates. Individual throttle barrels may need a common connection for MAP reference to work with a speed density system. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:47:58 +0100 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms Ah, so there can be multiple throttles/butterflies in all of them(?) Reason for asking is that the one throttle/butterfly and injector per cylinder is v. common amongst my fellow car builders, and I have been planning to go that way (replacing my DCOE 40s) with GMECM. Thanks, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 13 May 2006 20:23 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > TBI = injection on the atmospheric side of the throttle butterflies. > > PFI = port fuel injection, injection on the engine side of the > butterflies > > MPI = Mult- port injection, marketing name for PFI > > MPFI, same as MPI > > TPI, Tuned Port Injection, marketing name for specific intake system > using PFI and curved, tuned length runners. > > DFI, Direct Fuel injection, fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. > > Look to exotic car makers for marketing names for multiple butterfly > manifolds. As far as the injection type, use the position of the > injectors relative to the throttle butterflies to determine injection > type. > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Handley > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:53:22 +0100 > Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > I've been scratching my head over this for a while. Could somebody > tell me > if I've got these right: > > TBI = TPI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all > cylinders/ports, and one great big injector at the body > PFI = just one big throttle body/butterfly that feeds all > cylinders/ports, > and one injector near the engine end of each inlet runner (i.e. one > injector > per cylinder) > > What do you call a system which has multiple throttle bodies/butterflies > (i.e. one throttle body/butterfly for each cylinder/port) and multiple > injectors (i.e. one injector for each cylinder)? > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ___________________________________________________ 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 May 13 18:45:47 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:45:47 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms In-Reply-To: <44666C96.7040405@highspeedlink.net> References: <44666C96.7040405@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <8C844FE7E788E98-A6C-4C4B@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: William Lucke To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:32:38 -0400 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms In extreme racing engines, particularly dragsters, it is possible to run both PFI and TBI at the same time... PFI supplies fuel at idle and low throttle and when the PFI injectors get maxed out, the larger TBI injectors start spraying. This allows the latent heat of vaporization of the fuel to cool the intake charge and supplants the need for intercooling in alcohol fueled forced induction cars. It's not just extreme racing engines. The ricer crowd will add injectors pre TB when adding a turbocharger to a N. A. engine. New cars, old tricks. Zaphod ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 13 18:53:44 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 00:53:44 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com><200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0db601c676be$840f3210$020101c0@gandalf> <8C844D9DAA1F090-A6C-47A4@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com><0dd201c676ce$af31b9d0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C844FDF7FF84C9-A6C-4C3B@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <0df101c676e8$c7d17100$020101c0@gandalf> > Individual throttle barrels may need a common connection for MAP > reference to work with a speed density system. I currently 'T' together drillings just on the engine side of my DCOE butterflies to provide the MAP signal. Thanks, Robin From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 13 18:55:54 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 00:55:54 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms References: <44666C96.7040405@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <0df201c676e8$c8149480$020101c0@gandalf> I'm currently looking for 2000-3 GSXR 750/1000 TBs ! :-) Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: 14 May 2006 00:32 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > I have acquired two sets of 98-99 Suzuki GSXR 750 throttle bodies in > order to go throttle per cylinder on my Cadillac Northstar. Sport bike > throttles are very handy because they already include injector bosses > and vacuum ports as well as a way to integrate them into a single > actuation mechanism. The 98-99 GSXR 750's have the biggest per cylinder > sport bike throttles (46mm). Suzuki GSXR 1300R (Hayabusa) throttles are > much more common and are around 42mm. Beware that many of the most > modern sport bikes use ECM controlled secondary throttles behind the > rider controlled primary throttles to smooth the power delivery. You'll > either need to chose a set without or remove the secondaries and plug > the shaft holes if you buy a set with. > > Also check out: http://www.msefi.com/viewtopic.php?t=6627 for motorcycle > throttle info. > > In extreme racing engines, particularly dragsters, it is possible to run > both PFI and TBI at the same time... PFI supplies fuel at idle and low > throttle and when the PFI injectors get maxed out, the larger TBI > injectors start spraying. This allows the latent heat of vaporization of > the fuel to cool the intake charge and supplants the need for > intercooling in alcohol fueled forced induction cars. > > > Will From davesnothereman at netscape.net Sat May 13 19:01:20 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <0dc901c676c5$195f51f0$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <0dc901c676c5$195f51f0$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C84500AA1104B9-A6C-4C8C@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:40:29 +0100 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one "I'm in a different boat. I am applying GMECM hardware and software to an engine that never used it - so I know I've got mapping to do - but the saving grace is that I intend to keep things simple. Many 'tweak' arrays will get set to zero to make life bearable. After all, the GMECM has about 10x the number of adjustments that an aftermarket ECM provides (e.g. MegaSquirt, Emerald M3D) and plenty of people are blatting around with those running their engine's fuel and sparks." You're right, of course. There is a relatively large margin in the conditions that will allow an engine to run. When the sophistication of the driver is not so high, or the conditions under which the engine is expected to run at its best are significantly narrowed, it's fairly easy to obtain acceptable results with even primitive systems. I should probably know this... you've been around for a while. What engine are you working on? Is this a Ford engine? Vauxhall? "Happy to send you the .BIN (in fact I have ended up with 2 over the years - that have come from different sources, but they appear identical). I'm curious what, in the .BIN, tells you which calibration is. Is the following enough:? PROMID = $0D53 DATECODE = $0D2A SEQNUMB = $058C KKPGMID = $58" The promid will usually work, but I can compare the checksum to the values in the calibration and sometimes come up with a proper ID. Promid 3411 is AUWR3607, 1987 Sunbird GT 2.0 Turbo, manual trans. > Yes, the information you linked to on Thirdgen.org looks like what I > was thinking of. Ludis Langens made a nice equivalency chart for 7727 > <-> 7730 pin functions. Sorry, I don't have a direct link. I just use > Google. This one: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/triplugecm.html ? Yes. > The AYBN hac which is floating around was likely authored by the same > person who wrote the 8D hack. It's not complete, nor is it completely > accurate. But it is a decent starting point. It's acceptable for use > with the Sunbird code, although certain minor functions differ between > the two applications. I've spent all day going through a document that was brought to my attention recently by another helpful lister, which was called Sunbird.doc. It seems to be a differently formatted version of this: http://www.sunflower.com/~leroy/P4/ Ahh, yes. The turbo P4 paper. It's been the starting point for years. :) I've been matching the calibration variables in that document with a text export of my Sunbird .BIN from PROMgrammer. There is a massive amount of agreement, but a few differences - which I wasn't expecting if the document and the .BIN are Sunbird. I'd love to understand how that document fits in with Sunbird and Sy/Ty $58 code. Can you help? Possibly. I would guess that the P4 document was written by someone close to, but directly involved with, the GM $58 code. Some of the functions are described incorrectly, some of the described functions do not exist in the $58 calibration, and some of the important functions are missing altogether. The GMECM world has been a detective's paradise for years. And the turbo P4 document is akin to clues based on hearsay. I may not have knowledge of specific issues in that document, but I'll try to help with any you've found. Zaphod ___________________________________________________ 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 May 13 19:09:01 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:09:01 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. In-Reply-To: <20060513224812.22257.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060513224812.22257.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C84501BD4A06A9-A6C-4CC4@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Hi, Mike D. 16197427 is used with TBI and CFI v6 Vortec engines. It's used with 4L60E and 4L80E transmissions. There is a Tunercat definition file as well as a documentd $0D hac on ecmguy's site. Hopefully this will whip that Wagoneer into submission. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: MD To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. Hey guys, its been a long time since I was part of the the early DIY list. I have started working on a project that I need to see if there is some info on. Project discription AMC-360 V8 (GM TBI) -> 4L60E (1998 1500)-> NV241 transfercase into a Jeep Grand wagoneer. The hope is I can use a 1995-1996 ?? 16197427 ECU to control the show (TBI and 4L60E) Is this possable ? Does the 16197427 have the tranny smarts also. or is the tranny controlled by another box ? Has anyone figured out the table addresses for this ECU > Is there a better choice ? Any sugestions ? Thanks Mike D. --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Sat May 13 20:50:20 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:50:20 -0400 Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators References: <20060513.172238.764.0.bcroe@juno.com> Message-ID: <005c01c676f9$a42e9b90$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> I have the alternator apart to replace the failed rectifier. To get the alternator apart you pretty much end up breaking the brushes, and the bearings didn't look so good/had a lot of play. It's mostly back together. Got the wrong size front bearing, so have to wait until monday to finish up. btw, this is the original alternator, 14 years and 75,000 miles... ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 6:22 PM Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators >I wouldn't replace the rectifiers unless they had failed. The > solid state parts don't "wear out", the originals have demonstrated > survival ability, and a replacement may be a cheap no name > part with a considerably greater chance of failure. Bruce Roe > > 13 May 2006 "Jason M." writes: > >> btw, I have the CS 130 alternator torn down from my '92 caprice >> right now to >> replace the rectifier, brushes and bearings. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sat May 13 21:22:03 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 22:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: injection acronyms, injector placement Message-ID: <4466944B.7020905@highspeedlink.net> I've never heard of a diesel that didn't have direct injection... I thought that was a staple of diesel operation in order to ensure that the combustion event occured at the proper time... like spark timing on a spark ignition engine. Which ones weren't direct? > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > Yep. Injection type depends on placement of injectors, not number of > throttle plates. Diesels have either indirect or direct injection and > no throttle plates. > > Individual throttle barrels may need a common connection for MAP > reference to work with a speed density system. > > Zaphod > I'm aware that the ricers do it... It's my opinion that extra injectors with a turbo kit are just a bandaid because the turbo kits that include extra injectors do not include correct engine management (this applies no matter how pretty the billet aluminum housing is... it's still a billet aluminum bandaid). I was referring to well setup and correctly managed engines that are just too big for single injector per cylinder (like 3,000 HP alcohol burners running 40# of boost on 10:1 compression). > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Lucke > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:32:38 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > > In extreme racing engines, particularly dragsters, it is possible to > run both PFI and TBI at the same time... PFI supplies fuel at idle and > low throttle and when the PFI injectors get maxed out, the larger TBI > injectors start spraying. This allows the latent heat of vaporization > of the fuel to cool the intake charge and supplants the need for > intercooling in alcohol fueled forced induction cars. > > It's not just extreme racing engines. The ricer crowd will add > injectors pre TB when adding a turbocharger to a N. A. engine. New > cars, old tricks. > > Zaphod From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sat May 13 21:24:32 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 22:24:32 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8 Message-ID: <446694E0.8000000@highspeedlink.net> Don't they have the ECM controlled secondaries? Are you just going to remove them? I think that was the reason I didn't want the 00-03 throttles. The 98-99's were also the biggest I heard about... Will > From: "Robin Handley" > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > I'm currently looking for 2000-3 GSXR 750/1000 TBs ! :-) > > Robin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Lucke" > To: > Sent: 14 May 2006 00:32 > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > >> I have acquired two sets of 98-99 Suzuki GSXR 750 throttle bodies in >> order to go throttle per cylinder on my Cadillac Northstar. Sport bike >> throttles are very handy because they already include injector bosses >> and vacuum ports as well as a way to integrate them into a single >> actuation mechanism. The 98-99 GSXR 750's have the biggest per cylinder >> sport bike throttles (46mm). Suzuki GSXR 1300R (Hayabusa) throttles are >> much more common and are around 42mm. Beware that many of the most >> modern sport bikes use ECM controlled secondary throttles behind the >> rider controlled primary throttles to smooth the power delivery. You'll >> either need to chose a set without or remove the secondaries and plug >> the shaft holes if you buy a set with. >> >> Also check out: http://www.msefi.com/viewtopic.php?t=6627 for motorcycle >> throttle info. >> >> In extreme racing engines, particularly dragsters, it is possible to run >> both PFI and TBI at the same time... PFI supplies fuel at idle and low >> throttle and when the PFI injectors get maxed out, the larger TBI >> injectors start spraying. This allows the latent heat of vaporization of >> the fuel to cool the intake charge and supplants the need for >> intercooling in alcohol fueled forced induction cars. >> >> >> Will From jryan at caminofx.org Sat May 13 21:30:04 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: injection acronyms, injector placement In-Reply-To: <4466944B.7020905@highspeedlink.net> References: <4466944B.7020905@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <7b0ade89b71d7f6730ae6ea9e8ab917e@caminofx.org> Many Diesel engines have a "prechamber" separate from the main combustion chamber into which the fuel is injected. This is most common on small automotive-type engines. The VW TDI (Turbo Direct Injection) Diesel is unusual in that it is very small and has direct injection ---> Jared Ryan <--- jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org On May 13, 2006, at 9:22 PM, William Lucke wrote: > I've never heard of a diesel that didn't have direct injection... I > thought that was a staple of diesel operation in order to ensure that > the combustion event occured at the proper time... like spark timing > on a spark ignition engine. Which ones weren't direct? From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 14 00:33:27 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 06:33:27 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8 References: <446694E0.8000000@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <0e2a01c67719$7c528b70$020101c0@gandalf> Yes - but the secondaries can be removed easily and the holes filled up, I believe. I had heard that the pre 2000 ones had a solid fuel rail, which is no good for my application. Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: 14 May 2006 03:24 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8 > Don't they have the ECM controlled secondaries? Are you just going to > remove them? > I think that was the reason I didn't want the 00-03 throttles. The > 98-99's were also the biggest I heard about... > > > Will From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 14 00:44:57 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 06:44:57 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0dc901c676c5$195f51f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C84500AA1104B9-A6C-4C8C@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <0e2b01c67719$8aa90be0$020101c0@gandalf> > I should probably know this... you've been around for a while. What > engine are you working on? Is this a Ford engine? Vauxhall? My GMECM was running the ignition on a Ford (Kent) Crossflow (highly tweaked 1600cc) but I replaced with with a Vauxhall 2.0XE (cylinder head design by Cosworth). > The promid will usually work, but I can compare the checksum to the > values in the calibration and sometimes come up with a proper ID. > Promid 3411 is AUWR3607, 1987 Sunbird GT 2.0 Turbo, manual trans. The checksum is $D1EE in all the versions that I have. That would be great. Thanks. :-) > Possibly. I would guess that the P4 document was written by someone > close to, but directly involved with, the GM $58 code. Some of the > functions are described incorrectly, some of the described functions do > not exist in the $58 calibration, and some of the important functions > are missing altogether. The GMECM world has been a detective's > paradise for years. And the turbo P4 document is akin to clues based > on hearsay. I may not have knowledge of specific issues in that > document, but I'll try to help with any you've found. Where I am now, the doc appears to be 'paradise' compared to how I was with ANHT - but I haven't yet done the trawl through the PROMgrammer export to see what's missing from the doc. That's next on my list. I suppose my other option is to try and use what I've learned and apply it to ANHT - when I've learned all I can I will have to make a decision about whether it's actually worth the effort to switch from ANHT to the Sunbird code. More homework to do... Thanks for all your continued help. :-) Robin From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 14 00:49:22 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 06:49:22 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one Message-ID: <0e3001c6771a$27f4d690$020101c0@gandalf> BTW: I'm working on the assumption that PROMgrammer has a 100% accurate and complete list of the Sunbird and Sy/Ty calibration values and tables. Is this fair? Thanks, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Handley" To: Sent: 14 May 2006 06:44 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one > > I should probably know this... you've been around for a while. What > > engine are you working on? Is this a Ford engine? Vauxhall? > > My GMECM was running the ignition on a Ford (Kent) Crossflow (highly tweaked > 1600cc) but I replaced with with a Vauxhall 2.0XE (cylinder head design by > Cosworth). > > > The promid will usually work, but I can compare the checksum to the > > values in the calibration and sometimes come up with a proper ID. > > Promid 3411 is AUWR3607, 1987 Sunbird GT 2.0 Turbo, manual trans. > > The checksum is $D1EE in all the versions that I have. That would be great. > Thanks. :-) > > > Possibly. I would guess that the P4 document was written by someone > > close to, but directly involved with, the GM $58 code. Some of the > > functions are described incorrectly, some of the described functions do > > not exist in the $58 calibration, and some of the important functions > > are missing altogether. The GMECM world has been a detective's > > paradise for years. And the turbo P4 document is akin to clues based > > on hearsay. I may not have knowledge of specific issues in that > > document, but I'll try to help with any you've found. > > Where I am now, the doc appears to be 'paradise' compared to how I was with > ANHT - but I haven't yet done the trawl through the PROMgrammer export to > see what's missing from the doc. That's next on my list. I suppose my other > option is to try and use what I've learned and apply it to ANHT - when I've > learned all I can I will have to make a decision about whether it's actually > worth the effort to switch from ANHT to the Sunbird code. More homework to > do... > > Thanks for all your continued help. :-) > > Robin > From bcroe at juno.com Sun May 14 01:33:55 2006 From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 01:33:55 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] voltage regulators Message-ID: <20060514.013355.288.0.bcroe@juno.com> I replace the front bearing at 60,000, the rear and the brushes at 120,000. My expectation is that this will avoid failures, but things like diodes or regulators can happen. I never had a problem with brushes breaking, but a rusted/stripped shaft nut or a front bearing that won't slide off can happen. Bruce Roe 13 May 06 "Jason M." writes: > I have the alternator apart to replace the failed rectifier. To > get the alternator apart you pretty much end up breaking > the brushes, and the > bearings didn't look so good/had a lot of play. > > It's mostly back together. Got the wrong size front bearing, > so have to wait until monday to finish up. > > btw, this is the original alternator, 14 years and 75,000 miles... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: May 13, 2006 6:22 PM > >I wouldn't replace the rectifiers unless they had failed. The > > solid state parts don't "wear out", the originals have > demonstrated > > survival ability, and a replacement may be a cheap no name > > part with a considerably greater chance of failure. Bruce Roe From efi at dyakron.com Sun May 14 06:29:08 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 07:29:08 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <0e3001c6771a$27f4d690$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060514071156.02ea39c0@dyakron.com> What version do you have? Some of the early versions had an issue with changing the cyl-select-byte, but that was a quite a while ago. Richard Tomlinson (London) originally wrote it, then Bill Calgano (Maryland, US) did some major clean-up and added to the editdable parameters. Bill has released several updates. . MV At 06:49 AM 5/14/2006 +0100, you wrote: >BTW: I'm working on the assumption that PROMgrammer has a 100% accurate and >complete list of the Sunbird and Sy/Ty calibration values and tables. Is >this fair? > >Thanks, > >Robin From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 14 06:42:47 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 12:42:47 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Saturated/P&H injection References: <446694E0.8000000@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <0e3b01c6774b$87f39d20$020101c0@gandalf> Something else that's been puzzling me recently, from the reading that I've been doing, is what's the difference between: 'saturated injector driver' (Syclone?) and 'dual Peak&Hold' (Sunbird?). Can anyone help? Robin From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Sun May 14 07:33:44 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 08:33:44 -0400 Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators References: <20060514.013355.288.0.bcroe@juno.com> Message-ID: <001c01c67752$b5b0e310$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Any tips for taking it apart with out breaking the brushes? I've had a couple of the smaller CS alternators apart before to fix little problems, like the charging post coming loose. They would just slide apart. What actually broke the brushes on this one was a plastic bearing retainer. Both of the bearings were stuck on this one (rust). Cut some notches in the outer race of the rear bearing to get a puller on it then cranked hard with a 1/2'' rachet. Felt about the same as an over tightened lug nut. The Front bearing I tried the same thing on but eneded up cutting it off. On the inner race I ground it 3/4 the way through then cracked it with a chisel. So far I've had 3 alternator failures on different GM products. 1st was brushes/contacts worn down to nothing on a camaro with 200,000 miles. 2nd was a voltage regulator, don't know the complete history of the car but appeared the alternator was on there for a while, car had 220,000 and the junkyard 1973 olds engine was put in ~1984 when the car had ~10,000 miles. 3rd, the diodes on the one I'm messing with now. Jason. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 2:33 AM Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators >I replace the front bearing at 60,000, the rear and the brushes > at 120,000. My expectation is that this will avoid failures, but > things like diodes or regulators can happen. I never had a > problem with brushes breaking, but a rusted/stripped shaft > nut or a front bearing that won't slide off can happen. > > Bruce Roe From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 14 07:44:39 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:44:39 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060514071156.02ea39c0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <0e4801c67755$dd816c90$020101c0@gandalf> > What version do you have? > Some of the early versions had an issue with changing the cyl-select-byte, > but that was a quite a while ago. Richard Tomlinson (London) originally wrote > it, then Bill Calgano (Maryland, US) did some major clean-up and added to > the editdable parameters. Bill has released several updates. . > MV Version 1.0-eval. I downloaded it 2 days ago. Is this the latest? Robin From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sun May 14 10:48:12 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 11:48:12 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: direct injection Message-ID: <4467513C.6080908@highspeedlink.net> I have heard of pre-chambers, although I've never seen pictures or examples of real ones, just conceptual diagrams. The new Solstice turbo will have direct injection. Anyone want to take a stab at that software? Will > From: Jared Ryan > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: injection acronyms, injector placement > > Many Diesel engines have a "prechamber" separate from the main > combustion chamber into which the fuel is injected. This is most > common on small automotive-type engines. The VW TDI (Turbo Direct > Injection) Diesel is unusual in that it is very small and has direct > injection > > ---> Jared Ryan <--- > jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org > > On May 13, 2006, at 9:22 PM, William Lucke wrote: > >> I've never heard of a diesel that didn't have direct injection... I >> thought that was a staple of diesel operation in order to ensure that >> the combustion event occured at the proper time... like spark timing >> on a spark ignition engine. Which ones weren't direct? From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sun May 14 10:51:17 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 11:51:17 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 9 Message-ID: <446751F5.6050908@highspeedlink.net> I thought it looked like they'd be easy to deal with... but with a little patience I found two sets that didn't need that extra work and my project got that much easier. Just machined some of the last pieces I need to space them out from 80 mm bore centers to 102 mm bore centers. By solid, do you mean one piece? Yes, my sets do have one piece throttle bodies. I had resigned myself to making new fuel rails with the new injector spacing, Buuut.... maybe I should look at the 2000+ fuel rails if they're not one piece... maybe they're adaptable to my 98/99 throttles... Hmm... Thanks for the brainfood. Will > From: "Robin Handley" > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8 > > Yes - but the secondaries can be removed easily and the holes filled up, I > believe. I had heard that the pre 2000 ones had a solid fuel rail, which is > no good for my application. > > Robin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Lucke" > To: > Sent: 14 May 2006 03:24 > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8 > > >> Don't they have the ECM controlled secondaries? Are you just going to >> remove them? >> I think that was the reason I didn't want the 00-03 throttles. The >> 98-99's were also the biggest I heard about... >> >> >> Will From stevie_g at swampfoxcustoms.com Sun May 14 10:58:45 2006 From: stevie_g at swampfoxcustoms.com (Swamp Fox) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 11:58:45 -0400 Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators In-Reply-To: <004d01c676d8$078d92d0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Message-ID: <001301c6776f$47868030$0101a8c0@matrix22> -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Jason M. Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 5:56 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators Just looked up the alternator online, standard 105 amp CS series alternator (looks like a CS121). Voltage regulator is built in, it's the part you plug the wiring harness into. I work at a parts store and have seen a few times where the plug was ether not plugged in at all or packed full of grease from the engine bay causing a poor connection. Will the car start at all on the battery? If it does your problem is with the cars wiring. http://www.alternatorparts.com/cs130_sbpage1.htm -- here are some instructions, page 4 has a fairly terrible picture that shows the regulator. Okay, so from what I can see, odds are something is wrong with the wire to the 'S' post or 'L'. For some reason no power to field. Time to dig. Thanks! I'll start picking the collectives brain for 2004 EFI wiring in a month or so. Just got a 63 truck with a 2004 drivetrain dropped at the shop this week. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 14 11:44:34 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 17:44:34 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf> > What I can say with certainty is that flipping the bit to 1 BAR and > connecting to a 1 BAR sensor produced poor idle and driveability in my > car. I had no desire to chase the reason, I simply switched to a 2 BAR > sensor. I valued the time spent more than the potential for education. I've been comparing what values PROMgrammer shows for pressures (kPa), for the same Sunbird.bin, but when the MAP sensor range flag is changed: Some calibration values are approximately halved. Some are identical. Some are approximately the same. So, PROMgrammer seems to be applying different scale factors/formulae, to convert the raw stored value into kPa, for different calibration values. Whether it is doing this when appropriate I just don't know. I had been hoping that the GM programmers had been sufficiently clever so that raw values (stored in the .BIN) would be appropriate no matter what sensor range is chosen, but I'm beginning to wonder if this was wishful thinking. If life isn't that simple (and I expect it isn't), then I reckon I've potentially got a yucky job on my hands to try and work out what new values should be used. This could be made all the more difficult if PROMgrammer's scalings aren't right - as I could be putting in a perfectly sensible value of kPA, which is then scaled to something stupid. :-( I'd be very grateful if somebody could comment here. :-) Dependent on what the expert response is, the option of buying a 2 BAR MAP sensor is looking more attractive. Anybody know what a scrap one goes for? Are they easy to come by? The last option that I can think of is to find a set of calibration values for $58 from a NA car. Anybody know if one of these exists? Were all Sys/Tys Turboed? Robin From rjdrew at adelphia.net Sun May 14 12:25:16 2006 From: rjdrew at adelphia.net (Ron Drew) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:25:16 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] OBDII scanner/Monitoring software & cable References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0dc901c676c5$195f51f0$020101c0@gandalf><8C84500AA1104B9-A6C-4C8C@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> <0e2b01c67719$8aa90be0$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <000701c6777b$5e412c10$6801a8c0@RonHome> Does anyone have a recommendation to offer regarding the best all around OBDII scanner/monitoring software & cable combination? From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sun May 14 13:23:02 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:23:02 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: throttle bodies Message-ID: <44677586.6020103@highspeedlink.net> D-oh... that should have said 1 piece fuel rail. Will > From: William Lucke > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 9 > > By solid, do you mean one piece? Yes, my sets do have one piece throttle > bodies. > > > Will From bcroe at juno.com Sun May 14 13:36:25 2006 From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:36:25 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] voltage regulators Message-ID: <20060514.133626.872.4.bcroe@juno.com> OK, I'm wondering if my early 80s is quite different. No problem getting the brushes out, you need a 1/16" drill to put them back in. Running 200,000 on brushes I would not describe as a failure, but poor maintenance. Usually they work with an open diode, but output is way down and the GEN light may glow some. At least you can get home. Regulators are pretty good, but I may have a bad one not yet checked on bench. The problem with a front bearing on mine was the shaft wouldn't slide out. I finally bent some cheap wrenches to reach inside the air vent, unscrew the bearing retainer, and slide shaft/bearing/retainer all out of the case. Then I could grind the bearing off. Bruce Roe 14 May 2006 "Jason M." writes: > Any tips for taking it apart with out breaking the brushes? I've had > a > couple of the smaller CS alternators apart before to fix little > problems, > like the charging post coming loose. They would just slide apart. > What > actually broke the brushes on this one was a plastic bearing > retainer. > > Both of the bearings were stuck on this one (rust). Cut some > notches in the > outer race of the rear bearing to get a puller on it then cranked > hard with > a 1/2'' rachet. Felt about the same as an over tightened lug nut. > The > Front bearing I tried the same thing on but eneded up cutting it > off. On > the inner race I ground it 3/4 the way through then cracked it with > a > chisel. > > So far I've had 3 alternator failures on different GM products. 1st > was > brushes/contacts worn down to nothing on a camaro with 200,000 > miles. 2nd > was a voltage regulator, don't know the complete history of the car > but > appeared the alternator was on there for a while, car had 220,000 > and the > junkyard 1973 olds engine was put in ~1984 when the car had ~10,000 > miles. > 3rd, the diodes on the one I'm messing with now. > > Jason. From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sun May 14 13:53:22 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:53:22 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack Message-ID: <44677CA2.6050507@highspeedlink.net> I'd like to get started hacking the OBDI Cadillac Northstar computer (). I have a couple of different BCC's, as well as a dyno program that only has engine management turned on. I'm familiar with assembly and have worked with commercial 68HC11's in development boards. I'm familiar with the concepts of disassembly and I'm ready to devote the time necessary to reverse engineer this program. What I'm not sure of, however, is where to start. What's the best disassembler to use on GM chip images? Is there a listing of the memory locations of the data for the ALDL stream? Other than starting at the beginning, I'm not entirely sure how to enter the program and know what's what. Will From davesnothereman at netscape.net Sun May 14 14:07:46 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:07:46 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Saturated/P&H injection In-Reply-To: <0e3b01c6774b$87f39d20$020101c0@gandalf> References: <446694E0.8000000@highspeedlink.net> <0e3b01c6774b$87f39d20$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C845A0D1B1D1C0-A6C-5C01@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> OIther than the fact that one indicates a single driver while the other is plural? Peak and hold injector drivers operate low impedance injector drivers. They allow higher current to initially open the injector, then when current reaches a peak level the driver switches to "hold" mode, limiting current to typically 1/4 of the peak value. Saturated injector drivers are designed for high impedance injectors. Total current draw through these injectors is lower than the low impedance types, so the driver simply allows maximum current through the injector coil at all times. This scheme allows the injector coil to become "saturated" with current. P&H drivers will operate saturated type high impedance drivers. Saturated drivers are not intended to be used with P & H type injectors, although some people (and even OEM's) will do so with the aid of current limiting resistors. The 7749 can operate in either saturated or P & H mode selectable by an external jumper. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 12:42:47 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Saturated/P&H injection Something else that's been puzzling me recently, from the reading that I've been doing, is what's the difference between: 'saturated injector driver' (Syclone?) and 'dual Peak&Hold' (Sunbird?). Can anyone help? Robin _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com From davesnothereman at netscape.net Sun May 14 14:18:57 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> The pressure <-> voltage relationship for the 1 and 2 BAR sensors are not exactly linear. This becomes even more apparent for the 3 BAR saneor. The lower the pressure, the closer the voltage between the two sensors. And really, they both have to represent about 20 kPa as something close to 1V. I believe there is a PV chart for the 2 BAR sensor accessible from the gmecm home page. Promgrammer's scaling is most likely correct. The only 1 BAR calibration I'm aware of for the 7749 is used with the Quad 4 engine. That's more better suited to high rpm use. It's also long overdue to be hacked / disassembled. Used sensors vary in price depending on where you go shopping. Send me an email off list. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 17:44:34 +0100 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one > What I can say with certainty is that flipping the bit to 1 BAR and > connecting to a 1 BAR sensor produced poor idle and driveability in my > car. I had no desire to chase the reason, I simply switched to a 2 BAR > sensor. I valued the time spent more than the potential for education. I've been comparing what values PROMgrammer shows for pressures (kPa), for the same Sunbird.bin, but when the MAP sensor range flag is changed: Some calibration values are approximately halved. Some are identical. Some are approximately the same. So, PROMgrammer seems to be applying different scale factors/formulae, to convert the raw stored value into kPa, for different calibration values. Whether it is doing this when appropriate I just don't know. I had been hoping that the GM programmers had been sufficiently clever so that raw values (stored in the .BIN) would be appropriate no matter what sensor range is chosen, but I'm beginning to wonder if this was wishful thinking. If life isn't that simple (and I expect it isn't), then I reckon I've potentially got a yucky job on my hands to try and work out what new values should be used. This could be made all the more difficult if PROMgrammer's scalings aren't right - as I could be putting in a perfectly sensible value of kPA, which is then scaled to something stupid. :-( I'd be very grateful if somebody could comment here. :-) Dependent on what the expert response is, the option of buying a 2 BAR MAP sensor is looking more attractive. Anybody know what a scrap one goes for? Are they easy to come by? The last option that I can think of is to find a set of calibration values for $58 from a NA car. Anybody know if one of these exists? Were all Sys/Tys Turboed? 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 Sun May 14 14:27:44 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:27:44 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack In-Reply-To: <44677CA2.6050507@highspeedlink.net> References: <44677CA2.6050507@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <8C845A39BD62177-A6C-5C42@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> I use Donald Whisnant's (spelling?) code seeking disassembler. It's freeware written to disassemble code from GMECM's. Tunercat also has one, but I'm not as familiar with it. IDA Pro is also good, but not so free. Is there a data definition file for the norstar ALDL stream? That would at least provide the correct order to the ALDL data words if you can find the ALDL xmit table. Most of the ALDL tables I've looked at begin with the prom id byte located in the beginning of the calibration. If you know or can work out the calibration address then you might be able to make a guess at the beginning of the ALDL table. You're famaliar with the reset vectors located at the end of Motorola code... use those to separate code from cal. data. If you're working with a P4 ecm, look for hardware addresses in the 3XXX range and attempt to use those with known calibrations from other P4's to locate specific portions of code. Use pattern matching to attempt to locate and identify some common routines such as spark timing calculation. There's probably people much better at this than I am who can offer better clues. But will they? Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: William Lucke To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:53:22 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack I'd like to get started hacking the OBDI Cadillac Northstar computer (). I have a couple of different BCC's, as well as a dyno program that only has engine management turned on. I'm familiar with assembly and have worked with commercial 68HC11's in development boards. I'm familiar with the concepts of disassembly and I'm ready to devote the time necessary to reverse engineer this program. What I'm not sure of, however, is where to start. What's the best disassembler to use on GM chip images? Is there a listing of the memory locations of the data for the ALDL stream? Other than starting at the beginning, I'm not entirely sure how to enter the program and know what's what. Will _______________________________________________ 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun May 14 14:48:59 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 20:48:59 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Saturated/P&H injection References: <446694E0.8000000@highspeedlink.net><0e3b01c6774b$87f39d20$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845A0D1B1D1C0-A6C-5C01@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <0f0701c6778f$b21ab040$020101c0@gandalf> Many thanks again. I knew about the difference impedances but the local solution that I'd heard of involved adding a resistor. The GMECM triumphs yet again! Sorry for all the questions, but here's another one! Can the 727 do both? (I've never come across any mention of a jumper in the time I've been researching the 727.) I have a bunch of Bosch high impedance injectors which I'd like to use. Thanks, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 14 May 2006 20:07 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Saturated/P&H injection > OIther than the fact that one indicates a single driver while the other > is plural? > > Peak and hold injector drivers operate low impedance injector drivers. > They allow higher current to initially open the injector, then when > current reaches a peak level the driver switches to "hold" mode, > limiting current to typically 1/4 of the peak value. > > Saturated injector drivers are designed for high impedance injectors. > Total current draw through these injectors is lower than the low > impedance types, so the driver simply allows maximum current through > the injector coil at all times. This scheme allows the injector coil > to become "saturated" with current. > > P&H drivers will operate saturated type high impedance drivers. > Saturated drivers are not intended to be used with P & H type > injectors, although some people (and even OEM's) will do so with the > aid of current limiting resistors. > > The 7749 can operate in either saturated or P & H mode selectable by an > external jumper. > > Zaphod From davesnothereman at netscape.net Sun May 14 14:53:38 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:53:38 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: injection acronyms, injector placement In-Reply-To: <4466944B.7020905@highspeedlink.net> References: <4466944B.7020905@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <8C845A73A3C5787-A6C-5C94@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> GM 5.7, 6.2, and 6.5 are 3 common examples of indirect injected engines. Injection timing is critical... prechamber expansion is part of the total timing. I agree with the comment about band-aid methods. But I've seen it work well enough to produce 800HP from a 6 cyl engine. In some cases there simply are no methods to make ecm based changes, or there are no injectors that can be used. The GM 2.2 used from '92 to '97 uses a one-off injector which cannot be easily upgraded. Certain Northstar and Quad 4 ecm's are still not "user tunable." Do you tell someone to forgo boost for an indefinite amount of time, or do you design and install a band aid system which produces acceptable results until the "right" way to tune becomes available? I think you're right that many turbo kits don't include the proper tools, and that the people installing these kits don't understand what it takes to make a good add-on system. Adding forced induction should not include pouring in enough fuel to quench combustion. Convering to boost should entail adding the proper amount of fuel combined with decreased spark advance. The correct add-on tools do exist, the overall desire seems to be lacking. For every high tech solution, there is prehistoric thinker ready to throw it out the window. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: William Lucke To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 22:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: injection acronyms, injector placement I've never heard of a diesel that didn't have direct injection... I thought that was a staple of diesel operation in order to ensure that the combustion event occured at the proper time... like spark timing on a spark ignition engine. Which ones weren't direct? > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > Yep. Injection type depends on placement of injectors, not number of > throttle plates. Diesels have either indirect or direct injection and > no throttle plates. > > Individual throttle barrels may need a common connection for MAP > reference to work with a speed density system. > > Zaphod > I'm aware that the ricers do it... It's my opinion that extra injectors with a turbo kit are just a bandaid because the turbo kits that include extra injectors do not include correct engine management (this applies no matter how pretty the billet aluminum housing is... it's still a billet aluminum bandaid). I was referring to well setup and correctly managed engines that are just too big for single injector per cylinder (like 3,000 HP alcohol burners running 40# of boost on 10:1 compression). > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Lucke > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:32:38 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > > In extreme racing engines, particularly dragsters, it is possible to > run both PFI and TBI at the same time... PFI supplies fuel at idle and > low throttle and when the PFI injectors get maxed out, the larger TBI > injectors start spraying. This allows the latent heat of vaporization > of the fuel to cool the intake charge and supplants the need for > intercooling in alcohol fueled forced induction cars. > > It's not just extreme racing engines. The ricer crowd will add > injectors pre TB when adding a turbocharger to a N. A. engine. New > cars, old tricks. > > 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 Sun May 14 15:17:59 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 16:17:59 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <0e2b01c67719$8aa90be0$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0dc901c676c5$195f51f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C84500AA1104B9-A6C-4C8C@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> <0e2b01c67719$8aa90be0$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C845AAA157BB8E-A6C-5D2E@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 06:44:57 +0100 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one "My GMECM was running the ignition on a Ford (Kent) Crossflow (highly tweaked 1600cc) but I replaced with with a Vauxhall 2.0XE (cylinder head design by Cosworth)." I was actually hoping you would tell me it's the 2.0 Vauxhall. Are you aware that the engine you're using is a close cousin to the 2.0L engine used in the Pontiac Sunbird? The Sunbird engine used with the 7749 is a C20LET, an 8V version with forged pistons and very poor port flow. Are you using a distributor in the Coscast head? If your block and crank have provisions for the Bosch DIS system it's possible to switch to a Delco DIS module and use the 7749 or the 7730 / 7727 after some minor machine work. While you're looking to switch engine management systems, I've been looking at 16V heads and Euro engines. "> The promid will usually work, but I can compare the checksum to the > values in the calibration and sometimes come up with a proper ID. > Promid 3411 is AUWR3607, 1987 Sunbird GT 2.0 Turbo, manual trans. The checksum is $D1EE in all the versions that I have. That would be great. Thanks. :-) " :) I also need the calibration to compare the checksum against. But it's not necessary, the scan id was enough. As I said, promid 3411 (hex value $0D53) is for AUWR3607. You probably have the same calibration under different names. "Thanks for all your continued help. :-)" Robin No problem. Zaphod ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com From davesnothereman at netscape.net Sun May 14 15:28:20 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 16:28:20 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Saturated/P&H injection In-Reply-To: <0f0701c6778f$b21ab040$020101c0@gandalf> References: <446694E0.8000000@highspeedlink.net><0e3b01c6774b$87f39d20$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845A0D1B1D1C0-A6C-5C01@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> <0f0701c6778f$b21ab040$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C845AC1347C128-A6C-5D9D@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Interesting question. The 727 can definitely operate high impedance injectors without trouble. That's what it's used with in OEM applications. If you look at the 7730 <-> 7727 equivalency chart on Ludis' page you'll see the connection for "Injector A Sense" on pin D5. This sense line is used with low impedance injectors in P & H mode. The P & H circuit may be calibrated to operate only (2) 2.0 Ohm injectors. You might want to check into this a little further. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 20:48:59 +0100 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Saturated/P&H injection Many thanks again. I knew about the difference impedances but the local solution that I'd heard of involved adding a resistor. The GMECM triumphs yet again! Sorry for all the questions, but here's another one! Can the 727 do both? (I've never come across any mention of a jumper in the time I've been researching the 727.) I have a bunch of Bosch high impedance injectors which I'd like to use. Thanks, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 14 May 2006 20:07 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Saturated/P&H injection > OIther than the fact that one indicates a single driver while the other > is plural? > > Peak and hold injector drivers operate low impedance injector drivers. > They allow higher current to initially open the injector, then when > current reaches a peak level the driver switches to "hold" mode, > limiting current to typically 1/4 of the peak value. > > Saturated injector drivers are designed for high impedance injectors. > Total current draw through these injectors is lower than the low > impedance types, so the driver simply allows maximum current through > the injector coil at all times. This scheme allows the injector coil > to become "saturated" with current. > > P&H drivers will operate saturated type high impedance drivers. > Saturated drivers are not intended to be used with P & H type > injectors, although some people (and even OEM's) will do so with the > aid of current limiting resistors. > > The 7749 can operate in either saturated or P & H mode selectable by an > external jumper. > > 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 galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Sun May 14 16:46:51 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 17:46:51 -0400 Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators References: <20060514.133626.872.4.bcroe@juno.com> Message-ID: <002201c677a0$5b945bc0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Early 80's would be an SI style alternator. Haven't had one apart before. To know what's different. Could be poor maintance, I got that camaro, maybe a month later the alternator went. Previous owner is the owner operator of a dragstrip and races jet cars... maintance was horrible on it. Oil filter was rusted through and leaking when I got it. In retrospect it was a bad car to buy but I was young and really wanted a 3rd gen camaro. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 2:36 PM Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] voltage regulators > OK, I'm wondering if my early 80s is quite different. No problem > getting the brushes out, you need a 1/16" drill to put > them back in. > > Running 200,000 on brushes I would not describe as a > failure, but poor maintenance. Usually they work with an > open diode, but output is way down and the GEN light may > glow some. At least you can get home. > > Regulators are pretty good, but I may have a bad one not > yet checked on bench. > > The problem with a front bearing on mine was the shaft > wouldn't slide out. I finally bent some cheap wrenches > to reach inside the air vent, unscrew the bearing retainer, > and slide shaft/bearing/retainer all out of the case. Then > I could grind the bearing off. > > Bruce Roe > > 14 May 2006 "Jason M." writes: >> Any tips for taking it apart with out breaking the brushes? I've had >> a >> couple of the smaller CS alternators apart before to fix little >> problems, >> like the charging post coming loose. They would just slide apart. >> What >> actually broke the brushes on this one was a plastic bearing >> retainer. >> >> Both of the bearings were stuck on this one (rust). Cut some >> notches in the >> outer race of the rear bearing to get a puller on it then cranked >> hard with >> a 1/2'' rachet. Felt about the same as an over tightened lug nut. >> The >> Front bearing I tried the same thing on but eneded up cutting it >> off. On >> the inner race I ground it 3/4 the way through then cracked it with >> a >> chisel. >> >> So far I've had 3 alternator failures on different GM products. 1st >> was >> brushes/contacts worn down to nothing on a camaro with 200,000 >> miles. 2nd >> was a voltage regulator, don't know the complete history of the car >> but >> appeared the alternator was on there for a while, car had 220,000 >> and the >> junkyard 1973 olds engine was put in ~1984 when the car had ~10,000 >> miles. >> 3rd, the diodes on the one I'm messing with now. >> >> Jason. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sun May 14 16:53:34 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 17:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Bandaid turbo tuning Message-ID: <4467A6DE.3050705@highspeedlink.net> > For every high tech solution, there is prehistoric thinker ready to > throw it out the window. As evidenced by the carbeuretted manifolds for LS1's. That's just an enormous WTF all around. Another thing I really really don't get are the stand alone ignition controllers. People buy digital, PC programmable ignition controllers with 65,443 bells and whistles... and then fuel the engine with a calibrated leak--err... carb. Talk about neanderthals. Will > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: injection acronyms, injector placement > > GM 5.7, 6.2, and 6.5 are 3 common examples of indirect injected > engines. Injection timing is critical... prechamber expansion is part > of the total timing. > > I agree with the comment about band-aid methods. But I've seen it work > well enough to produce 800HP from a 6 cyl engine. In some cases there > simply are no methods to make ecm based changes, or there are no > injectors that can be used. The GM 2.2 used from '92 to '97 uses a > one-off injector which cannot be easily upgraded. Certain Northstar > and Quad 4 ecm's are still not "user tunable." Do you tell someone to > forgo boost for an indefinite amount of time, or do you design and > install a band aid system which produces acceptable results until the > "right" way to tune becomes available? > > I think you're right that many turbo kits don't include the proper > tools, and that the people installing these kits don't understand what > it takes to make a good add-on system. Adding forced induction should > not include pouring in enough fuel to quench combustion. Convering to > boost should entail adding the proper amount of fuel combined with > decreased spark advance. The correct add-on tools do exist, the > overall desire seems to be lacking. > > For every high tech solution, there is prehistoric thinker ready to > throw it out the window. > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Lucke > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 22:22:03 -0400 > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: injection acronyms, injector placement > > I've never heard of a diesel that didn't have direct injection... I > thought that was a staple of diesel operation in order to ensure that > the combustion event occured at the proper time... like spark timing on > a spark ignition engine. Which ones weren't direct? > > > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > > Yep. Injection type depends on placement of injectors, not number > of > throttle plates. Diesels have either indirect or direct injection > and > no throttle plates. > > > Individual throttle barrels may need a common connection for MAP > > reference to work with a speed density system. > > > Zaphod > > > I'm aware that the ricers do it... It's my opinion that extra > injectors with a turbo kit are just a bandaid because the turbo kits > that include extra injectors do not include correct engine management > (this applies no matter how pretty the billet aluminum housing is... > it's still a billet aluminum bandaid). I was referring to well setup > and correctly managed engines that are just too big for single injector > per cylinder (like 3,000 HP alcohol burners running 40# of boost on > 10:1 compression). > > > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Lucke > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:32:38 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Understanding injection system acronyms > > > > In extreme racing engines, particularly dragsters, it is > possible to > run both PFI and TBI at the same time... PFI supplies > fuel at idle and > low throttle and when the PFI injectors get maxed > out, the larger TBI > injectors start spraying. This allows the latent > heat of vaporization > of the fuel to cool the intake charge and > supplants the need for > intercooling in alcohol fueled forced > induction cars. > > > It's not just extreme racing engines. The ricer crowd will add > > injectors pre TB when adding a turbocharger to a N. A. engine. New > > cars, old tricks. > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > End of Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 11 > ************************************* > > From donsauman at cythera.net Sun May 14 17:54:00 2006 From: donsauman at cythera.net (Don Sauman) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 06:54:00 +0800 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: direct injection In-Reply-To: <4467513C.6080908@highspeedlink.net> References: <4467513C.6080908@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <4467B508.2040706@cythera.net> Essentially all of the older diesels (e.g. Series Landrovers, Nissan, etc) were indirect injection with prechamber. Cheers Don William Lucke wrote: > I have heard of pre-chambers, although I've never seen pictures or > examples of real ones, just conceptual diagrams. > > The new Solstice turbo will have direct injection. Anyone want to take > a stab at that software? > > > Will > > >> From: Jared Ryan >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: injection acronyms, injector placement >> >> Many Diesel engines have a "prechamber" separate from the main >> combustion chamber into which the fuel is injected. This is most >> common on small automotive-type engines. The VW TDI (Turbo Direct >> Injection) Diesel is unusual in that it is very small and has direct >> injection >> >> ---> Jared Ryan <--- >> jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org >> >> On May 13, 2006, at 9:22 PM, William Lucke wrote: >> >>> I've never heard of a diesel that didn't have direct injection... I >>> thought that was a staple of diesel operation in order to ensure >>> that the combustion event occured at the proper time... like spark >>> timing on a spark ignition engine. Which ones weren't direct? >> > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > -- Don Sauman 35 Asteroid Way Carlisle 6101 Western Australia P: 08 9361 0337 F: 08 9361 0581 M: 0427 389 547 From darrenfreed at shaw.ca Sun May 14 22:25:50 2006 From: darrenfreed at shaw.ca (Darren Freed) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 22:25:50 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: direct injection In-Reply-To: <4467B508.2040706@cythera.net> References: <4467513C.6080908@highspeedlink.net> <4467B508.2040706@cythera.net> Message-ID: <4467F4BE.7010803@shaw.ca> I'd love to. I'd also love to have a look at the 5.3 DOD code (while we're dreaming)... I've get the 96-97 v6 software pretty well figured out. I've got a 96 N* computer in the mail, and hopefully will have that figured out at some point as well. I've looked at alot of code, v6 and v8, from 96-05, and it is suprisingly similar. Almost plug-n-play, in terms of being able to select this, and deselect that, etc. The 4cyl stuff is a bit different, though... My ultimate goal (when I finally get some time) is to "port" the efi332 software to these '332 based PCMs. Then you could do whatever you want in terms of programming. darren Don Sauman wrote: > Essentially all of the older diesels (e.g. Series Landrovers, Nissan, > etc) were indirect injection with prechamber. > > Cheers > Don > > > William Lucke wrote: > >> I have heard of pre-chambers, although I've never seen pictures or >> examples of real ones, just conceptual diagrams. >> >> The new Solstice turbo will have direct injection. Anyone want to take >> a stab at that software? >> >> >> Will >> >> >>> From: Jared Ryan >>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: injection acronyms, injector placement >>> >>> Many Diesel engines have a "prechamber" separate from the main >>> combustion chamber into which the fuel is injected. This is most >>> common on small automotive-type engines. The VW TDI (Turbo Direct >>> Injection) Diesel is unusual in that it is very small