From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Wed Nov 1 19:25:50 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:25:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] ECM question? Message-ID: <20061102012550.85252.qmail@web80510.mail.yahoo.com> I acquired an 1228747 ECM not realizing it thinking I was getting an 1227747, and am confused, as they are both apparently from late 80's to early 90's C/K series TBI V8's, this one is installed w/ a AKWA calibration. Does anyone have a bin file from the AKWA, I can't find one on any sites, nor can I find much info about the 8747 ECM other than that TC supports it w/ a $4F def file, so it appears to be tunable but to what extent? Also, is the 2732A socketed, it's on a daughter card that's flex cable attached to the main board, I haven't disturbed it yet as I want to make sure I am doing it 'correctly' to not damage anything. Or, do I need an adapter socket for the entire daughter card to work w/ the eprom in this variant. Unfortunately, I'm only familar w/ the 'MEMCAL' setups from the '165 and '730 series in TPI/MPI systems, but there can't be that much difference in them and this, I just need a little help. Thanks, in advance, for everyones help, hopefully this ECM isn't a bad choice. From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Mon Nov 6 10:09:10 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:09:10 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM question? Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:26 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] ECM question? > > I acquired an 1228747 ECM not realizing it thinking I was > getting an 1227747, and am confused, as they are both > apparently from late 80's to early 90's C/K series TBI V8's, > this one is installed w/ a AKWA calibration. Rick, my recollection is that the 8747 was used with big block engines, and that the difference between it and the 7747 is that the 8747 uses a IAT/MAT sensor and the 7747 doesn't. Check the archives for more info. --steve From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Mon Nov 6 10:11:14 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:11:14 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] New low cost scantool Message-ID: 4x and block transfers are used during reflash to make it reasonably fast. --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Paul Smith > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:16 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] New low cost scantool > > Hi Steve, > > Thanks, the ELM chip is pretty straightforward to work with. > > Neither of the chips support VPW 4x mode, but that is not too > difficult to add if there is a need. The ELM does support > extended length transfers, I have yet to implement that > function in my chip. > > Thanks > Paul > > > Paul, interesting product. Is the ELM chip easy to work > with? Does > > your box (or do any of the ELM chips) support the GM VPW 4x > mode, or > > the extended length transfers? > > > > thanks, > > --steve > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From mrgrimes1 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 6 14:39:44 2006 From: mrgrimes1 at yahoo.com (Darrin Garrett) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:39:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] TPU mask for LS1 V8 Message-ID: <20061106203944.1812.qmail@web33411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Does any one know what TPU mask is used for the 1999 - 2004 Ls1 PCM? --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Talk more and pay less. Vonage can save you up to $300 a year on your phone bill. Sign up now. From Rexdina at aol.com Mon Nov 6 18:04:56 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:04:56 EST Subject: [Gmecm] New low cost scantool Message-ID: Hope this isn't too basic, but can you reflash the late GM ECMs with a Tech Two scan tool? Thanks. Harry From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Mon Nov 6 19:21:36 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:21:36 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? Message-ID: This really is EFI related. I'm working on an open source type hardware project that will allow connecting a PC to an OBD2 GM PCM via the USB port. It'll support 4x mode for reflashing. I've got a prototype PCB built but am having problems with the USB enumeration. Some of the enumeration info is right but some is wrong, the biggest of which is that it's being identified as a low speed peripheral instead of a full speed, even though the pullup resistors are on the right wires. It's a microchip microprocessor, which I now recognize to be a poor choice, but it's what I have. If anyone has experience with USB, especially microchip firmware, I could sure use a hand. thanks, --steve ------------------- Steve Ravet ARM steve.ravet at arm.com From psmith at obdpros.com Mon Nov 6 20:09:37 2006 From: psmith at obdpros.com (Paul Smith) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:09:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63010.67.149.75.225.1162865377.squirrel@www.obdpros.com> I would'nt call myself a USB expert but would be willing to help if you do not get any other volunteers. I have worked a bit with the 18f2550 series that supports USB. Paul > This really is EFI related. I'm working on an open source type hardware > project that will allow connecting a PC to an OBD2 GM PCM via the USB > port. It'll support 4x mode for reflashing. I've got a prototype PCB > built but am having problems with the USB enumeration. Some of the > enumeration info is right but some is wrong, the biggest of which is > that it's being identified as a low speed peripheral instead of a full > speed, even though the pullup resistors are on the right wires. It's a > microchip microprocessor, which I now recognize to be a poor choice, but > it's what I have. If anyone has experience with USB, especially > microchip firmware, I could sure use a hand. > > thanks, > --steve > > ------------------- > Steve Ravet > ARM > steve.ravet at arm.com > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > -- www.obdpros.com Professional grade scantools From bpatten at centurytel.net Mon Nov 6 21:38:06 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:38:06 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] running dual ECM's In-Reply-To: <000f01c6f641$03695660$6501a8c0@PETER> Message-ID: <000501c7021e$26da3ea0$6400a8c0@p42000> I am working on a Megasquirt GM 5.3L Gen III Vortec engine, with a 4L60E transmission. I have a 16197427 from a 1995 truck to control the 4L60E. Has anyone had an experience with sharing sensors to two ECM's? will the signal inputs to them need isolated? What about 5v ref, and ref ground. Tie together? Leave apart. Anyone had any experience with this? Thanks Brendan. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Peter Jenkins Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 8:17 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] RE: re dual4cyldis modulefor v8 use have been through all these options and I think the only solution is as in this diagram http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/viewfile.pl/Gmecm/Running2DisPacksOff1E cu?rev=1;filename=ECU_wiring.jpg > Peter Jenkins > 10336 Murray River Rd Pine Mountain Vic. 3709 > Australia. > PH 0425 705764 > Email. info at jenkinseng.com > web. www.jenkinseng.com DISCLAIMER > * This email and any attachment may contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to copy > or disclose all or any part of it without the prior written consent > of Jenkins Engineering. > * Opinions expressed in this email and any attachment are those of the > sender and not necessarily the opinions of Jenkins Engineering. > * Please scan this email and any attachment for viruses. Jenkins > Engineering does > not accept responsibility for problems caused by viruses, whether > it is Jenkins Engineering's fault or not!!! _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Mon Nov 6 22:02:09 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:02:09 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Paul Smith > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:10 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > I would'nt call myself a USB expert but would be willing to > help if you do not get any other volunteers. > > I have worked a bit with the 18f2550 series that supports USB. > > Paul > Hi Paul. I have uploaded the project to the TWiki page: http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/UsbVpw I think the problem is in hardware instead of software. I am testing the board with a keyboard/mouse demo that is supposed to move the mouse in a circle and send keystrokes. This firmware works on the PIC demo board that I bought, but it doesn't work on my PCB. I ran usbview.exe to see that most of the enumeration is correct except the last 4 items: my board demo board ---------------------------------------------------------------- Current Config Value: 0x00 Current Config Value: 0x01 Device Bus Speed: Low Device Bus Speed: Full Device Address: 0x00 Device Address: 0x01 Open Pipes: 0 Open Pipes: 1 That stuff is clear as mud to me. The thing that stands out is the Bus Speed. I don't know why my PCB shows up as Low while the demo board is Full. I have checked the D- and D+ lines and the pullup is in the right place. I am using the PIC18F2455. I posted to the microchip forums also and got some suggestions but haven't found the answer yet. That thread is here: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=185797 thanks for any help, --steve From psmith at obdpros.com Tue Nov 7 09:30:10 2006 From: psmith at obdpros.com (Paul Smith) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:30:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42213.12.173.211.146.1162913410.squirrel@www.obdpros.com> > > Hi Paul. I have uploaded the project to the TWiki page: > > http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/UsbVpw > > I think the problem is in hardware instead of software. I am testing > the board with a