and has direct >>> injection >>> >>> ---> Jared Ryan <--- >>> jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org >>> >>> On May 13, 2006, at 9:22 PM, William Lucke wrote: >>> >>>> I've never heard of a diesel that didn't have direct injection... I >>>> thought that was a staple of diesel operation in order to ensure >>>> that the combustion event occured at the proper time... like spark >>>> timing on a spark ignition engine. Which ones weren't direct? >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> > From efi at dyakron.com Sun May 14 23:25:01 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 00:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Bandaid turbo tuning In-Reply-To: <4467A6DE.3050705@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060514232203.02fd7920@dyakron.com> At 05:53 PM 5/14/2006 -0400, you wrote: >As evidenced by the carbeuretted manifolds for LS1's. That's just an >enormous WTF all around. > >Another thing I really really don't get are the stand alone ignition >controllers. People buy digital, PC programmable ignition controllers with >65,443 bells and whistles... and then fuel the engine with a calibrated >leak--err... carb. > >Talk about neanderthals. Let's say you have a big cam LS-family engine that you want to put in a street rod or race car. A decent carb, like say, a demon on an Edelbrock manifold would have you making great power numbers in oh, an hour or two with 6PSI of fuel pressure and very few wires to connect. Just affordable nuts & bolts. No PC required (it's optional with MSD box) and you benefit from the latest deep breathing port technology. Let's face it, the majority of the Gen 3 V8's power numbers don't come from computer fuel management. It's port flow. They are _really_ good.. According to the tests, the carby setup makes good power numbers. I've drag raced for 30+ years and the last 15 or so have been with ECM for fuel & spark management, but if the mission were to have a fresh simple LSx powered dragster on the track next week with minimum $$, dyno time & tuning, the carb setup is a hands down winner. It boils down to your objectives. Edelbrock's was to make a plug/play system that makes it simple to use a great new engine design in just about any application. They are supposedly selling a bunch of them. My only objection is that they insist on selling it as a whole package. Period. They won't sell manifolds separately, and the Edelbrock ignition box is not PC programmable like the MSD. BTW, the Edelbrock carb manifold has injector kits available for max effort EFI race apps, as the runners do flow more than most of the currently available LS1 manifolds. Well, at least the ones that cost less than $1200 each. On a final note, there are classes in which EFI is verboten, but the low-cost/big-power cylinder head tech of the new era engines is desired. MSD also sells a similar box for the late model Ford 4.6 engine IIRC. mv From efi at dyakron.com Sun May 14 23:39:39 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 00:39:39 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <0e4801c67755$dd816c90$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060514071156.02ea39c0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060515002645.02fd94a0@dyakron.com> At 01:44 PM 5/14/2006 +0100, you wrote: > > it, then Bill Calgano (Maryland, US) did some major clean-up and added to > > the editdable parameters. Bill has released several updates. . > > MV > >Version 1.0-eval. I downloaded it 2 days ago. Is this the latest? > >Robin Latest is V.1.2a I think. Contact Bill. He obviously doesn't make his living selling Promgrammer. He charges a token amount. His info should be in the help pull-down. $10 I think. With the US dollar in the crapper, that's what, the equal of a cup of coffee in the UK these days? 8-) Bill is an all around nice guy. Cheers, MV From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 15 03:24:00 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:24:00 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0dc901c676c5$195f51f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C84500AA1104B9-A6C-4C8C@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com><0e2b01c67719$8aa90be0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845AAA157BB8E-A6C-5D2E@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <0f6501c677f9$e3982980$020101c0@gandalf> > I was actually hoping you would tell me it's the 2.0 Vauxhall. Are you > aware that the engine you're using is a close cousin to the 2.0L engine > used in the Pontiac Sunbird? The Sunbird engine used with the 7749 is > a C20LET, an 8V version with forged pistons and very poor port flow. > Are you using a distributor in the Coscast head? If your block and > crank have provisions for the Bosch DIS system it's possible to switch > to a Delco DIS module and use the 7749 or the 7730 / 7727 after some > minor machine work. While you're looking to switch engine management > systems, I've been looking at 16V heads and Euro engines. :-) In fact the engine that I've recently fitted (after problems with my original 20XE) is a C20XE, so that bit closer! I think the C20LET was fitted to the Turbo Calibra - which is why I was wondering if it might have a 2 BAR MAP sensor (I've seen 1 BAR MAP sensors in Cavaliers). I didn't realise that it was only 8v, though. I believe that all the [C]20XEs have forged pistons (and 16v heads designed by Cosworth), but only very early ones had heads actually cast by Cosworth - and these are in short supply as the GM/Vx ones go porous. I've got 2 porous ones, and one has had the oil gallery 'fix' applied, unsuccessfully! http://www.furyworld.fsnet.co.uk/Images/XE_Installed.jpg This is a picture of my original 20XE - showing the locked up dizzy that I use to trigger and to distribute the spark. Just to the right of the lap-top you can see my MAP sensor. The original SFI system uses a crank sensor (many more teeth than GMECM), cam phase sensor, and DIS module, but as I had to use a dizzy trigger on the Crossflow, I went that way with the 20XE too, to keep the transplant complexity down. I had to make a hybrid distributor to do it, though, as I couldn't find a standard one that fitted the XE head and had a reluctor trigger. All with the correct fitting seemed to be Hall effect types. Still, it seems to work and, since (I understand) both the $8D and $58 code fire all injectors at once, should be ok for injection. :-) > :) I also need the calibration to compare the checksum against. But > it's not necessary, the scan id was enough. As I said, promid 3411 > (hex value $0D53) is for AUWR3607. You probably have the same > calibration under different names. Oops! Apologies. I don't know what went wrong with my hex conversion last time! Many thanks, Robin From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 15 03:27:51 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:27:51 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060514071156.02ea39c0@dyakron.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060515002645.02fd94a0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <0f6601c677f9$e3dfe0e0$020101c0@gandalf> > Latest is V.1.2a I think. Contact Bill. He obviously doesn't make his living > selling Promgrammer. He charges a token amount. His info should be > in the help pull-down. $10 I think. > With the US dollar in the crapper, that's what, the equal of a cup of > coffee in the UK these days? 8-) Bill is an all around nice guy. > Cheers, > MV :-) I've sent him an Email! Thanks. Robin From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 15 03:32:28 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:32:28 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Saturated/P&H injection References: <446694E0.8000000@highspeedlink.net><0e3b01c6774b$87f39d20$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845A0D1B1D1C0-A6C-5C01@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com><0f0701c6778f$b21ab040$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845AC1347C128-A6C-5D9D@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <0f6901c677fb$907cea40$020101c0@gandalf> > Interesting question. The 727 can definitely operate high impedance > injectors without trouble. That's what it's used with in OEM > applications. If you look at the 7730 <-> 7727 equivalency chart on > Ludis' page you'll see the connection for "Injector A Sense" on pin D5. > This sense line is used with low impedance injectors in P & H mode. > The P & H circuit may be calibrated to operate only (2) 2.0 Ohm > injectors. You might want to check into this a little further. Thanks again. Relieved to hear that my stock of scrap high impedance injectors can be connected straight up! :-) I also think that, if I end up using bike TBs with built in injectors, they are high impedance as well. Robin From tsokorai at xperts.cl Mon May 15 09:49:18 2006 From: tsokorai at xperts.cl (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition In-Reply-To: <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl> <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200605151049.18716.tsokorai@xperts.cl> On Saturday 13 May 2006 00:35, davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: > If you're fabrication skill impaired, are you able to trigger the GM > DIS module correctly? Bosch trigger wheels which I've seen are > typically not the 6+1 pulse design used by GM USA. I already did the trigger marks on the front cranshaft damper. I "can" do at least some fabrication :) I already did a sucessful 1975 Ford 302 conversion from carb to TBI EFI (TBI intake adapter, fuel reservoir and some other small stuff), but for example doing the 6 marks (the damper already had the TDC mark for delership diagnostics) took me a whole day, so I try to avoid everything that involves fabrication, machining, etc if there's an electronic or software way of doing something ;) > > I'd be working to match sensor and module. You should be seeing A/C > signals from the sensor during cranking. The 7 pin DIS system > typically fires at rpm as low as 300. I was trying to get it to fire with the original diagnostic TDC sensor. According to the "scope" (a PC soundcard line input capture), the waveform looks right, but I think the signal is too weak for the module. I wrote a little program to simulate a 6+1 crankshaft pulsetrain at any RPM with the soundcard output, but I couldn't test it over the weekend as I was away from home. BTW, 2 crank degrees for each AC wave from the sensor sounds about right for a simulation, right?. > > An old power steering pump or water pump could be used as a test > trigger wheel. Use a tape measure around the circumference to mark > notch positions. In desperation one could use a hand file to make the for the damper marks, I did a whole CAD template of the damper and the marks for getting it 100% right :) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From tsokorai at xperts.cl Mon May 15 09:49:30 2006 From: tsokorai at xperts.cl (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:49:30 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Bench testing a GM waste-spark DIS ignition In-Reply-To: <4e26168a1eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> References: <200605121727.02155.tsokorai@xperts.cl> <4e26168a1eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: <200605151049.30748.tsokorai@xperts.cl> On Friday 12 May 2006 19:16, Terminal Crazy wrote: > > This sounds similar to the rotor on my old Mercedes 280CE (motors around > 1973 - 78 ). They had a spring loaded slide on the top which shorted to > ground at around 7000 rpm.. As an aside (going back 12 years) when i > ordered a dizzy cap. The cap that came arrived with the big flat (cable > comes out horizontal) fittings not the smaller ones like a spark > plug(vertical output). This was also listed as fitting BMW 6pot motor. Thanks, I'll check the MB parts if I can't get the DIS to work. But I really don't like the original BMW ditributor setup on this engine, as it's not like the newer M20 engines with the rotor on the front of the camshaft, it's on the side of the engine, very low. Here the rain pours with buckets, and besides my best efforts to isolate the distributor, I get rough running when going over big puddles. So a very high mounted coilpack will be very nice :) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From tsokorai at xperts.cl Mon May 15 09:59:44 2006 From: tsokorai at xperts.cl (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 3800 sensor wiring ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513151814.02e21990@dyakron.com> References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060513151814.02e21990@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <200605151059.44398.tsokorai@xperts.cl> On Saturday 13 May 2006 15:25, Mike V wrote: > I'm spinning a piston-less 2000MY 3800 series II V6 Don't do it too fast or you'll spin a bearing ;) LOL > with a scope attached just for educational info. > She's not giving me much info! > I'm thinking I need to feed 5V somewhere, then watch the results. > Does anyone have wiring pin-outs for the cam & crank sensors? > > Crank Sensor - 4 wires > o Black / Wht stripe > o White / Blk Stripe > o Yellow > o Blue 4 wire? Hall sensor maybe?. If it is, it may need a pullup for the signal, voltage (not necessarily 5V) and GND supply. I'll check if I can get some info from the wiring diagrams. > > Cam Sensor is 3 wires > o Yellow / Blk Stripe > o Brown / Wht Stripe > o Black / Wht Stripe This one doesen't get signal using some combination of two wires? -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon May 15 10:10:49 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:10:49 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: LS1's with fuel leaks Message-ID: <446899F9.60402@highspeedlink.net> Ok, I'll bite... How did you get that big cammed gen III? I think that in the VAST majority of cases, it came out of a car in which it already had a perfectly serviceable fuel injection setup. Ditching that for a carb for "ease of installation" is silly in my opinion, especially considering how much you give up (gas mileage, idle quality, etc) and the fact that it's more trouble to swap to carb than it is to buy a stand alone controller and pre-fabbed wiring harness. There are enough people out there doing that that you could likely borrow a couple of maps and be running (not fully tuned, but running) next week. People used to tell me to convert my N* to carb because it's easy and cheap... because of the cost of the manifold, the carb and the stand alone ignition controller, it would cost MORE to convert to carbeuretion than it would to just buy an aftermarket stand alone controller. There's only one situation in recent memory in which I thought that the use of a carb was a good idea, and that was that of a gentleman just getting in to tuning his own fuel injection who bought a dual quad manifold with dual big block TBI's from ebay. He had purchased a crate engine and was going to break it in with the carb because he could tune the carb quickly enough to not miss the break-in window, and then convert to fuel injection after the break-in. If the sanctioning body requires a carb, even on late model engines, that's a problem with the sanctioning body. Nascar comes to mind... Will ******** From: Mike V Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Bandaid turbo tuning At 05:53 PM 5/14/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >As evidenced by the carbeuretted manifolds for LS1's. That's just an > >enormous WTF all around. > > > >Another thing I really really don't get are the stand alone ignition > >controllers. People buy digital, PC programmable ignition controllers with > >65,443 bells and whistles... and then fuel the engine with a calibrated > >leak--err... carb. > > > >Talk about neanderthals. Let's say you have a big cam LS-family engine that you want to put in a street rod or race car. A decent carb, like say, a demon on an Edelbrock manifold would have you making great power numbers in oh, an hour or two with 6PSI of fuel pressure and very few wires to connect. Just affordable nuts & bolts. No PC required (it's optional with MSD box) and you benefit from the latest deep breathing port technology. Let's face it, the majority of the Gen 3 V8's power numbers don't come from computer fuel management. It's port flow. They are _really_ good.. According to the tests, the carby setup makes good power numbers. I've drag raced for 30+ years and the last 15 or so have been with ECM for fuel & spark management, but if the mission were to have a fresh simple LSx powered dragster on the track next week with minimum $$, dyno time & tuning, the carb setup is a hands down winner. It boils down to your objectives. Edelbrock's was to make a plug/play system that makes it simple to use a great new engine design in just about any application. They are supposedly selling a bunch of them. My only objection is that they insist on selling it as a whole package. Period. They won't sell manifolds separately, and the Edelbrock ignition box is not PC programmable like the MSD. BTW, the Edelbrock carb manifold has injector kits available for max effort EFI race apps, as the runners do flow more than most of the currently available LS1 manifolds. Well, at least the ones that cost less than $1200 each. On a final note, there are classes in which EFI is verboten, but the low-cost/big-power cylinder head tech of the new era engines is desired. MSD also sells a similar box for the late model Ford 4.6 engine IIRC. mv From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon May 15 10:21:48 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:21:48 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: direct injection/code libraries Message-ID: <44689C8C.5060709@highspeedlink.net> It seems to have taken GM a long time to get their act together, but the logical way to handle all the different programs that GM has to keep track of is in a development library like a software development firm would have. Once they did get that together, I'd expect almost all the major modules from all programs to be VERY similar if not identical. Isn't the OBDII N* computer some strange Siemens box? Is it related to the other GM OBDII computers? I'm curious about the IAC routine on the OBDII N*'s... I'd like to port that back to the OBDI computer so that I don't have to have an idle speed motor and closed throttle switch to use the OBDI N* controls. Will ******** From: Darren Freed Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: direct injection I'd love to. I'd also love to have a look at the 5.3 DOD code (while we're dreaming)... I've get the 96-97 v6 software pretty well figured out. I've got a 96 N* computer in the mail, and hopefully will have that figured out at some point as well. I've looked at alot of code, v6 and v8, from 96-05, and it is suprisingly similar. Almost plug-n-play, in terms of being able to select this, and deselect that, etc. The 4cyl stuff is a bit different, though... My ultimate goal (when I finally get some time) is to "port" the efi332 software to these '332 based PCMs. Then you could do whatever you want in terms of programming. darren From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon May 15 10:31:43 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:31:43 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack Message-ID: <44689EDF.9010703@highspeedlink.net> No I do not have that disassmbler. Is this the correct page to get it: http://dewhisna.home.netcom.com/download.html ? I've heard of IDA... I guess I need to get Tunercat's as well and see which one I like. I don't know if there is a data definition for the ALDL stream. I would assume so... I don't know about the stock chips, but my modified engine-management-only program refuses to talk to a tech1. It ONLY talks to the Cadillac IPC. What's the definition of a P4 ECM? What are the other types? What distinguishes them from each other? Thanks Will > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack > > I use Donald Whisnant's (spelling?) code seeking disassembler. It's > freeware written to disassemble code from GMECM's. Tunercat also has > one, but I'm not as familiar with it. IDA Pro is also good, but not so > free. > > Is there a data definition file for the norstar ALDL stream? That > would at least provide the correct order to the ALDL data words if you > can find the ALDL xmit table. > > Most of the ALDL tables I've looked at begin with the prom id byte > located in the beginning of the calibration. If you know or can work > out the calibration address then you might be able to make a guess at > the beginning of the ALDL table. > > You're famaliar with the reset vectors located at the end of Motorola > code... use those to separate code from cal. data. > > If you're working with a P4 ecm, look for hardware addresses in the > 3XXX range and attempt to use those with known calibrations from other > P4's to locate specific portions of code. Use pattern matching to > attempt to locate and identify some common routines such as spark > timing calculation. > > There's probably people much better at this than I am who can offer > better clues. But will they? > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Lucke > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:53:22 -0400 > Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack > > I'd like to get started hacking the OBDI Cadillac Northstar computer > (). I have a couple of different BCC's, as well as a dyno program that > only has engine management turned on. > > I'm familiar with assembly and have worked with commercial 68HC11's in > development boards. I'm familiar with the concepts of disassembly and > I'm ready to devote the time necessary to reverse engineer this > program. > > What I'm not sure of, however, is where to start. > What's the best disassembler to use on GM chip images? > > Is there a listing of the memory locations of the data for the ALDL > stream? Other than starting at the beginning, I'm not entirely sure how > to enter the program and know what's what. > > > Will From jktucker at usamedia.tv Mon May 15 10:44:04 2006 From: jktucker at usamedia.tv (Jake Tucker) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 08:44:04 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] OBDII scanner/Monitoring software & cable In-Reply-To: <000701c6777b$5e412c10$6801a8c0@RonHome> Message-ID: <000c01c67836$673e48a0$0300a8c0@office> Ron, I bought Car-Code, which is available at www.obd-2.com . I have been happy with it, but I don't have any experience with any other options. I bought it because it was about the cheapest option around two years ago. Since then I've used it to troubleshoot my '96 Suburban, a '98 Saturn, and on a couple of '97 Vortec conversions. It has been able to read the codes on all of these vehicles without any problems. Jake -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Ron Drew Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 10:25 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] OBDII scanner/Monitoring software & cable Does anyone have a recommendation to offer regarding the best all around OBDII scanner/monitoring software & cable combination? _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From efi at dyakron.com Mon May 15 10:48:25 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:48:25 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 3800 sensor wiring ? In-Reply-To: <200605151059.44398.tsokorai@xperts.cl> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513151814.02e21990@dyakron.com> <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> <8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060513151814.02e21990@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060515113738.02fe6090@dyakron.com> At 10:59 AM 5/15/2006 -0400, you wrote: > > > > Cam Sensor is 3 wires > > o Yellow / Blk Stripe > > o Brown / Wht Stripe > > o Black / Wht Stripe > >This one doesen't get signal using some combination of two wires? Not as far as I can tell. There is a small magnet on the front of the cam gear that passes by the sensor. Here, I have a picture. . . . <>====>>> www.enzoco.com/mike/cammy.jpg Mike V From efi at dyakron.com Mon May 15 11:48:52 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: LS1's with fuel leaks In-Reply-To: <446899F9.60402@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060515115740.02467ec0@dyakron.com> At 11:10 AM 5/15/2006 -0400, you wrote: >Ok, I'll bite... How did you get that big cammed gen III? I think that in >the VAST majority of cases, it came out of a car in which it already had a >perfectly serviceable fuel injection setup. Ditching that for a carb for >"ease of installation" is silly in my opinion, especially considering how >much you give up (gas mileage, idle quality, etc) and the fact that it's >more trouble to swap to carb than it is to buy a stand alone controller >and pre-fabbed wiring harness. There are enough people out there doing >that that you could likely borrow a couple of maps and be running (not >fully tuned, but running) next week. A cam install can really help the power numbers of the 6.0L as much as any other single mod assuming no boost or nitrous. As for getting your hands on an engine with no harness, most of the ones that my engine business friend gets have no harnesses. GM truck 6.0 & 4.8 longblocks from manufacturer over-run buyouts often come with no harness or intake, but are very attractive pricewise. Thanks to sales shortfalls, the Detroit connected re-marketers moved quite a few of these into the market at attractive prices. Many of the customers (myself included) got these new units without intake or harness. (I chose to go the EFI route). That, or, say a junkyard engine on which the intake was damaged and the harness was cut. Therefore the price is good. Good late model GM harnesses aren't cheap when you can find a yard that will go to the trouble of removing it. The MSD ignition box is around $250 delivered, with harness. My dragster example certainly wouldn't be concerned with idle quality or gas mileage. Also, if you "borrow maps" you would then then load them with what? What sort of money would be needed for computer(s) cables & software? As for *used* engines, mine usually come with sensors & little/no harness and I never see the car or truck they came out of. It sounds like you have time to diddle with the N* as I do my project, as we go with EFI. I just gave some examples of situations where the people may not be neanderthals, but simply want to hit the track next week with the new-tech deep breathing engine for minimum $$. I forgot to mention learning curve too. We can argue about total cost till the cows come in. Cheers, mv From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Mon May 15 12:06:53 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:06:53 -0400 Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] Re: LS1's with fuel leaks References: <446899F9.60402@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <003f01c67843$73d049d0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> The point of the carbureted manifold for the GenIII engine is more for the street rod/old car guys that buy the crate engine, and have to piece together a complete drivetrain. It's far easier and cheaper to go with a carburetor when you are going this route. Also fuel mileage usually isn't that big of a deal with them. If you're yanking the engine out of a wrecked camaro/corvette it doesn't make sense not to keep the fuel injection. Friend of mine has a corvette z06 long block (~5000 miles) with Lingenfelter heads and other misc. parts (not installed). His plan is to put that engine and a new/rebuilt 6 speed in his 98 z28, then rebuild the z28's engine/trans to put into a 51 pontiac sedan delievery with a carburetor. If you're wondering, the corvette owner bought a bunch of parts from Lingenfelter, then before they arrived decided to ship the whole car off for a complete engine swap. Forget the details but I remember it being 400 something ci and forced induction. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:10 AM Subject: [Bulk] [Gmecm] Re: LS1's with fuel leaks > Ok, I'll bite... How did you get that big cammed gen III? I think that in > the VAST majority of cases, it came out of a car in which it already had a > perfectly serviceable fuel injection setup. Ditching that for a carb for > "ease of installation" is silly in my opinion, especially considering how > much you give up (gas mileage, idle quality, etc) and the fact that it's > more trouble to swap to carb than it is to buy a stand alone controller > and pre-fabbed wiring harness. There are enough people out there doing > that that you could likely borrow a couple of maps and be running (not > fully tuned, but running) next week. From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon May 15 12:22:17 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:22:17 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 14 Message-ID: <4468B8C9.4000809@highspeedlink.net> I have my opinions and you have yours. Will > From: Mike V > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: LS1's with fuel leaks > > At 11:10 AM 5/15/2006 -0400, you wrote: >> Ok, I'll bite... How did you get that big cammed gen III? I think that in >> the VAST majority of cases, it came out of a car in which it already had a >> perfectly serviceable fuel injection setup. Ditching that for a carb for >> "ease of installation" is silly in my opinion, especially considering how >> much you give up (gas mileage, idle quality, etc) and the fact that it's >> more trouble to swap to carb than it is to buy a stand alone controller >> and pre-fabbed wiring harness. There are enough people out there doing >> that that you could likely borrow a couple of maps and be running (not >> fully tuned, but running) next week. > > A cam install can really help the power numbers of the 6.0L > as much as any other single mod assuming no boost or nitrous. > As for getting your hands on an engine with no harness, most of > the ones that my engine business friend gets have no harnesses. > GM truck 6.0 & 4.8 longblocks from manufacturer over-run buyouts often > come with no harness or intake, but are very attractive pricewise. > Thanks to sales shortfalls, the Detroit connected re-marketers > moved quite a few of these into the market at attractive prices. > Many of the customers (myself included) got these new units > without intake or harness. (I chose to go the EFI route). That, > or, say a junkyard engine on which the intake was damaged and > the harness was cut. Therefore the price is good. Good late model > GM harnesses aren't cheap when you can find a yard that will go > to the trouble of removing it. > The MSD ignition box is around $250 delivered, with harness. > My dragster example certainly wouldn't be concerned with idle quality > or gas mileage. Also, if you "borrow maps" you would then then load > them with what? What sort of money would be needed for computer(s) > cables & software? As for *used* engines, mine usually come with > sensors & little/no harness and I never see the car or truck they > came out of. It sounds like you have time to diddle with the N* > as I do my project, as we go with EFI. I just gave some examples > of situations where the people may not be neanderthals, but simply > want to hit the track next week with the new-tech deep breathing > engine for minimum $$. I forgot to mention learning curve too. > We can argue about total cost till the cows come in. > Cheers, > mv From frankmccracken at shaw.ca Mon May 15 12:36:13 2006 From: frankmccracken at shaw.ca (Frank McCracken) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:36:13 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: LS1's with fuel leaks References: <446899F9.60402@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <006b01c67846$10330220$6401a8c0@flamingo> William, do you know what ecm he was going to use with the dual TBI's? Frank. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 8:10 AM Subject: [Gmecm] Re: LS1's with fuel leaks > Ok, I'll bite... How did you get that big cammed gen III? I think that > in the VAST majority of cases, it came out of a car in which it already > had a perfectly serviceable fuel injection setup. Ditching that for a > carb for "ease of installation" is silly in my opinion, especially > considering how much you give up (gas mileage, idle quality, etc) and > the fact that it's more trouble to swap to carb than it is to buy a > stand alone controller and pre-fabbed wiring harness. There are enough > people out there doing that that you could likely borrow a couple of > maps and be running (not fully tuned, but running) next week. > > People used to tell me to convert my N* to carb because it's easy and > cheap... because of the cost of the manifold, the carb and the stand > alone ignition controller, it would cost MORE to convert to carbeuretion > than it would to just buy an aftermarket stand alone controller. > > There's only one situation in recent memory in which I thought that the > use of a carb was a good idea, and that was that of a gentleman just > getting in to tuning his own fuel injection who bought a dual quad > manifold with dual big block TBI's from ebay. He had purchased a crate > engine and was going to break it in with the carb because he could tune > the carb quickly enough to not miss the break-in window, and then > convert to fuel injection after the break-in. > > If the sanctioning body requires a carb, even on late model engines, > that's a problem with the sanctioning body. Nascar comes to mind... > > > > Will > > > > ******** > From: Mike V > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Bandaid turbo tuning > > At 05:53 PM 5/14/2006 -0400, you wrote: > > >As evidenced by the carbeuretted manifolds for LS1's. That's just an > > >enormous WTF all around. > > > > > >Another thing I really really don't get are the stand alone ignition > > >controllers. People buy digital, PC programmable ignition > controllers with > > >65,443 bells and whistles... and then fuel the engine with a calibrated > > >leak--err... carb. > > > > > >Talk about neanderthals. > > Let's say you have a big cam LS-family engine that you > want to put in a street rod or race car. A decent carb, > like say, a demon on an Edelbrock manifold would have > you making great power numbers in oh, an hour or > two with 6PSI of fuel pressure and very few wires to connect. > Just affordable nuts & bolts. No PC required (it's optional with MSD box) > and you benefit from the latest deep breathing port technology. > Let's face it, the majority of the Gen 3 V8's power numbers don't come > from computer fuel management. It's port flow. They are _really_ good.. > According to the tests, the carby setup makes good power numbers. > I've drag raced for 30+ years and the last 15 or so have been with ECM > for fuel & spark management, but if the mission were to have a > fresh simple LSx powered dragster on the track next week with minimum > $$, dyno time & tuning, the carb setup is a hands down winner. > It boils down to your objectives. Edelbrock's was to make a plug/play > system that makes it simple to use a great new engine design in just > about any application. They are supposedly selling a bunch of them. > My only objection is that they insist on selling it as a whole > package. Period. They won't sell manifolds separately, and > the Edelbrock ignition box is not PC programmable like the MSD. > BTW, the Edelbrock carb manifold has injector kits available for max > effort EFI race apps, as the runners do flow more than most of the > currently available LS1 manifolds. Well, at least the ones that cost > less than $1200 each. > On a final note, there are classes in which EFI is verboten, but the > low-cost/big-power cylinder head tech of the new era engines > is desired. MSD also sells a similar box for the late model Ford 4.6 > engine IIRC. > mv > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 5/14/2006 > > From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 15 12:54:05 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:54:05 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <102401c67848$9348fb90$020101c0@gandalf> This got me wondering; why did GM build in the ability to switch between 1 BAR and 2 BAR MAP sensors in $58 when they didn't actually produce a vehicle which used it? :-) R ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 14 May 2006 20:18 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one > The pressure <-> voltage relationship for the 1 and 2 BAR sensors are > not exactly linear. This becomes even more apparent for the 3 BAR > saneor. The lower the pressure, the closer the voltage between the two > sensors. And really, they both have to represent about 20 kPa as > something close to 1V. I believe there is a PV chart for the 2 BAR > sensor accessible from the gmecm home page. Promgrammer's scaling is > most likely correct. > > The only 1 BAR calibration I'm aware of for the 7749 is used with the > Quad 4 engine. That's more better suited to high rpm use. It's also > long overdue to be hacked / disassembled. > > Used sensors vary in price depending on where you go shopping. Send me > an email off list. > > Zaphod > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Handley > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 17:44:34 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one > > > What I can say with certainty is that flipping the bit to 1 BAR and > > connecting to a 1 BAR sensor produced poor idle and driveability in my > > car. I had no desire to chase the reason, I simply switched to a 2 > BAR > > sensor. I valued the time spent more than the potential for > education. > > I've been comparing what values PROMgrammer shows for pressures (kPa), > for > the same Sunbird.bin, but when the MAP sensor range flag is changed: > > Some calibration values are approximately halved. > Some are identical. > Some are approximately the same. > > So, PROMgrammer seems to be applying different scale factors/formulae, > to > convert the raw stored value into kPa, for different calibration values. > Whether it is doing this when appropriate I just don't know. I had been > hoping that the GM programmers had been sufficiently clever so that raw > values (stored in the .BIN) would be appropriate no matter what sensor > range > is chosen, but I'm beginning to wonder if this was wishful thinking. If > life > isn't that simple (and I expect it isn't), then I reckon I've > potentially > got a yucky job on my hands to try and work out what new values should > be > used. This could be made all the more difficult if PROMgrammer's > scalings > aren't right - as I could be putting in a perfectly sensible value of > kPA, > which is then scaled to something stupid. :-( I'd be very grateful if > somebody could comment here. :-) > > Dependent on what the expert response is, the option of buying a 2 BAR > MAP > sensor is looking more attractive. Anybody know what a scrap one goes > for? > Are they easy to come by? > > The last option that I can think of is to find a set of calibration > values > for $58 from a NA car. Anybody know if one of these exists? Were all > Sys/Tys > Turboed? > > Robin From Jim.Butler at motorola.com Mon May 15 16:16:52 2006 From: Jim.Butler at motorola.com (Butler James-CJB006) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:16:52 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. Message-ID: Mike, this combination was used in many (all?) of the 350TBI pickup trucks in the 1995 timeframe. It's a completely do-able combination. My Dad's got a 1995 350TBI / 4L60E K1500 truck and I've got a 1995 350 / 4L60E S10(!); my S10's 350 is a L31 GM long block and uses the Edelbrock EFI intake. Both of these combinations use the $0D ROM and the 16197427. The $0D hack that's out there is pretty good, IMHO. Maybe I think so because I don't know any better :o) I use TunercatRT, along with Craig Moates (www.moates.net) emulators and related software to do tuning. I've also got TTS DataMaster, which I think is invaluable (maybe I think so because I don't know any better; I needed it for tuning my S10's combo). If you need help, drop me a note. Jim -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of MD Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 5:48 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. Hey guys, its been a long time since I was part of the the early DIY list. I have started working on a project that I need to see if there is some info on. Project discription AMC-360 V8 (GM TBI) -> 4L60E (1998 1500)-> NV241 transfercase into a Jeep Grand wagoneer. The hope is I can use a 1995-1996 ?? 16197427 ECU to control the show (TBI and 4L60E) Is this possable ? Does the 16197427 have the tranny smarts also. or is the tranny controlled by another box ? Has anyone figured out the table addresses for this ECU > Is there a better choice ? Any sugestions ? Thanks Mike D. --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From darrenfreed at shaw.ca Mon May 15 19:42:47 2006 From: darrenfreed at shaw.ca (Darren Freed) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:42:47 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack In-Reply-To: <44689EDF.9010703@highspeedlink.net> References: <44689EDF.9010703@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <44692007.7060807@shaw.ca> That is the disassembler I used for all my 6811 needs. It works well, and a text editor (with a good search function) is valuable to comment all the ram/rom locations as you figure them out. There should be a definition file for your ALDL stream in that .zip file on the ftp site (I can't remember the name of the top of my head...). I now use IDA, simply because a text disassembly of 332 based code is way to large/cumbersome to manipulate. darren William Lucke wrote: > > No I do not have that disassmbler. Is this the correct page to get it: > http://dewhisna.home.netcom.com/download.html ? > > I've heard of IDA... I guess I need to get Tunercat's as well and see > which one I like. > > I don't know if there is a data definition for the ALDL stream. I would > assume so... I don't know about the stock chips, but my modified > engine-management-only program refuses to talk to a tech1. It ONLY talks > to the Cadillac IPC. > > What's the definition of a P4 ECM? What are the other types? What > distinguishes them from each other? > > Thanks > > > Will > > > >> From: davesnothereman at netscape.net >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack >> >> I use Donald Whisnant's (spelling?) code seeking disassembler. It's >> freeware written to disassemble code from GMECM's. Tunercat also has >> one, but I'm not as familiar with it. IDA Pro is also good, but not >> so free. >> >> Is there a data definition file for the norstar ALDL stream? That >> would at least provide the correct order to the ALDL data words if you >> can find the ALDL xmit table. >> >> Most of the ALDL tables I've looked at begin with the prom id byte >> located in the beginning of the calibration. If you know or can work >> out the calibration address then you might be able to make a guess at >> the beginning of the ALDL table. >> >> You're famaliar with the reset vectors located at the end of Motorola >> code... use those to separate code from cal. data. >> >> If you're working with a P4 ecm, look for hardware addresses in the >> 3XXX range and attempt to use those with known calibrations from other >> P4's to locate specific portions of code. Use pattern matching to >> attempt to locate and identify some common routines such as spark >> timing calculation. >> >> There's probably people much better at this than I am who can offer >> better clues. But will they? >> >> Zaphod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Lucke >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:53:22 -0400 >> Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack >> >> I'd like to get started hacking the OBDI Cadillac Northstar >> computer (). I have a couple of different BCC's, as well as a dyno >> program that only has engine management turned on. >> >> I'm familiar with assembly and have worked with commercial 68HC11's >> in development boards. I'm familiar with the concepts of disassembly >> and I'm ready to devote the time necessary to reverse engineer this >> program. >> >> What I'm not sure of, however, is where to start. >> What's the best disassembler to use on GM chip images? >> >> Is there a listing of the memory locations of the data for the ALDL >> stream? Other than starting at the beginning, I'm not entirely sure >> how to enter the program and know what's what. >> >> >> Will > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From darrenfreed at shaw.ca Mon May 15 19:46:07 2006 From: darrenfreed at shaw.ca (Darren Freed) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:46:07 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: direct injection/code libraries In-Reply-To: <44689C8C.5060709@highspeedlink.net> References: <44689C8C.5060709@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <446920CF.1050006@shaw.ca> I don't know for sure about the N* box. The one I have coming is a 96, and externally looks the same as the v6 boxes. I'm hoping that it is similar internally as well, in terms of the basic chipset. :) The IAC control for most OBDII stuff I have looked at is airflow based, rather than rpm based - that gives a much more stable idle, especially if you've made mods to the engine. The down side, is that a MAF sensor is essentilly required (vs optional). Calculated airflow, based on RPM and MAP (among others) fluctuates ALOT, and thus a stable idle is much more difficult to achieve (although not impossible). darren William Lucke wrote: > It seems to have taken GM a long time to get their act together, but the > logical way to handle all the different programs that GM has to keep > track of is in a development library like a software development firm > would have. Once they did get that together, I'd expect almost all the > major modules from all programs to be VERY similar if not identical. > > Isn't the OBDII N* computer some strange Siemens box? Is it related to > the other GM OBDII computers? > > I'm curious about the IAC routine on the OBDII N*'s... I'd like to port > that back to the OBDI computer so that I don't have to have an idle > speed motor and closed throttle switch to use the OBDI N* controls. > > > > Will > > > > > ******** > > From: Darren Freed > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: direct injection > > I'd love to. I'd also love to have a look at the 5.3 DOD code (while > we're dreaming)... > > I've get the 96-97 v6 software pretty well figured out. I've got a 96 > N* computer in the mail, and hopefully will have that figured out at > some point as well. I've looked at alot of code, v6 and v8, from 96-05, > and it is suprisingly similar. Almost plug-n-play, in terms of being > able to select this, and deselect that, etc. The 4cyl stuff is a bit > different, though... > > My ultimate goal (when I finally get some time) is to "port" the efi332 > software to these '332 based PCMs. Then you could do whatever you want > in terms of programming. > > darren > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > From rgmecm at yahoo.com Mon May 15 21:57:41 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack In-Reply-To: <44689EDF.9010703@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <20060516025741.76985.qmail@web35905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Disappear for 2 days, and I've got 3 pages of new emails from this list. Cripes! Will, The P4 is what I'm running. It's the generic OBDI computer with the 68hc11 variant... 7730, 7727, 9396, 7749 and probably 50 others. Yours may be a P6, although that may be the OBDI northstar computer. There's also a P66, which is probably the OBDII computer... maybe. I'm not entirely sure where the lines are drawn, but it has to do with the processor(s) used. I wanna say the P6 is a dual hc11 ECM, but again, not sure. If someone could clarify that, that would be great. I use tunercat's disassembler just because it's so simple to use. I tried using IDA pro, but got nowhere fast. Maybe with a week long session on how to work it... You *need* the ALDL definition, what gets sent in what byte. With that you can take educated guesses as to what things are and what they do. For instance, if you know what byte is VSS, you can backtrack into the code for that RAM location, and find everything that looks up the VSS. Same for EGR, etc, then you can start saying "okay, this block of code has to do with the EGR"... You mentioned wanting to use an IAC vs an ISM on yours, but that will require new hardware in addition to the code. Cadillac is in their own little world as far as their engines and engine management goes. The 4.9 ISM likely carried over onto the early northstar engine. The OBDII ECM was done by Siemens... I think we discussed earlier that they used some nasty compiled code, so disassembly won't help you much there. Source code would be what you want, and Siemens won't play nice. Ryan William Lucke wrote: No I do not have that disassmbler. Is this the correct page to get it: http://dewhisna.home.netcom.com/download.html ? I've heard of IDA... I guess I need to get Tunercat's as well and see which one I like. I don't know if there is a data definition for the ALDL stream. I would assume so... I don't know about the stock chips, but my modified engine-management-only program refuses to talk to a tech1. It ONLY talks to the Cadillac IPC. What's the definition of a P4 ECM? What are the other types? What distinguishes them from each other? Thanks Will > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack > > I use Donald Whisnant's (spelling?) code seeking disassembler. It's > freeware written to disassemble code from GMECM's. Tunercat also has > one, but I'm not as familiar with it. IDA Pro is also good, but not so > free. > > Is there a data definition file for the norstar ALDL stream? That > would at least provide the correct order to the ALDL data words if you > can find the ALDL xmit table. > > Most of the ALDL tables I've looked at begin with the prom id byte > located in the beginning of the calibration. If you know or can work > out the calibration address then you might be able to make a guess at > the beginning of the ALDL table. > > You're famaliar with the reset vectors located at the end of Motorola > code... use those to separate code from cal. data. > > If you're working with a P4 ecm, look for hardware addresses in the > 3XXX range and attempt to use those with known calibrations from other > P4's to locate specific portions of code. Use pattern matching to > attempt to locate and identify some common routines such as spark > timing calculation. > > There's probably people much better at this than I am who can offer > better clues. But will they? > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Lucke > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:53:22 -0400 > Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack > > I'd like to get started hacking the OBDI Cadillac Northstar computer > (). I have a couple of different BCC's, as well as a dyno program that > only has engine management turned on. > > I'm familiar with assembly and have worked with commercial 68HC11's in > development boards. I'm familiar with the concepts of disassembly and > I'm ready to devote the time necessary to reverse engineer this > program. > > What I'm not sure of, however, is where to start. > What's the best disassembler to use on GM chip images? > > Is there a listing of the memory locations of the data for the ALDL > stream? Other than starting at the beginning, I'm not entirely sure how > to enter the program and know what's what. > > > Will _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. From efi at dyakron.com Mon May 15 22:26:53 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 23:26:53 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <102401c67848$9348fb90$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com> <08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060515232551.00b800b0@dyakron.com> At 06:54 PM 5/15/2006 +0100, you wrote: >This got me wondering; why did GM build in the ability to switch between 1 >BAR and 2 BAR MAP sensors in $58 when they didn't actually produce a vehicle >which used it? :-) > >R They were bored? According to the doc, that $58 code supports 3,4,6 & 8 cylinders too. MV From mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net Mon May 15 20:52:59 2006 From: mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net (Scott Pearson) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 20:52:59 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] 3800 sensor wiring ? References: <20060510.114429.-113103.1.dgilbert78@juno.com><5.1.0.14.0.20060511080552.02c397e0@dyakron.com><200605121049.30365.tsokorai@xperts.cl><8C8445DCF1DD61B-23F4-3D71@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060513151814.02e21990@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <075101c6788b$784409f0$6601a8c0@DELL3G> > Crank Sensor - 4 wires > o Black / Wht stripe Sensor power (to cam(C)/crank(D) sensors from ignition module) > o White / Blk Stripe Sensor ground (cam (B) crank(C)) > o Yellow 18x crank signal (B) > o Blue Low res signal (A) > Cam Sensor is 3 wires > o Yellow / Blk Stripe > o Brown / Wht Stripe > o Black / Wht Stripe My color codes don't line up with yours, but pin A is the sensor output for the camshaft. Sensor power is 10V from the ignition module. Scott From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 16 03:14:07 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:14:07 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf><8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf><8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf><8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060515232551.00b800b0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <111801c678c0$b62e9d40$020101c0@gandalf> > At 06:54 PM 5/15/2006 +0100, you wrote: > >This got me wondering; why did GM build in the ability to switch between 1 > >BAR and 2 BAR MAP sensors in $58 when they didn't actually produce a vehicle > >which used it? :-) > > > >R > > They were bored? > According to the doc, that $58 code supports 3,4,6 & 8 cylinders too. > MV True, but the $58 code is actually used in 4 & 6cyl modes - and the #cylinders logic seems common to all GM code - but not the MAP range selection logic, AFAIK. Maybe GM started with a NA code/calibration and tweaked from there? I wouldn't normally speculate, except that a non-turbo $58 P4 calibration would be pretty useful to me... :-) R From efi at dyakron.com Tue May 16 06:40:52 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <111801c678c0$b62e9d40$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com> <08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060515232551.00b800b0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060516072014.03019820@dyakron.com> At 09:14 AM 5/16/2006 +0100, you wrote: > > At 06:54 PM 5/15/2006 +0100, you wrote: > > >This got me wondering; why did GM build in the ability to switch between >1 > > >BAR and 2 BAR MAP sensors in $58 when they didn't actually produce a >vehicle > > >which used it? :-) > > > > > >R > > > > They were bored? > > According to the doc, that $58 code supports 3,4,6 & 8 cylinders too. > > MV > >True, but the $58 code is actually used in 4 & 6cyl modes - and the >#cylinders logic seems common to all GM code - but not the MAP range >selection logic, AFAIK. Maybe GM started with a NA code/calibration and >tweaked from there? I wouldn't normally speculate, except that a non-turbo >$58 P4 calibration would be pretty useful to me... :-) What's stopping you from running the 2-BAR code? Sure, you'll lose some resolution, but a "turbo build" will always be <> softly calling your name... 8-) A few years back I was playing with the TurbGranPrix Code in a naturally aspirated 3.1 just to remove obstacles that were preventing me from fabbing a turbo system. I would just swap chip & MAP sensor and go for a drive while recording ALDL output. It ran very well with the resulting lower resolution.(half the baro range). The TGP code is similar to $58 in terms of features, but supports the DIS of the 60deg V6 and isn't quite as hacked. Getting back on point. I think you should not get hung up on the 1 bar option. Plug in a 2 bar sensor and try it. I forgot to ask what size injector you plan to run. MV. From mdill12 at yahoo.com Tue May 16 12:14:13 2006 From: mdill12 at yahoo.com (MD) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. Message-ID: <20060516171414.60782.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Zaphod, Thanks for the leads, from the sounds of it this should work out very well with some work on my part. Speaking of ECUGuy (Bruce P), is he still kicking aroung, worked with him some on the 101 project, and ran a chip carrier group buy, way back when. Good bunch of guys. Time to gather parts/data. Thanks Mike D. Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:09:01 -0400 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Message-ID: <8C84501BD4A06A9-A6C-4CC4 at mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Hi, Mike D. 16197427 is used with TBI and CFI v6 Vortec engines. It's used with 4L60E and 4L80E transmissions. There is a Tunercat definition file as well as a documentd $0D hac on ecmguy's site. Hopefully this will whip that Wagoneer into submission. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: MD To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. Hey guys, its been a long time since I was part of the the early DIY list. I have started working on a project that I need to see if there is some info on. Project discription AMC-360 V8 (GM TBI) -> 4L60E (1998 1500)-> NV241 transfercase into a Jeep Grand wagoneer. The hope is I can use a 1995-1996 ?? 16197427 ECU to control the show (TBI and 4L60E) Is this possable ? Does the 16197427 have the tranny smarts also. or is the tranny controlled by another box ? Has anyone figured out the table addresses for this ECU > Is there a better choice ? Any sugestions ? Thanks Mike D. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Tue May 16 14:21:18 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:21:18 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. Message-ID: ECMguy was Ward Spoonmore, who passed away several years ago. Bruce P is still in the game, although not on this list, over on the thirdgen.org DIYPROM board. --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of MD > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:14 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: Re: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. > > > > Hi Zaphod, > > Thanks for the leads, from the sounds of it this should work > out very well with some work on my part. Speaking of ECUGuy > (Bruce P), is he still kicking aroung, worked with him some > on the 101 project, and ran a chip carrier group buy, way > back when. Good bunch of guys. Time to gather parts/data. > > Thanks Mike D. > > Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:09:01 -0400 > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Message-ID: > <8C84501BD4A06A9-A6C-4CC4 at mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed > > Hi, Mike D. > > 16197427 is used with TBI and CFI v6 Vortec engines. > It's used with > 4L60E and 4L80E transmissions. There is a Tunercat > definition file as well as a documentd $0D hac on ecmguy's site. > > Hopefully this will whip that Wagoneer into submission. > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: MD > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:48:12 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. > > Hey guys, its been a long time since I was part of the the > early DIY list. > I have started working on a project that I need to see if > there is some info on. > Project discription > AMC-360 V8 (GM TBI) -> 4L60E (1998 1500)-> NV241 > transfercase into a Jeep Grand wagoneer. > > The hope is I can use a 1995-1996 ?? 16197427 ECU to > control the show (TBI and > 4L60E) > Is this possable ? Does the 16197427 have the tranny > smarts also. or is the tranny controlled by another box ? > > Has anyone figured out the table addresses for this ECU > > Is there a better choice ? > > Any sugestions ? > > Thanks Mike D. > > > > > __________________________________________________ > 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 > -- 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 rawardsr at ameritech.net Tue May 16 16:40:46 2006 From: rawardsr at ameritech.net (rawardsr) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. In-Reply-To: <20060516171414.60782.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060516171414.60782.qmail@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <446A46DE.8070906@ameritech.net> Bruce Plecan (Grumpy)is alive and well, and planning is next project. He's about got the black car to where he wants it. BTW, BP is not ECUGuy. ECUGuy has unfortunitly passed on. Bob MD wrote: > > Hi Zaphod, > > Thanks for the leads, from the sounds of it this > should > work out very well with some work on my part. Speaking > of ECUGuy (Bruce P), is he still kicking aroung, > worked with him some on the 101 project, and ran a > chip carrier group buy, way back when. Good bunch of > guys. Time to gather parts/data. > > Thanks Mike D. > > Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:09:01 -0400 > From: davesnothereman at netscape.net > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Message-ID: > <8C84501BD4A06A9-A6C-4CC4 at mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; > format=flowed > > Hi, Mike D. > > 16197427 is used with TBI and CFI v6 Vortec engines. > It's used with > 4L60E and 4L80E transmissions. There is a Tunercat > definition file as > well as a documentd $0D hac on ecmguy's site. > > Hopefully this will whip that Wagoneer into > submission. > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: MD > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:48:12 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. > > Hey guys, its been a long time since I was part of > the the early DIY > list. > I have started working on a project that I need to > see if there is > some info > on. > Project discription > AMC-360 V8 (GM TBI) -> 4L60E (1998 1500)-> NV241 > transfercase into > a > Jeep > Grand wagoneer. > > The hope is I can use a 1995-1996 ?? 16197427 ECU > to control the > show > (TBI and > 4L60E) > Is this possable ? Does the 16197427 have the > tranny smarts also. or > is the > tranny controlled by another box ? > > Has anyone figured out the table addresses for this > ECU > Is there a > better > choice ? > > Any sugestions ? > > Thanks Mike D. > > > > > __________________________________________________ > 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 davesnothereman at netscape.net Tue May 16 21:00:38 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <102401c67848$9348fb90$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> <102401c67848$9348fb90$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C8476CD4474A31-2BCC-46F8@mblkn-m15.sysops.aol.com> I've wondered the same thing, myself. Or, why did they build in TBI mode with a 2 BAR sensor? Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:54:05 +0100 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one This got me wondering; why did GM build in the ability to switch between 1 BAR and 2 BAR MAP sensors in $58 when they didn't actually produce a vehicle which used it? :-) R ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com From davesnothereman at netscape.net Tue May 16 21:07:29 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:07:29 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <111801c678c0$b62e9d40$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf><8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf><8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf><8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060515232551.00b800b0@dyakron.com> <111801c678c0$b62e9d40$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C8476DC93C8BBB-2BCC-4727@mblkn-m15.sysops.aol.com> Actually, many 4 cylinder calibrations are dedicated to 4 cylinders. The math for compensating for more or fewer cylinders is not part of the code. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin Handley To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:14:07 +0100 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Back to square one > At 06:54 PM 5/15/2006 +0100, you wrote: > >This got me wondering; why did GM build in the ability to switch between 1 > >BAR and 2 BAR MAP sensors in $58 when they didn't actually produce a vehicle > >which used it? :-) > > > >R > > They were bored? > According to the doc, that $58 code supports 3,4,6 & 8 cylinders too. > MV True, but the $58 code is actually used in 4 & 6cyl modes - and the #cylinders logic seems common to all GM code - but not the MAP range selection logic, AFAIK. Maybe GM started with a NA code/calibration and tweaked from there? I wouldn't normally speculate, except that a non-turbo $58 P4 calibration would be pretty useful to me... :-) R _______________________________________________ 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 mdill12 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 10:56:14 2006 From: mdill12 at yahoo.com (MD) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Re P5 ROM Memcal, reburn hardware ? Message-ID: <20060517155614.19699.