keyboard/mouse demo that is supposed to move the mouse > in a circle and send keystrokes. This firmware works on the PIC demo > board that I bought, but it doesn't work on my PCB. I ran usbview.exe > to see that most of the enumeration is correct except the last 4 items: > > my board demo board > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Current Config Value: 0x00 Current Config Value: 0x01 > Device Bus Speed: Low Device Bus Speed: Full > Device Address: 0x00 Device Address: 0x01 > Open Pipes: 0 Open Pipes: 1 > > That stuff is clear as mud to me. The thing that stands out is the Bus > Speed. I don't know why my PCB shows up as Low while the demo board is > Full. I have checked the D- and D+ lines and the pullup is in the right > place. > > I am using the PIC18F2455. I posted to the microchip forums also and > got some suggestions but haven't found the answer yet. That thread is > here: > > http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=185797 > > thanks for any help, > > --steve > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > I will start looking at this, I am currently working on a USB board so should be able to test out some stuff and find out what's wrong, give me a couple of days to look it over. Thanks Paul -- www.obdpros.com Professional grade scantools From darrenfreed at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 14:31:12 2006 From: darrenfreed at gmail.com (Darren Freed) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:31:12 +0000 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? In-Reply-To: <42213.12.173.211.146.1162913410.squirrel@www.obdpros.com> References: <42213.12.173.211.146.1162913410.squirrel@www.obdpros.com> Message-ID: Steve, I was wondering how this project was coming along. I'm quite keen to get experimenting with DLC comms, and am excited about the prospects of a full speed-capable, open source interface! I don't know the first thing about USB, but at least I can supply moral support! Keep up the good work! I'd be happy to help with the software side once you have the hardware working. I think I've got quite a bit of that figured out, and am anxious to start experimenting. Darren On 11/7/06, Paul Smith wrote: > > > > > > Hi Paul. I have uploaded the project to the TWiki page: > > > > http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/UsbVpw > > > > I think the problem is in hardware instead of software. I am testing > > the board with a keyboard/mouse demo that is supposed to move the mouse > > in a circle and send keystrokes. This firmware works on the PIC demo > > board that I bought, but it doesn't work on my PCB. I ran usbview.exe > > to see that most of the enumeration is correct except the last 4 items: > > > > my board demo board > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Current Config Value: 0x00 Current Config Value: 0x01 > > Device Bus Speed: Low Device Bus Speed: Full > > Device Address: 0x00 Device Address: 0x01 > > Open Pipes: 0 Open Pipes: 1 > > > > That stuff is clear as mud to me. The thing that stands out is the Bus > > Speed. I don't know why my PCB shows up as Low while the demo board is > > Full. I have checked the D- and D+ lines and the pullup is in the right > > place. > > > > I am using the PIC18F2455. I posted to the microchip forums also and > > got some suggestions but haven't found the answer yet. That thread is > > here: > > > > http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=185797 > > > > thanks for any help, > > > > --steve > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > > I will start looking at this, I am currently working on a USB board so > should be able to test out some stuff and find out what's wrong, give me a > couple of days to look it over. > > Thanks > Paul > -- > www.obdpros.com > Professional grade scantools > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From dante.mclean at sympatico.ca Thu Nov 9 10:45:20 2006 From: dante.mclean at sympatico.ca (DANTE Mclean) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:45:20 +0000 Subject: [Gmecm] Scan Tool and Olds ECM in '89 Electra Estate Message-ID: Hi: I have an '89 Electra Estate with Olds 307 V8, eQJet. Everything is stock. What I want to do is drive around with my scan tool plugged in for a few days to see if I can catch an intermittent code 21. Vehicle is usually fine, but throwing code 21 "TPS High" every so often while idling at lights. TPS voltage looks to be within specs at idle when checked. So this is truly an intermittent--and for more amusement, the car has been fine all summer, but seems to start its little antics as soon as the weather gets cool. My scan tool (OTC 2000) allows State 6, Field Service, and State 8, ALCL. I understand that I should not run the engine in Field Service for more than 2 minutes due to risk of overheating the catalytic--A.I.R. divert--per OTC manual. Can I road test in State 8? The OTC manual says the vehicle SHOULD NOT be driven in this mode due to increased Idle Speed and extra spark advance (on fuel injected ... meaning not applicable to this vehicle?). "State 9 Road Test" is not available with this ECM. Anybody have input on this? Thanks. Dante McLean dante.mclean at sympatico.ca 1989 Electra Estate with about 175,000 orig. kms. From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Thu Nov 9 11:03:18 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:03:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] Scan Tool and Olds ECM in '89 Electra Estate Message-ID: <20061109170318.26527.qmail@web80509.mail.yahoo.com> What you're seeing is possibly an example of a classic of low-current data/logic type circuit problem, when the weather gets cool things tend to contract, and connectors tend to almost open, moisture strikes and corrosion sets in, and you have a vibration and temp sensitive 'bug'. The classic 'fix' is to exercise every connector, causing a scraping of the crud that is almost insulating the connections, and all will be fine for a few years. I deal a lot w/ marine electrics where water and temp are exteme, and have to pay very close attention to things like plug/sockets, not using crimp connectors, etc. good luck ----- Original Message ---- From: DANTE Mclean To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 10:45:20 AM Subject: [Gmecm] Scan Tool and Olds ECM in '89 Electra Estate Hi: I have an '89 Electra Estate with Olds 307 V8, eQJet. Everything is stock. What I want to do is drive around with my scan tool plugged in for a few days to see if I can catch an intermittent code 21. Vehicle is usually fine, but throwing code 21 "TPS High" every so often while idling at lights. TPS voltage looks to be within specs at idle when checked. So this is truly an intermittent--and for more amusement, the car has been fine all summer, but seems to start its little antics as soon as the weather gets cool. My scan tool (OTC 2000) allows State 6, Field Service, and State 8, ALCL. I understand that I should not run the engine in Field Service for more than 2 minutes due to risk of overheating the catalytic--A.I.R. divert--per OTC manual. Can I road test in State 8? The OTC manual says the vehicle SHOULD NOT be driven in this mode due to increased Idle Speed and extra spark advance (on fuel injected ... meaning not applicable to this vehicle?). "State 9 Road Test" is not available with this ECM. Anybody have input on this? Thanks. Dante McLean dante.mclean at sympatico.ca 1989 Electra Estate with about 175,000 orig. kms. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From joevitek at cfl.rr.com Thu Nov 9 11:22:59 2006 From: joevitek at cfl.rr.com (Joe Vitek) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:22:59 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Scan Tool and Olds ECM in '89 Electra Estate In-Reply-To: <20061109170318.26527.qmail@web80509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200611091723.kA9HMxFK028377@ms-smtp-05.tampabay.rr.com> Actually, with the Olds 307s of this vintage, the E-Qjet is notorious for developing an intermittent TPS. If this is all original, I would replace that first. The other post about connectors etc. is valid too. If the ground wire of the TPS connection becomes intermittent, the output will intermittently go to rail (5V in this case). I would replace the TPS and check and clean the TPS connector. As far as the scantool modes, I am not sure. I have an OTC2000 also, but have not tried anything you suggest. I hope the above helps out... -- joe vitek (back in Olds lurk mode) > Hi: > > I have an '89 Electra Estate with Olds 307 V8, eQJet. Everything is stock. > > What I want to do is drive around with my scan tool plugged in for a few > days to see if I can catch an intermittent code 21. Vehicle is usually > fine, but throwing code 21 "TPS High" every so often while idling at lights. > TPS voltage looks to be within specs at idle when checked. So this is > truly an intermittent--and for more amusement, the car has been fine all > summer, but seems to start its little antics as soon as the weather gets > cool. > > My scan tool (OTC 2000) allows State 6, Field Service, and State 8, ALCL. I > understand that I should not run the engine in Field Service for more than 2 > minutes due to risk of overheating the catalytic--A.I.R. divert--per OTC > manual. > > Can I road test in State 8? The OTC manual says the vehicle SHOULD NOT be > driven in this mode due to increased Idle Speed and extra spark advance (on > fuel injected ... meaning not applicable to this vehicle?). "State 9 Road > Test" is not available with this ECM. > > Anybody have input on this? > > Thanks. > > Dante McLean > dante.mclean at sympatico.ca > > 1989 Electra Estate with about 175,000 orig. kms. From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Thu Nov 9 11:25:23 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:25:23 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Scan Tool and Olds ECM in '89 Electra Estate Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of DANTE Mclean > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:45 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] Scan Tool