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com> Hi there, What hardware/commectors are people using to reburn the ROM's that sit in the carrier ? I thought the ROM just sat in the connector, but it looks like that they soldered it in, so I assume people are just erasing the ROM with the board connetor still attached, and have made adapters to thier EPROM burner to burn them while still in the carrier, is that right or is there a better way ? Does anyone have a source for the connector and carrier ? or is this a pure salvage operation from the junk yards ? Thanks Mike D. __________________________________________________ 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 Wed May 17 12:29:16 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:29:16 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf><8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf><8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf><8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com><5.1.0.14.0.20060515232551.00b800b0@dyakron.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060516072014.03019820@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <121a01c679d7$717a2e40$020101c0@gandalf> > What's stopping you from running the 2-BAR code? > Sure, you'll lose some resolution, but a "turbo build" > will always be <> softly calling your name... 8-) > A few years back I was playing with the TurbGranPrix > Code in a naturally aspirated 3.1 just to remove obstacles > that were preventing me from fabbing a turbo system. > I would just swap chip & MAP sensor and go for a drive > while recording ALDL output. It ran very well with the > resulting lower resolution.(half the baro range). > The TGP code is similar to $58 in terms of features, but > supports the DIS of the 60deg V6 and isn't quite as hacked. > Getting back on point. I think you should not get hung up > on the 1 bar option. Plug in a 2 bar sensor and try it. > I forgot to ask what size injector you plan to run. > MV. I think the 2 BAR sensor is the way I'm going to go - iff I can get one cheaply - and I'm working on that (with help). :-) With the way the Sunbird code tables are organised, I'm not sure I'll suffer too much with resolution - and more so on ignition than injection, which is probably the best way around. If I go with my DIY individual TBs and fit injector bosses to my existing DCOE inlet manifold runners, I plan to use some injectors from the engine as it was installed in the original vehicle (which had a single throttle body SFI system). The injectors are Bosch 280 150 427 - which an online lookup table rates at 240cc/min (22.95 lb/hour / 173 gram/min) assumed to be at ~36PSI (2.5 BAR). Robin From mdill12 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 12:50:06 2006 From: mdill12 at yahoo.com (MD) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 Engine swap. Message-ID: <20060517175006.77166.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> OK, My memory must be fading on who was who, sorry to hear about Ward. Nice to hear though that Bruce is still kicking around though, I will have to track him down. Thankd Mike D. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ECMguy was Ward Spoonmore, who passed away several years ago. Bruce P is still in the game, although not on this list, over on the thirdgen.org DIYPROM board. --steve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Wed May 17 14:28:09 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re P5 ROM Memcal, reburn hardware ? Message-ID: Mike, go to the gmecm page (www.diy-efi.org/gmecm) and look at the FAQ for equipment and adapter suggestions --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of MD > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:56 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] Re P5 ROM Memcal, reburn hardware ? > > > Hi there, > > What hardware/commectors are people using to reburn the > ROM's that sit in the carrier ? > I thought the ROM just sat in the connector, but it looks > like that they soldered it in, so I assume people are just > erasing the ROM with the board connetor still attached, and > have made adapters to thier EPROM burner to burn them while > still in the carrier, is that right or is there a better way ? > Does anyone have a source for the connector and carrier ? > or is this a pure salvage operation from the junk yards ? > > Thanks Mike D. > > __________________________________________________ > 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 > -- 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 tech_auto at bellsouth.net Wed May 17 16:58:33 2006 From: tech_auto at bellsouth.net (Dan Grostick) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:58:33 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Memcals? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <446B9C89.9040806@bellsouth.net> Looking at sources for ECMs they never seem to include the MEMCALs. What happens to all the MEMCALs that belong to the ECMs. I know they are application specific, but they seem to disappear from existence..... Dan From efi at dyakron.com Wed May 17 21:56:16 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:56:16 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one In-Reply-To: <121a01c679d7$717a2e40$020101c0@gandalf> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com> <08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com> <0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf> <8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060515232551.00b800b0@dyakron.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060516072014.03019820@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060517225410.030bcec0@dyakron.com> At 06:29 PM 5/17/2006 +0100, you wrote: >If I go with my DIY individual TBs and fit injector bosses to my existing >DCOE inlet manifold runners, I plan to use some injectors from the engine as >it was installed in the original vehicle (which had a single throttle body >SFI system). The injectors are Bosch 280 150 427 - which an online lookup >table rates at 240cc/min (22.95 lb/hour / 173 gram/min) assumed to be at >~36PSI (2.5 BAR). Get something close. The exact part number isn't required. MV From efi at dyakron.com Wed May 17 21:57:45 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Memcals? In-Reply-To: <446B9C89.9040806@bellsouth.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060517225638.00b830f0@dyakron.com> At 05:58 PM 5/17/2006 -0400, you wrote: >Looking at sources for ECMs they never seem to include the MEMCALs. What >happens to all the MEMCALs that belong to the ECMs. I know they are >application specific, but they seem to disappear from existence..... Try a different junkyard. Almost all mine have chip carriers when I get them. MV From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 18 03:01:30 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:01:30 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Back to square one References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426145405.03520590@dyakron.com><08ed01c67410$c8b917b0$020101c0@gandalf><8C8427E3BBBC017-2898-2D3C@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><09ba01c674dd$b95815f0$020101c0@gandalf><8C8445B14414D25-23F4-3D2E@mblkn-m13.sysops.aol.com><0eb201c67775$b0bc5790$020101c0@gandalf><8C845A261ED475D-A6C-5C2A@mblkn-m18.sysops.aol.com><5.1.0.14.0.20060515232551.00b800b0@dyakron.com><5.1.0.14.0.20060516072014.03019820@dyakron.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060517225410.030bcec0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <12a001c67a51$519e0d10$020101c0@gandalf> > At 06:29 PM 5/17/2006 +0100, you wrote: > >If I go with my DIY individual TBs and fit injector bosses to my existing > >DCOE inlet manifold runners, I plan to use some injectors from the engine as > >it was installed in the original vehicle (which had a single throttle body > >SFI system). The injectors are Bosch 280 150 427 - which an online lookup > >table rates at 240cc/min (22.95 lb/hour / 173 gram/min) assumed to be at > >~36PSI (2.5 BAR). > > Get something close. The exact part number isn't required. > MV I kept the injectors when I removed the engine from its original car. With the individual TBs I'm expecting to get something like 165BHP @ 6500RPM. The original single TB installation is quoted as being ~150BHP @ 6000RPM. Using a 'back of the envelope' calculation, I think there's enough capacity in the stock injectors to cope with my installation. Robin From tsokorai at xperts.cl Fri May 19 14:09:24 2006 From: tsokorai at xperts.cl (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:09:24 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] GM 2.8/3.1 DIS ignition bench stimulation, the software solution Message-ID: <200605191509.25493.tsokorai@xperts.cl> Just in case somebody else needs this info in the future: The answer to my questions if a PC soundcard output was enough to trigger a GM 2.8/3.1 "6+1" (6 each 60deg appart & sync at +10deg) trigger pattern DIS module, is : yes! The module requires quite a strong trigger signal. Mine started sparking at almost the full volume of my laptop's earphones output. I wrote a quick, dirty and ugly program (C, Linux, ALSA, GPL) to generate the pulse pattern at (near) any desired simulated RPM. If anybody wants it, its at: http://www.sokorai.cl/GMcrank_sim.c So, the reason my module is not working in my retrofit, is because the BMW TDC sensor is not able to produce strong enough pulses. I think a little opamp circuit can help me to solve this. -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat May 20 16:51:36 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 22:51:36 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Eurovision! References: <200605191509.25493.tsokorai@xperts.cl> Message-ID: <13e101c67c57$92fb0080$020101c0@gandalf> Aaargh! Apologies for the off-topic post but, since the list was quiet, I just had to have a whinge about the Eurovision Song Contest - which is in the final stages of scoring right now. A bunch of countries (mostly eastern block) voting for their nearest neighbours - irrespective of the song quality. Very frustrating! England are not doing well. Robin BTW: Pleased to say that unmodified Sunbird $58 code ran the ignition on my 2.0 4cyl engine this evening! :-) Still have a lot of work to do, though... From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sun May 21 15:59:48 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:59:48 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 15 Message-ID: <4470D4C4.6030701@highspeedlink.net> http://www.realfierotech.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2474&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20 Not sure what computer. He got the setup from ebay. Will > From: Frank McCracken > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: LS1's with fuel leaks > > William, do you know what ecm he was going to use with the dual TBI's? > Frank. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Lucke" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 8:10 AM > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: LS1's with fuel leaks > >> There's only one situation in recent memory in which I thought that the >> use of a carb was a good idea, and that was that of a gentleman just >> getting in to tuning his own fuel injection who bought a dual quad >> manifold with dual big block TBI's from ebay. He had purchased a crate >> engine and was going to break it in with the carb because he could tune >> the carb quickly enough to not miss the break-in window, and then >> convert to fuel injection after the break-in. >> >> >> Will From frankmccracken at shaw.ca Sun May 21 23:57:52 2006 From: frankmccracken at shaw.ca (Frank McCracken) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 21:57:52 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 15 References: <4470D4C4.6030701@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <005201c67d5c$48517900$6401a8c0@flamingo> Thanks Will, I'm under the impression that the drivers in the ecm will not support 4 injectors. I will follow this link and see what transpires..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 15, Issue 15 > http://www.realfierotech.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2474&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20 > > Not sure what computer. He got the setup from ebay. > > > Will > From captain_krill at yahoo.com Tue May 23 14:26:45 2006 From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] V6-60 DIS spark retard advice? Message-ID: <20060523192645.63180.qmail@web34309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello folks, I've got a 3.4 run by a '7730 ECM, with the DIS from a 2.8. I could easily drive all the time with no preignition, but it is not too hard to force mild preignition (high load, high throttle, low to medium RPMs). I do have a knock sensor, and no codes are coming up for that, so I have some questions: 1. I have no VSS yet. Does spark retard require VSS? 2. I couldn't fit the knock sensor in the stock location (my Jeep motor mount covers the hole), but it's nearby. I've seen knock sensors located all over the place at the wrecker, but I've also read on this forum that location may be important to avoid false readings (valve train noise, etc). Anyone know about the cast head 3.4? 3. Assuming I have no other problems, how many degrees of retard can the DIS command? 4. I've tried to test the whole thing by hooking up a timing light, tapping the block with a hammer in the vicinity of the sensor, and watching the timing mark for movement (retard). I didn't see anything, but my sensor is now located near the starter (like on the 'Vette), and it's hard to whack there! How close to the sensor should I have to hit, or does the sound propogate pretty freely, even past internal structures (main bearing saddles etc)? Is it likely I can tap the block and produce the right frequency vibration to trigger retard? Thanks for any advice! Duncan **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From efi at dyakron.com Tue May 23 20:51:46 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 21:51:46 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] V6-60 DIS spark retard advice? In-Reply-To: <20060523192645.63180.qmail@web34309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060523214817.033adc50@dyakron.com> At 12:26 PM 5/23/2006 -0700, you wrote: >Hello folks, I've got a 3.4 run by a '7730 ECM, with >the DIS from a 2.8. I could easily drive all the time >with no preignition, but it is not too hard to force >mild preignition (high load, high throttle, low to >medium RPMs). I do have a knock sensor, and no codes >are coming up for that, so I have some questions: > >1. I have no VSS yet. Does spark retard require VSS? Hi Duncan, I'm aware of RPM thresholds before KR occurs, but not MPH thresholds. Can you connect a scan tool to this engine? It would tell you a lot more than a timing light. MV From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 24 02:49:55 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:49:55 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] V6-60 DIS spark retard advice? References: <20060523192645.63180.qmail@web34309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <156d01c67f06$ab02da20$020101c0@gandalf> My experience is with a dizzy trigger, but I don't think this affects the answers to your questions. > 1. I have no VSS yet. Does spark retard require VSS? You didn't mention which code you are using but, from what I've seen, some GM code (at least) doesn't require VSS. Also, GM seem to put code in there to ignore VSS based checks if the VSS isn't present or is faulty - which is quite handy. > 3. Assuming I have no other problems, how many > degrees of retard can the DIS command? Isn't the advance/retard under the control of the ECM code? Have you looked for a lookup value which specifies maximum retard? > 4. I've tried to test the whole thing by hooking up a > timing light, tapping the block with a hammer in the > vicinity of the sensor, and watching the timing mark > for movement (retard). I didn't see anything, but my > sensor is now located near the starter (like on the > 'Vette), and it's hard to whack there! How close to > the sensor should I have to hit, or does the sound > propogate pretty freely, even past internal structures > (main bearing saddles etc)? Is it likely I can tap > the block and produce the right frequency vibration to > trigger retard? AIUI knock sensing involves signal processing and may well not be fooled by a few hammer taps. I was also advised that each engine has different noise characteristics so not to expect a sensor and/or code from one engine to work on another. If you're hearing pinking/knock under particular load/speed conditions, have you tried reducing the main SA lookup table in that area? HTH Robin From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Wed May 24 11:01:43 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:01:43 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] V6-60 DIS spark retard advice? Message-ID: > 2. I couldn't fit the knock sensor in the stock location (my > Jeep motor mount covers the hole), but it's nearby. I've > seen knock sensors located all over the place at the wrecker, > but I've also read on this forum that location may be > important to avoid false readings (valve train noise, etc). > Anyone know about the cast head 3.4? Anyplace that has a good mechanical connection to the block should be fine. The V8 S-10 conversion moves the knock sensor from the block to the (custom) motor mounts where it works fine. Try getting a little handheld amplifier (runs on a 9v battery) from Radio shack and connect it to your knock sensor so you can hear what it's picking up. Or put a scope on it if you have one. Maybe your knock sensor is bad? --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 captain_krill at yahoo.com Wed May 24 17:51:44 2006 From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Re: V6-60 DIS spark retard advice? Message-ID: <20060524225144.24144.qmail@web34311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, although I've been running this setup for just over a year, I haven't learned to modify the code yet. I've just picked up a laptop, so next thing is to build a cable and get started. As Steve suggested though, I wondered if maybe I had a mechanical/electrical problem too, because I thought the knock sensor should work without reprogramming... The DIS and the knock sensor I'm using are from a 2.8l V6-60, so it's at least from the same engine family! The ECM is from a 1991 Pontiac 6000 with a 3.1, I can't remember what the broadcast code is. Runs surprisingly well, except at full throttle (open loop, right?) when it appears to lean out and slow down a bit, and on startup (usually cranks for maybe 2 seconds before firing, again open loop). I imagine if I increase the BPW by 10% (to accomodate the bigger engine)things will get better! I don't have access to a scan tool, so until I learn to program (I'd like to do the flash conversion too), I'll just drive to avoid the mild pinging! Again, thanks for helping with the basics. Duncan **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From 121479 at bellsouth.net Thu May 25 02:57:52 2006 From: 121479 at bellsouth.net (Matt Peacock) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 00:57:52 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Suggested reading materials Message-ID: <44756380.5030600@bellsouth.net> I hope this is ok to post as it is relating to gm ecms. What are some assembly code related books or tutorials that are avaliable to learn more about gm systems or reverse engineering? Thanks From leroy at sunflower.com Thu May 25 05:55:51 2006 From: leroy at sunflower.com (Jim Sloan) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 05:55:51 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Suggested reading materials In-Reply-To: <44756380.5030600@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <000601c67fe9$c9efa0b0$6801a8c0@james0uw35t2hd> This may be useful: http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~elec201/Book/6811_asm.html#SECTION00181000000000 0000000 Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Matt Peacock > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 2:58 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] Suggested reading materials > > I hope this is ok to post as it is relating to gm ecms. > > What are some assembly code related books or tutorials that > are avaliable to learn more about gm systems or reverse engineering? > Thanks > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > From lwester at lincsat.com Thu May 25 10:21:46 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:21:46 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Memcal read needed. Message-ID: <001101c6800e$f5b93150$4250050a@WESTER2> Hey guys ! Needing a BKZZ #16204422 bin 'badly'. Apparently GM has discontinued ? Lyndon Westers Garage From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Thu May 25 12:58:25 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:58:25 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] OBDI Northstar ALDL data definition Message-ID: <4475F041.1000700@highspeedlink.net> So is there a data definition for the OBDI Northstar ALDL stream? I'm not sure where to look, but I'm going to need one. Will > From: Ryan Hess > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack > > Disappear for 2 days, and I've got 3 pages of new emails from this list. Cripes! > > Will, > > The P4 is what I'm running. It's the generic OBDI computer with the 68hc11 variant... 