and Olds ECM in '89 Electra Estate > > Hi: > > I have an '89 Electra Estate with Olds 307 V8, eQJet. > Everything is stock. > > What I want to do is drive around with my scan tool plugged > in for a few days to see if I can catch an intermittent code > 21. Vehicle is usually fine, but throwing code 21 "TPS High" > every so often while idling at lights. > TPS voltage looks to be within specs at idle when checked. > So this is truly an intermittent--and for more amusement, the > car has been fine all summer, but seems to start its little > antics as soon as the weather gets cool. Have you tried replacing the TPS? Or at least spraying some cleaner on the connector and plugging/unplugging it a few times? You could also put an ohmmeter on there and slowly rotate it to see if the resistance changes smoothly, and wiggle the wires to see if they're coming loose. > > My scan tool (OTC 2000) allows State 6, Field Service, and > State 8, ALCL. I understand that I should not run the engine > in Field Service for more than 2 minutes due to risk of > overheating the catalytic--A.I.R. divert--per OTC manual. > > Can I road test in State 8? The OTC manual says the vehicle > SHOULD NOT be driven in this mode due to increased Idle Speed > and extra spark advance (on fuel injected ... meaning not > applicable to this vehicle?). "State 9 Road Test" is not > available with this ECM. My '91 5.7L TBI has a field test mode that increases timing and idle. If you drive in this mode for a few seconds you'll see why it's not recommended -- it knocked horribly for me. I don't know if the spark in your car is controlled by the computer or not, though. If not it might be OK. --steve From craig.moates at cox.net Thu Nov 9 11:51:20 2006 From: craig.moates at cox.net (Craig Moates) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:51:20 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? References: Message-ID: <037a01c70427$aa4d5960$0201a8c0@antec> Steve, Definitely check the crystal and capacitor areas. Those are ceramics you are using for the 18pF set? Check that it's set up for 18pf on the xtal desired capacitance? I'd be possibly concerned with how the trace is run on that 1M there by the xtal. Could be some induced stuff going on? Also, doesn't the pic have the load built in? Considered adding caps to gnd on the USB lines coming in? Could be picking up some noise, I like to put like some 47pF on there. I assume you've tried even after a hard reset via your switch in there, right? Just wondering about brownout issues and that sort of thing. Have you tried it with just the USB, PIC, xtal, and resonator/decoupling caps connected? Could help to step in slowly to see what's 'not' causing the problem. I know I always get excited, assemble the whole thing, and then step back to find one trace or leg that isn't going where it should. Best regards, Craig Moates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ravet" To: Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:02 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Paul Smith > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:10 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > I would'nt call myself a USB expert but would be willing to > help if you do not get any other volunteers. > > I have worked a bit with the 18f2550 series that supports USB. > > Paul > Hi Paul. I have uploaded the project to the TWiki page: http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/UsbVpw I think the problem is in hardware instead of software. I am testing the board with a keyboard/mouse demo that is supposed to move the mouse in a circle and send keystrokes. This firmware works on the PIC demo board that I bought, but it doesn't work on my PCB. I ran usbview.exe to see that most of the enumeration is correct except the last 4 items: my board demo board ---------------------------------------------------------------- Current Config Value: 0x00 Current Config Value: 0x01 Device Bus Speed: Low Device Bus Speed: Full Device Address: 0x00 Device Address: 0x01 Open Pipes: 0 Open Pipes: 1 That stuff is clear as mud to me. The thing that stands out is the Bus Speed. I don't know why my PCB shows up as Low while the demo board is Full. I have checked the D- and D+ lines and the pullup is in the right place. I am using the PIC18F2455. I posted to the microchip forums also and got some suggestions but haven't found the answer yet. That thread is here: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=185797 thanks for any help, --steve _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Thu Nov 9 14:52:44 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 14:52:44 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? Message-ID: Craig, thanks for the suggestions. I brought it in to work today and found something interesting. When the board is powered up, no USB cable connected, the 20 MHz crystal oscillates fine. When I plug in the USB cable the OSC gets distorted, then goes flat after about 1 sec. As soon as I pull out the USB cable the OSC comes back. This is some kind of loading issue? The PIC has some internal settings related to the OSC, I'll have to double check them. thanks, --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:51 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > Steve, > > Definitely check the crystal and capacitor areas. Those are > ceramics you are using for the 18pF set? Check that it's set > up for 18pf on the xtal desired capacitance? > > I'd be possibly concerned with how the trace is run on that > 1M there by the xtal. Could be some induced stuff going on? > Also, doesn't the pic have the load built in? > > Considered adding caps to gnd on the USB lines coming in? > Could be picking up some noise, I like to put like some 47pF on there. > > I assume you've tried even after a hard reset via your switch > in there, right? Just wondering about brownout issues and > that sort of thing. > > Have you tried it with just the USB, PIC, xtal, and > resonator/decoupling caps connected? Could help to step in > slowly to see what's 'not' causing the problem. I know I > always get excited, assemble the whole thing, and then step > back to find one trace or leg that isn't going where it should. > > Best regards, > Craig Moates > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ravet" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:02 PM > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Paul Smith > > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:10 PM > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > > > I would'nt call myself a USB expert but would be willing to > > help if you do not get any other volunteers. > > > > I have worked a bit with the 18f2550 series that supports USB. > > > > Paul > > > > > Hi Paul. I have uploaded the project to the TWiki page: > > http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/UsbVpw > > I think the problem is in hardware instead of software. I am testing > the board with a keyboard/mouse demo that is supposed to move > the mouse > in a circle and send keystrokes. This firmware works on the PIC demo > board that I bought, but it doesn't work on my PCB. I ran usbview.exe > to see that most of the enumeration is correct except the > last 4 items: > > my board demo board > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Current Config Value: 0x00 Current Config Value: 0x01 > Device Bus Speed: Low Device Bus Speed: Full > Device Address: 0x00 Device Address: 0x01 > Open Pipes: 0 Open Pipes: 1 > > That stuff is clear as mud to me. The thing that stands out > is the Bus > Speed. I don't know why my PCB shows up as Low while the > demo board is > Full. I have checked the D- and D+ lines and the pullup is > in the right > place. > > I am using the PIC18F2455. I posted to the microchip forums also and > got some suggestions but haven't found the answer yet. That thread is > here: > > http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=185797 > > thanks for any help, > > --steve > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From craig.moates at cox.net Thu Nov 9 15:30:42 2006 From: craig.moates at cox.net (Craig Moates) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 15:30:42 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? References: Message-ID: <055e01c70446$4f214230$0201a8c0@antec> Not sure about the 2455, but could you be having Vcc and Vusb contention? Two separate power supplies? With these low-power circuits, I've typically allowed them to be USB bus-powered in parallel with whatever target device power (OBD2 regulated etc) through a pair of schottky diodes. That has always worked well, you end up with 4.9v or thereabouts which is adequate. What you describe below could be consistent with this sort of thing. Maybe just lift the Vusb and jumper it over from Vcc to see what happens. Best regards, Craig Moates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ravet" To: Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:52 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? Craig, thanks for the suggestions. I brought it in to work today and found something interesting. When the board is powered up, no USB cable connected, the 20 MHz crystal oscillates fine. When I plug in the USB cable the OSC gets distorted, then goes flat after about 1 sec. As soon as I pull out the USB cable the OSC comes back. This is some kind of loading issue? The PIC has some internal settings related to the OSC, I'll have to double check them. thanks, --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:51 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > Steve, > > Definitely check the crystal and capacitor areas. Those are > ceramics you are using for the 18pF set? Check that it's set > up for 18pf on the xtal desired capacitance? > > I'd be possibly concerned with how the trace is run on that > 1M there by the xtal. Could be some induced stuff going on? > Also, doesn't the pic have the load built in? > > Considered adding caps to gnd on the USB lines coming in? > Could be picking up some noise, I like to put like some 47pF on there. > > I assume you've tried even after a hard reset via your switch > in there, right? Just wondering about brownout issues and > that sort of thing. > > Have you tried it with just the USB, PIC, xtal, and > resonator/decoupling caps connected? Could help to step in > slowly to see what's 'not' causing the problem. I know I > always get excited, assemble the whole thing, and then step > back to find one trace or leg that isn't going where it should. > > Best regards, > Craig Moates > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ravet" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:02 PM > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Paul Smith > > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:10 PM > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > > > I would'nt call myself a USB expert but would be willing to > > help if you do not get any other volunteers. > > > > I have worked a bit with the 18f2550 series that supports USB. > > > > Paul > > > > > Hi Paul. I have uploaded the project to the TWiki page: > > http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/UsbVpw > > I think the problem is in hardware instead of software. I am testing > the board with a keyboard/mouse demo that is supposed to move > the mouse > in a circle and send keystrokes. This firmware works on the PIC demo > board that I bought, but it doesn't work on my PCB. I ran usbview.exe > to see that most of the enumeration is correct except the > last 4 items: > > my board demo board > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Current Config Value: 0x00 Current Config Value: 0x01 > Device Bus Speed: Low Device Bus Speed: Full > Device Address: 0x00 Device Address: 0x01 > Open Pipes: 0 Open Pipes: 1 > > That stuff is clear as mud to me. The thing that stands out > is the Bus > Speed. I don't know why my PCB shows up as Low while the > demo board is > Full. I have checked the D- and D+ lines and the pullup is > in the right > place. > > I am using the PIC18F2455. I posted to the microchip forums also and > got some suggestions but haven't found the answer yet. That thread is > here: > > http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=185797 > > thanks for any help, > > --steve > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Thu Nov 9 15:39:26 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 15:39:26 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? Message-ID: Hi Craig, this app (USB to VPW converter) will always be connected to vehicle power so I'm not using the USB power option. VBUS (power from the USB cable) has a bypass capacitor to ground but that's it, and the circuit is always powered via VCC from the 5V regulator. That's not what the schematic shows but that's been changed on my PCB. --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:31 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > Not sure about the 2455, but could you be having Vcc and Vusb > contention? Two separate power supplies? With these low-power > circuits, I've typically allowed them to be USB bus-powered > in parallel with whatever target device power (OBD2 regulated > etc) through a pair of schottky diodes. That has always > worked well, you end up with 4.9v or thereabouts which is adequate. > > What you describe below could be consistent with this sort of > thing. Maybe just lift the Vusb and jumper it over from Vcc > to see what happens. > > Best regards, > Craig Moates > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ravet" > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:52 PM > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > > Craig, thanks for the suggestions. I brought it in to work today and > found something interesting. When the board is powered up, > no USB cable > connected, the 20 MHz crystal oscillates fine. When I plug in the USB > cable the OSC gets distorted, then goes flat after about 1 > sec. As soon > as I pull out the USB cable the OSC comes back. This is some kind of > loading issue? The PIC has some internal settings related to the OSC, > I'll have to double check them. > > thanks, > --steve > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:51 AM > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > > > Steve, > > > > Definitely check the crystal and capacitor areas. Those are > > ceramics you are using for the 18pF set? Check that it's set > > up for 18pf on the xtal desired capacitance? > > > > I'd be possibly concerned with how the trace is run on that > > 1M there by the xtal. Could be some induced stuff going on? > > Also, doesn't the pic have the load built in? > > > > Considered adding caps to gnd on the USB lines coming in? > > Could be picking up some noise, I like to put like some > 47pF on there. > > > > I assume you've tried even after a hard reset via your switch > > in there, right? Just wondering about brownout issues and > > that sort of thing. > > > > Have you tried it with just the USB, PIC, xtal, and > > resonator/decoupling caps connected? Could help to step in > > slowly to see what's 'not' causing the problem. I know I > > always get excited, assemble the whole thing, and then step > > back to find one trace or leg that isn't going where it should. > > > > Best regards, > > Craig Moates > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Steve Ravet" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:02 PM > > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Paul Smith > > > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:10 PM > > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > > > > > I would'nt call myself a USB expert but would be willing to > > > help if you do not get any other volunteers. > > > > > > I have worked a bit with the 18f2550 series that supports USB. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > Hi Paul. I have uploaded the project to the TWiki page: > > > > http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/UsbVpw > > > > I think the problem is in hardware instead of software. I > am testing > > the board with a keyboard/mouse demo that is supposed to move > > the mouse > > in a circle and send keystrokes. This firmware works on > the PIC demo > > board that I bought, but it doesn't work on my PCB. I ran > usbview.exe > > to see that most of the enumeration is correct except the > > last 4 items: > > > > my board demo board > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Current Config Value: 0x00 Current Config Value: 0x01 > > Device Bus Speed: Low Device Bus Speed: Full > > Device Address: 0x00 Device Address: 0x01 > > Open Pipes: 0 Open Pipes: 1 > > > > That stuff is clear as mud to me. The thing that stands out > > is the Bus > > Speed. I don't know why my PCB shows up as Low while the > > demo board is > > Full. I have checked the D- and D+ lines and the pullup is > > in the right > > place. > > > > I am using the PIC18F2455. I posted to the microchip > forums also and > > got some suggestions but haven't found the answer yet. > That thread is > > here: > > > > http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=185797 > > > > thanks for any help, > > > > --steve > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From psmith at obdpros.com Thu Nov 9 18:47:42 2006 From: psmith at obdpros.com (Paul Smith) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:47:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62648.67.149.75.225.1163119662.squirrel@www.obdpros.com> Hi Steve, I had sent the foll to your email address thinking I would avoid polluting the list but maybe it did not make it to you anyways here's a copy Hi Steve, I took a look at this last night, at first glance the USB traces seem OK, did you check the code to make sure the internal pullups for D+ are enabled? FSEN & UPUEN =1 Also that the USB clock is running at 48Mhz? Thanks Paul > Hi Craig, this app (USB to VPW converter) will always be connected to > vehicle power so I'm not using the USB power option. VBUS (power from > the USB cable) has a bypass capacitor to ground but that's it, and the > circuit is always powered via VCC from the 5V regulator. That's not > what the schematic shows but that's been changed on my PCB. > > --steve > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates >> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:31 PM >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? >> >> Not sure about the 2455, but could you be having Vcc and Vusb >> contention? Two separate power supplies? With these low-power >> circuits, I've typically allowed them to be USB bus-powered >> in parallel with whatever target device power (OBD2 regulated >> etc) through a pair of schottky diodes. That has always >> worked well, you end up with 4.9v or thereabouts which is adequate. >> >> What you describe below could be consistent with this sort of >> thing. Maybe just lift the Vusb and jumper it over from Vcc >> to see what happens. >> >> Best regards, >> Craig Moates >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Ravet" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:52 PM >> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? >> >> >> Craig, thanks for the suggestions. I brought it in to work today and >> found something interesting. When the board is powered up, >> no USB cable >> connected, the 20 MHz crystal oscillates fine. When I plug in the USB >> cable the OSC gets distorted, then goes flat after about 1 >> sec. As soon >> as I pull out the USB cable the OSC comes back. This is some kind of >> loading issue? The PIC has some internal settings related to the OSC, >> I'll have to double check them. >> >> thanks, >> --steve >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >> > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates >> > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:51 AM >> > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? >> > >> > Steve, >> > >> > Definitely check the crystal and capacitor areas. Those are >> > ceramics you are using for the 18pF set? Check that it's set >> > up for 18pf on the xtal desired capacitance? >> > >> > I'd be possibly concerned with how the trace is run on that >> > 1M there by the xtal. Could be some induced stuff going on? >> > Also, doesn't the pic have the load built in? >> > >> > Considered adding caps to gnd on the USB lines coming in? >> > Could be picking up some noise, I like to put like some >> 47pF on there. >> > >> > I assume you've tried even after a hard reset via your switch >> > in there, right? Just wondering about brownout issues and >> > that sort of thing. >> > >> > Have you tried it with just the USB, PIC, xtal, and >> > resonator/decoupling caps connected? Could help to step in >> > slowly to see what's 'not' causing the problem. I know I >> > always get excited, assemble the whole thing, and then step >> > back to find one trace or leg that isn't going where it should. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Craig Moates >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Steve Ravet" >> > To: >> > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:02 PM >> > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? >> > >> > >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >> > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Paul Smith >> > > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:10 PM >> > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> > > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? >> > > >> > > I would'nt call myself a USB expert but would be willing to >> > > help if you do not get any other volunteers. >> > > >> > > I have worked a bit with the 18f2550 series that supports USB. >> > > >> > > Paul >> > > >> > >> > >> > Hi Paul. I have uploaded the project to the TWiki page: >> > >> > http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/UsbVpw >> > >> > I think the problem is in hardware instead of software. I >> am testing >> > the board with a keyboard/mouse demo that is supposed to move >> > the mouse >> > in a circle and send keystrokes. This firmware works on >> the PIC demo >> > board that I bought, but it doesn't work on my PCB. I ran >> usbview.exe >> > to see that most of the enumeration is correct except the >> > last 4 items: >> > >> > my board demo board >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Current Config Value: 0x00 Current Config Value: 0x01 >> > Device Bus Speed: Low Device Bus Speed: Full >> > Device Address: 0x00 Device Address: 0x01 >> > Open Pipes: 0 Open Pipes: 1 >> > >> > That stuff is clear as mud to me. The thing that stands out >> > is the Bus >> > Speed. I don't know why my PCB shows up as Low while the >> > demo board is >> > Full. I have checked the D- and D+ lines and the pullup is >> > in the right >> > place. >> > >> > I am using the PIC18F2455. I posted to the microchip >> forums also and >> > got some suggestions but haven't found the answer yet. >> That thread is >> > here: >> > >> > http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=185797 >> > >> > thanks for any help, >> > >> > --steve >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Gmecm mailing list >> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Gmecm mailing list >> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > -- www.obdpros.com Professional grade scantools From blueandbold at sbcglobal.net Sun Nov 12 12:13:36 2006 From: blueandbold at sbcglobal.net (Lobert Family) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:13:36 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors Message-ID: <000901c70686$467a1a20$6501a8c0@tuesdayjc228nk> Has anyone tried to adapt the wide band sensors to a 93 Camaro/Firebird LT1 configuration. I am also looking to tweak my setup and have found some tips for a burner here. I am also looking for a good reading program so that i can download what is in there now. I have the 727 waterprooofed version of the 730. From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Sun Nov 12 12:50:30 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:50:30 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors References: <000901c70686$467a1a20$6501a8c0@tuesdayjc228nk> Message-ID: <001b01c7068b$6ed1c310$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Haven't directly hooked up a wideband like that but have been learning about the techedge wideband O2a. We are going to use one on this years Formula sae car (student built mini-F1 style race car). Last year we used it on our engine dyno (also student built) for tuning. There are lower option versions but the one we have has a couple channels of data logging, wideband O2, then a couple ways to output a narrow band signal. The narrow band signal can be tuned to differnt fuel ratios. We run a performance electronics ecu, haven't looked into if it can take a wideband output, at the very least it will have the "narrow band" output. Might check it out to get some ideas http://wbo2.com/2a0/default.htm Also see http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/products/lc1.php We used one of these until it broke. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lobert Family" To: Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:13 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors Has anyone tried to adapt the wide band sensors to a 93 Camaro/Firebird LT1 configuration. I am also looking to tweak my setup and have found some tips for a burner here. I am also looking for a good reading program so that i can download what is in there now. I have the 727 waterprooofed version of the 730. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From ne14roxcj at gmail.com Sun Nov 12 14:14:40 2006 From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:14:40 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors In-Reply-To: <001b01c7068b$6ed1c310$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Message-ID: <455780b7.6e8cd835.3a3e.1eb6@mx.google.com> The one from InnovativeMotorsports looks like a really good deal. Does it truly come with the controller AND sensor? You say it broke? What happened to it? Would they back their product? For $200, it looks like a good deal for a wideband o2. Beau -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Jason M. Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:51 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors Haven't directly hooked up a wideband like that but have been learning about the techedge wideband O2a. We are going to use one on this years Formula sae car (student built mini-F1 style race car). Last year we used it on our engine dyno (also student built) for tuning. There are lower option versions but the one we have has a couple channels of data logging, wideband O2, then a couple ways to output a narrow band signal. The narrow band signal can be tuned to differnt fuel ratios. We run a performance electronics ecu, haven't looked into if it can take a wideband output, at the very least it will have the "narrow band" output. Might check it out to get some ideas http://wbo2.com/2a0/default.htm Also see http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/products/lc1.php We used one of these until it broke. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lobert Family" To: Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:13 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors Has anyone tried to adapt the wide band sensors to a 93 Camaro/Firebird LT1 configuration. I am also looking to tweak my setup and have found some tips for a burner here. I am also looking for a good reading program so that i can download what is in there now. I have the 727 waterprooofed version of the 730. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Sun Nov 12 15:22:23 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:22:23 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors References: <455780b7.6e8cd835.3a3e.1eb6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <004601c706a0$a69bf080$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> When we were using the LC-1 I was on the suspension team (mainly design and machining of the steering rack) so I'm not exactly sure. As I mentioned it's student built so things aren't always handled properly. My understanding was something with the power through the controller to the sensor was damaged. It was rewired and "worked." I think it lasted 2 years of our abuse. Could also be that someone welded on the dyno frame while the wideband was on it. We had a problem like that with someone welding on the steel rear frame. It was still bolted to the front carbon tub with a PI data acquisition system in it... fried the PI, worth about 5k used. As far as I know the LC-1 worked great, we just got a really good deal on the techedge. Got it as a bag of parts and a circuit board. It also has data acquisition capabilities, can't have too much of that. btw, the LC-1 is one of the more popular aftermarket wideband O2's. If we didn't have this tech edge I would have gotten another one simply for it's small controller size. As for standing behind their product, with student turn over it's possible we didn't have paper work on it. Also it might have been purchased used, discounted or donated, so we would have needed to buy parts anyway. Jason. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beau Blankenship" To: Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:14 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors > The one from InnovativeMotorsports looks like a really good deal. Does it > truly come with the controller AND sensor? You say it broke? What happened > to it? Would they back their product? For $200, it looks like a good deal > for a wideband o2. > > Beau > From doug at chaserace.com Sun Nov 12 15:47:42 2006 From: doug at chaserace.com (Doug Chase) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:47:42 -0800 Subject: Welding vs. computers (was RE: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors) In-Reply-To: <004601c706a0$a69bf080$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Message-ID: <034d01c706a4$30415660$2f01a8c0@desk> Could you elaborate on how this happened? I've heard stories like this but never any details. I've heard things like "disconnect the battery before welding on a car or you'll fry the computer" but that doesn't make sense to me. It seems that if you choose your ground carefully (as close to the weld as you can get it, both physically and electrically) there should be no problem. I've welded on a lot of cars like this and have never damaged any electronics. I'm interested in hearing more about how this happened to you guys so I can avoid it. Doug Chase www.chaserace.com 425-269-5636 -----Original Message----- From: Jason M. Could also be that someone welded on the dyno frame while the wideband was on it. We had a problem like that with someone welding on the steel rear frame. It was still bolted to the front carbon tub with a PI data acquisition system in it... fried the PI, worth about 5k used. From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Sun Nov 12 16:14:55 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:14:55 -0500 Subject: Welding vs. computers (was RE: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors) References: <034d01c706a4$30415660$2f01a8c0@desk> Message-ID: <005301c706a7$fd295d00$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Well you'd think that since we were welding on steel hooked to carbon fiber where the PI system was at, that it would be safer too. Pretty much this happened because it was a PI system. They are just made up of much more delicate electronics. I haven't seen the literature on it, back in 2003 we got it used from a local IRL team, but was told there were numerous warnings about not doing what we did. Probably the main reason you (and I) have not damaged electronics while welding on vehicles is the electronics are just more robust, they have to be to survive in a mobile application like an automobile. With all the vibration, temperature variation etc... And yes the current should travel the path of least resistance while welding, generally that would be the shortest distance between the clamp and the weldment you are working on. Don't know if the magnetic forces generated by the current in the metal would be great enough to cause a problem, even in our case of 2-3 feet of seperation between welding and the electronics that died. No matter what it is good practice to disconnect the battery, and remove more sensative/costly electronics before welding on a vehicle. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Chase" To: Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:47 PM Subject: Welding vs. computers (was RE: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors) > Could you elaborate on how this happened? > > I've heard stories like this but never any details. I've heard things > like > "disconnect the battery before welding on a car or you'll fry the > computer" > but that doesn't make sense to me. It seems that if you choose your > ground > carefully (as close to the weld as you can get it, both physically and > electrically) there should be no problem. I've welded on a lot of cars > like > this and have never damaged any electronics. > > I'm interested in hearing more about how this happened to you guys so I > can > avoid it. > > Doug Chase > www.chaserace.com > 425-269-5636 From Rexdina at aol.com Sun Nov 12 16:57:40 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:57:40 EST Subject: Welding vs. computers (was RE: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors) Message-ID: The fact is that while electricity does seek the path of least resistance, not all of the current is going to necessarily do that. Some of it can go through any of the numerous paths to ground. Best to disconnect or entirely remove potential sensitive electronic components. Yes, it's a hassle, but so is trying to find out what is "cooked" when you do ruin one. And it can get expensive. Harry From romans at starstream.net Sun Nov 12 17:38:06 2006 From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:38:06 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors References: <000901c70686$467a1a20$6501a8c0@tuesdayjc228nk> Message-ID: <000e01c706b3$9b371720$6801a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8> First of all you can't directly adapt a wide band to a stock gm ecm. The GM ecm uses a narrow band 02 sensor that reads 0-1 volt. It's really just a switch between lean and rich and is there for the care and feeding of the catalytic convertor. Narrow band 02 sensors are not linear and are pretty much useless except for lean and rich switch type signals. Aftermarket wide band 02 sensors put out 0-5 volts and are much more linear in their response, this is how they are used to measure the actual afr. Some aftermarket Wide band 02 sensors have a "Simulated" Narrow band output for the stock ecm. 2nd big problem is that the 727 isn't at LT1 ecm. I don't think you can adpapt it either. The 727 is the underhood version of the 730 ecm, that's for TPI engines from 90-92. (V8 Apps). Go to www.tunercat.com and that website shows you software and ecm numbers for your application. Good Luck! Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lobert Family" To: Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors Has anyone tried to adapt the wide band sensors to a 93 Camaro/Firebird LT1 configuration. I am also looking to tweak my setup and have found some tips for a burner here. I am also looking for a good reading program so that i can download what is in there now. I have the 727 waterprooofed version of the 730. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From bcroe at juno.com Sun Nov 12 18:04:33 2006 From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:04:33 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers Message-ID: <20061112.185632.444.0.bcroe@juno.com> I second that. Completely disconnect delicate electronics before welding. A car isn't one mass of metal. Many parts are isolated by rubber,etc. So things like ground straps and exhaust pipes may be taking big currents, which aren't so predictable. Not only the resistance is a factor, but the arcing weld current will respond to inductance in the circuit. If the original ground system isn't in perfect condition, currents have been known to find their way through things like shift cables. Do tie your welding ground to the piece of metal being welded, reasonably close to the weld. If there are 2 pieces, tie them electrically together. Bruce Roe 12 Nov 2006 Rexdina at aol.com writes: > The fact is that while electricity does seek the path of least > resistance, > not all of the current is going to necessarily do that. Some of it > can go > through any of the numerous paths to ground. Best to disconnect or > entirely > remove potential sensitive electronic components. Yes, it's a > hassle, but so is > trying to find out what is "cooked" when you do ruin one. And it can > get > expensive. > Harry From dennysweet at charter.net Sun Nov 12 21:03:39 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:03:39 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers References: <20061112.185632.444.0.bcroe@juno.com> Message-ID: <000401c706d0$519b87a0$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> I have to agree, I have been welding on cars and trucks for years but last month I did blow an Alt. because I had a bad ground. However I havent welded on race cars with the electronics still attached, I normally do the chassis. From herningg at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 21:16:47 2006 From: herningg at hotmail.com (Garrett Herning) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:16:47 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors In-Reply-To: <455780b7.6e8cd835.3a3e.1eb6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi, I have one of the Innovative controllers on my 95 pickup right now (PCM 16197427). I had bought a couple sensors a while back in anticipation of the PWC the guys from MegaSquirt were working on, but couldnt wait. Was very easy to hook up, I actually spliced to a plug that as off an old 02 sensor, so the normal power for the narrow band feeds the controller and the simulated signal goes right to the ECM. Put about 5000 miles on it so far and it works fine. You can vary the AF switchpoint to whatever you want (which is why I installed it as I am working with modified heads that should allow me to run leaner). You can also vary how quick the response time is and how fast it switches. I've been chasing an ignition problem (seems I may have had a bad plug and/or a small vac leak) so I haven't gotten to really play with the settings. I do notice that I can feel the computer try and hover around "stoich" on moderate accels, so I think I need to adjust some of the settings to get the simulated output to act more like a normal o2. For the price you cant beat it. Comes very well packaged, good documentation and is robust. My controller is zip tied onto a crossmember by the trans. I am in the midst of a dyno project right now and wil be buying one for AF monitoring on there. Hope this helps. Garrett Herning >From: Beau Blankenship >Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >To: >Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:14:40 -0600 > >The one from InnovativeMotorsports looks like a really good deal. Does it >truly come with the controller AND sensor? You say it broke? What happened >to it? Would they back their product? For $200, it looks like a good deal >for a wideband o2. > >Beau > >-----Original Message----- >From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On >Behalf >Of Jason M. >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:51 PM >To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors > >Haven't directly hooked up a wideband like that but have been learning >about > >the techedge wideband O2a. We are going to use one on this years Formula >sae car (student built mini-F1 style race car). Last year we used it on >our > >engine dyno (also student built) for tuning. There are lower option >versions but the one we have has a couple channels of data logging, >wideband > >O2, then a couple ways to output a narrow band signal. The narrow band >signal can be tuned to differnt fuel ratios. > >We run a performance electronics ecu, haven't looked into if it can take a >wideband output, at the very least it will have the "narrow band" output. > >Might check it out to get some ideas http://wbo2.com/2a0/default.htm > >Also see http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/products/lc1.php We used one >of > >these until it broke. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Lobert Family" >To: >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 1:13 PM >Subject: [Gmecm] Wide band 02 sensors > > >Has anyone tried to adapt the wide band sensors to a 93 Camaro/Firebird LT1 >configuration. I am also looking to tweak my setup and have found some tips >for a burner here. I am also looking for a good reading program so that i >can download what is in there now. I have the 727 waterprooofed version of >the 730. >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _________________________________________________________________ Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline From b.shaw at comcast.net Mon Nov 13 21:42:27 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete Message-ID: <45593B23.9030405@comcast.net> I need to do an air bag delete on a new GM vehicle. I suspect the ECM is looking for a particular resistance from the bag to prevent setting a code. Anyone know what that resistance is so I can substitute a resistor? Thanks, Bill From burntkat at sc.rr.com Mon Nov 13 22:03:55 2006 From: burntkat at sc.rr.com (burntkat) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:03:55 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete In-Reply-To: <45593B23.9030405@comcast.net> References: <45593B23.9030405@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4559402B.3060707@sc.rr.com> how inadvisable is getting a Varistor and fiddling with it till stuff works right? :D When in doubt, and lacking specs, hack the Physical Layer. Bill Shaw wrote: > I need to do an air bag delete on a new GM vehicle. I suspect the ECM > is looking for a particular resistance from the bag to prevent setting > a code. Anyone know what that resistance is so I can substitute a > resistor? > > Thanks, > > Bill > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From wopontour at hotmail.com Mon Nov 13 22:44:48 2006 From: wopontour at hotmail.com (WopOnTour) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:44:48 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete References: <45593B23.9030405@comcast.net> Message-ID: Try using 1.9-2.1 ohms as a "diagnostic" resistance to help isolate the fault BTW -It's against Federal law to tamper, alter and/or render inoperative a motor vehicle safety system on a car or truck intended to be operated on public roadway. WopOnTour ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Shaw" To: Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:42 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete >I need to do an air bag delete on a new GM vehicle. I suspect the ECM is >looking for a particular resistance from the bag to prevent setting a code. >Anyone know what that resistance is so I can substitute a resistor? > > Thanks, > > Bill > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From Rexdina at aol.com Mon Nov 13 23:32:46 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:32:46 EST Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete- Bill Message-ID: <531.186fde58.328aaefe@aol.com> When I rebuilt a '94 Eldorado 10 years ago, I needed to have the air bag code turned off. This is usually done by a dealer or you can buy a Kent-Moore tool at around $300. Since the air bags represented just a resistance, I worked with a couple of guys in Australia, England, and Wyoming. We figured out for that '94 Cadillac Eldorado, the whole air bag system trouble light could be turned off by substiting a 3 ohm resistor. Fords were 2 ohms as I recall. About 50 cents compared to a lousy dealership or $300! From OneOccy at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 00:14:38 2006 From: OneOccy at hotmail.com (Occy) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:14:38 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete References: <45593B23.9030405@comcast.net> Message-ID: If I remember correctly Federal laws have to be enforced by the feds not the local jokal. But here is an even bigger problem is that in theory ATF is in charge of air bags as use an explosive charge to activate. Playing explosive charges in the world now a day makes you a terrorist if your not licensed to use, work or play with explosives. I don't make the rules. ----- Original Message ----- From: "WopOnTour" > Try using 1.9-2.1 ohms as a "diagnostic" resistance to help isolate the > fault > BTW -It's against Federal law to tamper, alter and/or render inoperative a > motor vehicle safety system on a car or truck intended to be operated on > public roadway. > > WopOnTour > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Shaw" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:42 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete > > > >I need to do an air bag delete on a new GM vehicle. I suspect the ECM is > >looking for a particular resistance from the bag to prevent setting a > >code. > >Anyone know what that resistance is so I can substitute a resistor? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From b.shaw at comcast.net Tue Nov 14 07:22:17 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:22:17 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete In-Reply-To: <4559402B.3060707@sc.rr.com> References: <45593B23.9030405@comcast.net> <4559402B.3060707@sc.rr.com> Message-ID: <4559C309.8090803@comcast.net> Nothing wrong with it at all. That was my fall back plan, but it looks like I've got some pointers into the right range. Thanks, Bill burntkat wrote: > how inadvisable is getting a Varistor and fiddling with it till stuff > works right? :D > > When in doubt, and lacking specs, hack the Physical Layer. > > Bill Shaw wrote: >> I need to do an air bag delete on a new GM vehicle. I suspect the >> ECM is looking for a particular resistance from the bag to prevent >> setting a code. Anyone know what that resistance is so I can >> substitute a resistor? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From b.shaw at comcast.net Tue Nov 14 07:28:05 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:28:05 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete In-Reply-To: References: <45593B23.9030405@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4559C465.1050604@comcast.net> Nice, this is what I was hoping to find. No worries about the feds, they're OK with what I'm doing :-) BTW - it's also a federal offense to mess with the emissions system on a car or truck intended to be operated on public roadway. Nobody here would do THAT, would they? :-) :-) :-) Thanks again guys, Bill WopOnTour wrote: > Try using 1.9-2.1 ohms as a "diagnostic" resistance to help isolate > the fault > BTW -It's against Federal law to tamper, alter and/or render > inoperative a motor vehicle safety system on a car or truck intended > to be operated on public roadway. > > WopOnTour > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Shaw" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:42 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete > > Rexdina at aol.com wrote: >> When I rebuilt a '94 Eldorado 10 years ago, I needed to have the air bag >> code turned off. This is usually done by a dealer or you can buy a Kent-Moore >> tool at around $300. Since the air bags represented just a resistance, I worked >> with a couple of guys in Australia, England, and Wyoming. We figured out for >> that '94 Cadillac Eldorado, the whole air bag system trouble light could be >> turned off by substiting a 3 ohm resistor. Fords were 2 ohms as I recall. >> About 50 cents compared to a lousy dealership or $300! >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> I need to do an air bag delete on a new GM vehicle. I suspect the >> ECM is looking for a particular resistance from the bag to prevent >> setting a code. Anyone know what that resistance is so I can >> substitute a resistor? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 15 20:45:59 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:45:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Air bag delete Message-ID: <131978.3408.qm@web60818.mail.yahoo.com> The question is why are you trying to turn it off? You could always unplug the airbags and take the light out of the dash. Having taken multiple classes on airbag service I know they are rather touchy why "fiddled with." One mistake with a test light and they go off. And if a 2 ohm resistor is put in place of an airbag and you get in an accident when the air bag is supposed to go off you could get a nice fire in the dash. Unless the airbag itself is deployed, parts are rather inexpensive. If it were mine I'd just fix the problem and have it functional. Expecially since an airbag inflated to 7psi feels better in the face than a steering wheel. (Better view: get hit in the face with a basketball or a steel bar. You choose) --------------------------------- Sponsored Link $200,000 mortgage for $660/mo - 30/15 yr fixed, reduce debt, home equity - Click now for info From b.shaw at comcast.net Wed Nov 15 23:01:47 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:01:47 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Air bag delete In-Reply-To: <131978.3408.qm@web60818.mail.yahoo.com> References: <131978.3408.qm@web60818.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <455BF0BB.6050703@comcast.net> We put a Ricaro in in place of the stock seat with a side airbag. No big deal, the side airbag was an option. 