7730, 7727, 9396, 7749 and probably 50 others. Yours may be a P6, although that may be the OBDI northstar computer. There's also a P66, which is probably the OBDII computer... maybe. I'm not entirely sure where the lines are drawn, but it has to do with the processor(s) used. I wanna say the P6 is a dual hc11 ECM, but again, not sure. If someone could clarify that, that would be great. > > I use tunercat's disassembler just because it's so simple to use. I tried using IDA pro, but got nowhere fast. Maybe with a week long session on how to work it... > > You *need* the ALDL definition, what gets sent in what byte. With that you can take educated guesses as to what things are and what they do. For instance, if you know what byte is VSS, you can backtrack into the code for that RAM location, and find everything that looks up the VSS. Same for EGR, etc, then you can start saying "okay, this block of code has to do with the EGR"... > > You mentioned wanting to use an IAC vs an ISM on yours, but that will require new hardware in addition to the code. Cadillac is in their own little world as far as their engines and engine management goes. The 4.9 ISM likely carried over onto the early northstar engine. > > The OBDII ECM was done by Siemens... I think we discussed earlier that they used some nasty compiled code, so disassembly won't help you much there. Source code would be what you want, and Siemens won't play nice. > > Ryan > > > William Lucke wrote: > No I do not have that disassmbler. Is this the correct page to get it: > http://dewhisna.home.netcom.com/download.html ? > > I've heard of IDA... I guess I need to get Tunercat's as well and see > which one I like. > > I don't know if there is a data definition for the ALDL stream. I would > assume so... I don't know about the stock chips, but my modified > engine-management-only program refuses to talk to a tech1. It ONLY talks > to the Cadillac IPC. > > What's the definition of a P4 ECM? What are the other types? What > distinguishes them from each other? > > Thanks > > > Will > > > >> From: davesnothereman at netscape.net >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack >> >> I use Donald Whisnant's (spelling?) code seeking disassembler. It's >> freeware written to disassemble code from GMECM's. Tunercat also has >> one, but I'm not as familiar with it. IDA Pro is also good, but not so >> free. >> >> Is there a data definition file for the norstar ALDL stream? That >> would at least provide the correct order to the ALDL data words if you >> can find the ALDL xmit table. >> >> Most of the ALDL tables I've looked at begin with the prom id byte >> located in the beginning of the calibration. If you know or can work >> out the calibration address then you might be able to make a guess at >> the beginning of the ALDL table. >> >> You're famaliar with the reset vectors located at the end of Motorola >> code... use those to separate code from cal. data. >> >> If you're working with a P4 ecm, look for hardware addresses in the >> 3XXX range and attempt to use those with known calibrations from other >> P4's to locate specific portions of code. Use pattern matching to >> attempt to locate and identify some common routines such as spark >> timing calculation. >> >> There's probably people much better at this than I am who can offer >> better clues. But will they? >> >> Zaphod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Lucke >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:53:22 -0400 >> Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack >> >> I'd like to get started hacking the OBDI Cadillac Northstar computer >> (). I have a couple of different BCC's, as well as a dyno program that >> only has engine management turned on. >> >> I'm familiar with assembly and have worked with commercial 68HC11's in >> development boards. I'm familiar with the concepts of disassembly and >> I'm ready to devote the time necessary to reverse engineer this >> program. >> >> What I'm not sure of, however, is where to start. >> What's the best disassembler to use on GM chip images? >> >> Is there a listing of the memory locations of the data for the ALDL >> stream? Other than starting at the beginning, I'm not entirely sure how >> to enter the program and know what's what. >> >> >> Will From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri May 26 15:01:00 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] OBDI Northstar ALDL data definition In-Reply-To: <4475F041.1000700@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <20060526200100.58684.qmail@web35903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If it were anywhere, it would be here: http://www.moates.net/fileman/ William Lucke wrote: So is there a data definition for the OBDI Northstar ALDL stream? I'm not sure where to look, but I'm going to need one. Will > From: Ryan Hess > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack > > Disappear for 2 days, and I've got 3 pages of new emails from this list. Cripes! > > Will, > > The P4 is what I'm running. It's the generic OBDI computer with the 68hc11 variant... 7730, 7727, 9396, 7749 and probably 50 others. Yours may be a P6, although that may be the OBDI northstar computer. There's also a P66, which is probably the OBDII computer... maybe. I'm not entirely sure where the lines are drawn, but it has to do with the processor(s) used. I wanna say the P6 is a dual hc11 ECM, but again, not sure. If someone could clarify that, that would be great. > > I use tunercat's disassembler just because it's so simple to use. I tried using IDA pro, but got nowhere fast. Maybe with a week long session on how to work it... > > You *need* the ALDL definition, what gets sent in what byte. With that you can take educated guesses as to what things are and what they do. For instance, if you know what byte is VSS, you can backtrack into the code for that RAM location, and find everything that looks up the VSS. Same for EGR, etc, then you can start saying "okay, this block of code has to do with the EGR"... > > You mentioned wanting to use an IAC vs an ISM on yours, but that will require new hardware in addition to the code. Cadillac is in their own little world as far as their engines and engine management goes. The 4.9 ISM likely carried over onto the early northstar engine. > > The OBDII ECM was done by Siemens... I think we discussed earlier that they used some nasty compiled code, so disassembly won't help you much there. Source code would be what you want, and Siemens won't play nice. > > Ryan > > > William Lucke wrote: > No I do not have that disassmbler. Is this the correct page to get it: > http://dewhisna.home.netcom.com/download.html ? > > I've heard of IDA... I guess I need to get Tunercat's as well and see > which one I like. > > I don't know if there is a data definition for the ALDL stream. I would > assume so... I don't know about the stock chips, but my modified > engine-management-only program refuses to talk to a tech1. It ONLY talks > to the Cadillac IPC. > > What's the definition of a P4 ECM? What are the other types? What > distinguishes them from each other? > > Thanks > > > Will > > > >> From: davesnothereman at netscape.net >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack >> >> I use Donald Whisnant's (spelling?) code seeking disassembler. It's >> freeware written to disassemble code from GMECM's. Tunercat also has >> one, but I'm not as familiar with it. IDA Pro is also good, but not so >> free. >> >> Is there a data definition file for the norstar ALDL stream? That >> would at least provide the correct order to the ALDL data words if you >> can find the ALDL xmit table. >> >> Most of the ALDL tables I've looked at begin with the prom id byte >> located in the beginning of the calibration. If you know or can work >> out the calibration address then you might be able to make a guess at >> the beginning of the ALDL table. >> >> You're famaliar with the reset vectors located at the end of Motorola >> code... use those to separate code from cal. data. >> >> If you're working with a P4 ecm, look for hardware addresses in the >> 3XXX range and attempt to use those with known calibrations from other >> P4's to locate specific portions of code. Use pattern matching to >> attempt to locate and identify some common routines such as spark >> timing calculation. >> >> There's probably people much better at this than I am who can offer >> better clues. But will they? >> >> Zaphod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Lucke >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Sent: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:53:22 -0400 >> Subject: [Gmecm] disassembly 101 / writing a commented hack >> >> I'd like to get started hacking the OBDI Cadillac Northstar computer >> (). I have a couple of different BCC's, as well as a dyno program that >> only has engine management turned on. >> >> I'm familiar with assembly and have worked with commercial 68HC11's in >> development boards. I'm familiar with the concepts of disassembly and >> I'm ready to devote the time necessary to reverse engineer this >> program. >> >> What I'm not sure of, however, is where to start. >> What's the best disassembler to use on GM chip images? >> >> Is there a listing of the memory locations of the data for the ALDL >> stream? Other than starting at the beginning, I'm not entirely sure how >> to enter the program and know what's what. >> >> >> Will _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm --------------------------------- Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Fri May 26 15:12:35 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 15:12:35 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] OBDI Northstar ALDL data definition Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hess > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:01 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] OBDI Northstar ALDL data definition > > If it were anywhere, it would be here: http://www.moates.net/fileman/ > or here: ftp://diy-efi.org/pub/gmecm/ALDLstuff.zip --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 efi at dyakron.com Fri May 26 22:00:58 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 23:00:58 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Memcal read needed. In-Reply-To: <001101c6800e$f5b93150$4250050a@WESTER2> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060526225957.0286e2d0@dyakron.com> At 09:21 AM 5/25/2006 -0600, you wrote: >Hey guys ! > >Needing a BKZZ #16204422 bin 'badly'. Apparently GM has discontinued ? >Lyndon >Westers Garage I searched everywhere with no luck. MV From lwester at lincsat.com Mon May 29 09:35:09 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 08:35:09 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Memcal read needed. References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060526225957.0286e2d0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <000601c6832d$1bec3630$4250050a@WESTER2> I know the feeling...thanks for looking ! Lyndon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike V" To: Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:00 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Memcal read needed. > At 09:21 AM 5/25/2006 -0600, you wrote: >>Hey guys ! >> >>Needing a BKZZ #16204422 bin 'badly'. Apparently GM has discontinued ? >>Lyndon >>Westers Garage > > I searched everywhere with no luck. > MV > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net Tue May 30 12:35:54 2006 From: mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net (Scott Pearson) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:35:54 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Memcal read needed. References: <001101c6800e$f5b93150$4250050a@WESTER2> Message-ID: <04c201c6840f$8362e470$6601a8c0@DELL3G> I don't have it, but I do show it's still available from GM. Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Programmer" To: Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: [Gmecm] Memcal read needed. > Hey guys ! > > Needing a BKZZ #16204422 bin 'badly'. Apparently GM has discontinued ? > Lyndon > Westers Garage > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From rgmecm at yahoo.com Tue May 30 14:34:18 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] 16132240 in depth In-Reply-To: <04c201c6840f$8362e470$6601a8c0@DELL3G> Message-ID: <20060530193418.45980.qmail@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi everyone, I'm looking into the possibility of using a 16132240 with familiar '7730 code, modified to run SEFI. The '2240 has a row of 7 transistors, presumably for the injectors. The 8th injector must be controlled by a quad driver or something. It definately is a P4 ECM, what's interesting is it only has one CPU. I was expecting two with all the things it has to control... The ECM has a 28763 chip, which may or may not be an ISM driver, has 9 pins, and appears physically compatible for the IAC driver we're familiar with. Whether it actually is, is yet to be seen. Many of the 7730 pins are compatible with the '2240. I/O and power, ground, etc. I wish I had a dedicated test bench for this sort of thing... If anyone has any hidden schematics to the '2240, or has any advice for this ECM newbie, I'd greatly appreciate it. I've created simple patches before, but nothing like this. Thanks, Ryan --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. From teighinger at zoominternet.net Wed May 31 12:30:20 2006 From: teighinger at zoominternet.net (Travis Eighinger) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 13:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc Message-ID: <00ce01c684d7$e3e10d90$91ba9018@TravisHome> ----- 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 romans at starstream.net Wed May 31 12:41:15 2006 From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:41:15 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc References: <00ce01c684d7$e3e10d90$91ba9018@TravisHome> Message-ID: <000801c684d9$6ac1c010$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8> What year ecm? What trans? Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Eighinger" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:30 AM 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 teighinger at zoominternet.net Wed May 31 12:48:13 2006 From: teighinger at zoominternet.net (Travis Eighinger) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 13:48:13 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc References: <00ce01c684d7$e3e10d90$91ba9018@TravisHome> <000801c684d9$6ac1c010$8c01a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8> Message-ID: <00de01c684da$637e33f0$91ba9018@TravisHome> Th400 transmission and 1227165 ecm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Romans" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc > What year ecm? What trans? > Mark > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Travis Eighinger" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:30 AM > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Wed May 31 13:29:55 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 11:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc In-Reply-To: <00de01c684da$637e33f0$91ba9018@TravisHome> Message-ID: <20060531182955.32382.qmail@web80511.mail.yahoo.com> In my opinion, you're going to be very dissapointed unless u use an aftermarket TPI intake/plenum/runners, as the factory becomes very restrictive above 4500RPM and about 400HP/Ft# limits. I know, I'm running 3 of them in different states, and have done quite a bit of research. Read Lingenfelters SBC book before your attempt this to know the limits and what you need to do to circumvent the limits before you sink $$ down this hole. TPI works great on 5L, which is what it was originally designed for, and was retrofitted to 5.7L but low RPM setups and prompted the GM venture into the LT/LS development to achieve higher RPM powers ----- Original Message ---- From: Travis Eighinger To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:48:13 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc Th400 transmission and 1227165 ecm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Romans" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc > What year ecm? What trans? > Mark > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Travis Eighinger" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:30 AM > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From lwester at lincsat.com Wed May 31 15:47:48 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 14:47:48 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Memcal read needed. References: <001101c6800e$f5b93150$4250050a@WESTER2> <04c201c6840f$8362e470$6601a8c0@DELL3G> Message-ID: <001101c684f3$7ebddfd0$4250050a@WESTER2> See if you can order one...our guys up here say 'nada' -- and we do order a lot of US memcals... Lyndon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Pearson" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Memcal read needed. >I don't have it, but I do show it's still available from GM. > > Scott > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Programmer" > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:21 AM > Subject: [Gmecm] Memcal read needed. > > >> Hey guys ! >> >> Needing a BKZZ #16204422 bin 'badly'. Apparently GM has discontinued ? >> Lyndon >> Westers Garage >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm From lwester at lincsat.com Wed May 31 16:06:45 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 15:06:45 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc References: <20060531182955.32382.qmail@web80511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001d01c684f6$25aaa740$4250050a@WESTER2> Running 3 of 'em in different states ? Is that US states or different states of repair ? Look carefully at the VE tables on those...that reveals a lot of what goes on at higher RPM. Lyndon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick McLeod" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc > In my opinion, you're going to be very dissapointed unless u use an > aftermarket TPI intake/plenum/runners, as the factory becomes very > restrictive above 4500RPM and about 400HP/Ft# limits. I know, I'm running > 3 of them in different states, and have done quite a bit of research. Read > Lingenfelters SBC book before your attempt this to know the limits and > what you need to do to circumvent the limits before you sink $$ down this > hole. TPI works great on 5L, which is what it was originally designed for, > and was retrofitted to 5.7L but low RPM setups and prompted the GM venture > into the LT/LS development to achieve higher RPM powers > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Travis Eighinger > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:48:13 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc > > > Th400 transmission and 1227165 ecm > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Romans" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:41 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc > > >> What year ecm? What trans? >> Mark >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Travis Eighinger" >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:30 AM >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Wed May 31 19:42:18 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fw: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc Message-ID: <20060601004218.40222.qmail@web80506.mail.yahoo.com> Actually, 3 different states of build, one factory stock al head in 'vette, one iron headed built out w/ cam, headers, jectors, and other various goodies & aggressively tuned cal in an IROC, and a third iron headed basically stock except high-flow header/exhaust and minor tune lumped into a Jag. Of the 3, the stock box seems to rev the best, the stocker iron 2nd best, and the major modified rev's the poorest. Am I dissapointed in the highly modified? just a little, but the low end torque is phenominal, it more than makes up for the reduced virtual redline, and since it's a driver, stoplight to stoplight performance is exceptional, seat of the pants experience is ........... well, scary to the uninitiated. It matches what I built the engine to do, but if I'd have wanted a 6k engine, I'd definately have chosen a different intake, something like a ramjet with much shorter runners with larger flows at higher rpm. I've seen many attempts to modify VE and it simply doesn't produce, yes it improves it some (and the IROC is modified). Even Lingenfelter admits (he's (was) one of the most experineced and authoratative at squeezing SBC's to the limit) that the TPI in stock form dies at RPM, siameesed runners helps when adapted to ported plenums and intakes, beyond that he designed a modified plenum/runner/intake to replace the TPI that rocks! I simply can't justify the $$$ for it when I got what I want w/ the torque mongrel I built. ----- Original Message ---- From: Programmer To: Rick McLeod ; gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:06:45 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc Running 3 of 'em in different states ? Is that US states or different states of repair ? Look carefully at the VE tables on those...that reveals a lot of what goes on at higher RPM. Lyndon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick McLeod" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc > In my opinion, you're going to be very dissapointed unless u use an > aftermarket TPI intake/plenum/runners, as the factory becomes very > restrictive above 4500RPM and about 400HP/Ft# limits. I know, I'm running > 3 of them in different states, and have done quite a bit of research. Read > Lingenfelters SBC book before your attempt this to know the limits and > what you need to do to circumvent the limits before you sink $$ down this > hole. TPI works great on 5L, which is what it was originally designed for, > and was retrofitted to 5.7L but low RPM setups and prompted the GM venture > into the LT/LS development to achieve higher RPM powers > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Travis Eighinger > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:48:13 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc > > > Th400 transmission and 1227165 ecm > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Romans" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:41 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Fw: TPI on a 412sbc > > >> What year ecm? What trans? >> Mark >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Travis Eighinger" >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:30 AM >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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