2.2 ohms worked fine, and the idiot light still works for the other airbags. Thanks for all the input guys. Bill Andrew Gibson wrote: > The question is why are you trying to turn it off? You could always unplug the airbags and take the light out of the dash. Having taken multiple classes on airbag service I know they are rather touchy why "fiddled with." One mistake with a test light and they go off. And if a 2 ohm resistor is put in place of an airbag and you get in an accident when the air bag is supposed to go off you could get a nice fire in the dash. > > Unless the airbag itself is deployed, parts are rather inexpensive. If it were mine I'd just fix the problem and have it functional. Expecially since an airbag inflated to 7psi feels better in the face than a steering wheel. (Better view: get hit in the face with a basketball or a steel bar. You choose) > > > --------------------------------- > Sponsored Link > > $200,000 mortgage for $660/mo - 30/15 yr fixed, reduce debt, home equity - Click now for info > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Wed Nov 15 23:14:00 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:14:00 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete Message-ID: > BTW - it's also a federal offense to mess with the emissions > system on a car or truck intended to be operated on public > roadway. Nobody here would do THAT, would they? :-) :-) :-) The ideas discussed here are strictly theory. None of you are actually doing the things you talk about, right? --steve From lwester at lincsat.com Thu Nov 16 09:45:29 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:45:29 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Air bag delete References: <131978.3408.qm@web60818.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005701c70996$42890990$0200a8c0@WESTER2> I don't like seatbelts, either--but I'm not going to unbolt them from my vehicle. Lyndon > The question is why are you trying to turn it off? You could always unplug > the airbags and take the light out of the dash. Having taken multiple > classes on airbag service I know they are rather touchy why "fiddled > with." One mistake with a test light and they go off. And if a 2 ohm > resistor is put in place of an airbag and you get in an accident when the > air bag is supposed to go off you could get a nice fire in the dash. > > Unless the airbag itself is deployed, parts are rather inexpensive. If it > were mine I'd just fix the problem and have it functional. Expecially > since an airbag inflated to 7psi feels better in the face than a steering > wheel. (Better view: get hit in the face with a basketball or a steel bar. > You choose) From mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net Thu Nov 16 14:16:10 2006 From: mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net (Scott Pearson) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:16:10 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete References: Message-ID: <093e01c709bc$117dd7b0$6601a8c0@DELL3G> >> BTW - it's also a federal offense to mess with the emissions >> system on a car or truck intended to be operated on public >> roadway. Nobody here would do THAT, would they? :-) :-) :-) > > The ideas discussed here are strictly theory. None of you are actually > doing the things you talk about, right? > > --steve Exactly. Those gatherings in Ohio are just figments of our imaginations... Scott From Rexdina at aol.com Thu Nov 16 15:09:44 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:09:44 EST Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Air bag delete Message-ID: <530.116604b3.328e2d98@aol.com> Gentleman, Have you considered the possibility the individual asking might be putting a stock wiring harness, ecm, and efi into an older car and just wants to disable the air bag function because he it shows as a fault on his transplanted, newer stock dash? Harry From Rexdina at aol.com Thu Nov 16 15:22:46 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:22:46 EST Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete Message-ID: <277.15f1aff6.328e30a6@aol.com> When I used the 3 ohm resistor to turn off my air bag lights, I was doing it to check the system as I had just installed the whole system in another vehicle. All of the sensors, the two airbags and all of the wiring. The substituted resistor was just to see if the system had any problems. You can use an expensive Kent-Moore tool, which does exactly the same thing, or you can use your brain and 50 cents to do it. This forum is basically about automotive electronics and there's more than one way to accomplish an electronic task. Why assume the guy was doing something wrong? All we need on this board are more "gotta take it to a dealer minded individuals"! The seat replacement was a completely valid reason for asking the question in my humble opinion. Harry From lwester at lincsat.com Thu Nov 16 18:44:21 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:44:21 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Air bag delete References: <093e01c709bc$117dd7b0$6601a8c0@DELL3G> Message-ID: <007d01c709e1$8aebf6c0$0200a8c0@WESTER2> It's been so long, I can't remember what we did ! Lyndon... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Pearson" To: Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Air bag delete >>> BTW - it's also a federal offense to mess with the emissions >>> system on a car or truck intended to be operated on public >>> roadway. Nobody here would do THAT, would they? :-) :-) :-) >> >> The ideas discussed here are strictly theory. None of you are actually >> doing the things you talk about, right? >> >> --steve > > Exactly. Those gatherings in Ohio are just figments of our > imaginations... > > Scott > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From trekfan at globalco.net Sun Nov 19 14:17:17 2006 From: trekfan at globalco.net (trekfan) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:17:17 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] engine convresion Message-ID: I?ve been reading this list for some time now, so here goes. The vehicle I own is a 1992 Lumina APV(van) with the 3.1L Vin ?D? engine and the 3T40 automatic transaxle. The intake is TBI speed density it also has a distributor. The only trans control I see is for the TCC. What I would like to know is does anyone know of a multi-port MAF conversion or any ideas on what parts (intake head, ECM etc) to build one from scratch. Thanks for any help at all John From charles at taildragger.info Sun Nov 19 15:50:52 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:50:52 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm running a TBI conversion on a Chevy 350. I just replaced the tank and sending unit, and now I can't get the engine to start. The situation is that for the conversion I used an in-line electric fuel pump, placed low on the frame halfway between the truck and engine. I never had a problem before, but right now it seems like the pump won't prime. I don't really understand, since I've got it to where it self siphons from the tank at the point where it enters the pump (actually at the fuel filter right in front of the pump)- I used a shop-vac to prime the lines. I opened the return line though, and no fuel is coming out during the key-on prime or during cranking. The pump is a Master E2000, which I believe is the boost pump in a Ford truck application, where it would also have a lower pressure in-tank pump. Any ideas why this thing doesn't seem to pump gas anymore? Suggestions for a self priming in-line pump? I believe there is a Carter pump available from Summit that is self priming, but it's kinda steep at $140. Anything self priming from Autozone? Thanks for any help. From frankmccracken at shaw.ca Sun Nov 19 16:16:55 2006 From: frankmccracken at shaw.ca (Frank McCracken) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:16:55 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI References: <0J8Z00ID2ZCR2QH0@l-daemon> Message-ID: <00e501c70c28$6c5196e0$6501a8c0@flamingo> I have used this same pump for my TBI conversion on my sb400 chev for 2 years, summers only. I understand it is capable of 90psi Mine is now a gravity feed. Before I had to 'suck' prime it. Fun. It must be closer to the tank as it is a 'push' not suck type pump. --- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McDowell" To: Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:50 PM Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > I'm running a TBI conversion on a Chevy 350. I just replaced the tank and > sending unit, and now I can't get the engine to start. The situation is > that for the conversion I used an in-line electric fuel pump, placed low on > the frame halfway between the truck and engine. I never had a problem > before, but right now it seems like the pump won't prime. I don't really > understand, since I've got it to where it self siphons from the tank at the > point where it enters the pump (actually at the fuel filter right in front > of the pump)- I used a shop-vac to prime the lines. I opened the return > line though, and no fuel is coming out during the key-on prime or during > cranking. > > The pump is a Master E2000, which I believe is the boost pump in a Ford > truck application, where it would also have a lower pressure in-tank pump. > > Any ideas why this thing doesn't seem to pump gas anymore? Suggestions for > a self priming in-line pump? I believe there is a Carter pump available from > Summit that is self priming, but it's kinda steep at $140. Anything self > priming from Autozone? > > Thanks for any help. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 11/18/2006 > > From jay at vessels-clan.com Sun Nov 19 19:21:13 2006 From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] engine convresion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45610309.9080602@vessels-clan.com> Hi there! This is an iron-head V6/60, so you're in luck. There's no kit around, but the iron-head 3.1 with a distributor was used in the early-90s Camaro and Firebird with MPI. There's your donor car. The older F-body cars had a 2.8V6 MPI system that would also work. Also, some 1985-1986 2.8V6 FWD cars had iron heads and MPI and a distributor, and I think all V6 Fieros fit that bill as well. Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) trekfan wrote: > I've been reading this list for some time now, so here goes. > The vehicle I own is a 1992 Lumina APV(van) with the 3.1L Vin "D" engine and > the 3T40 automatic transaxle. The intake is TBI speed density it also has a > distributor. The only trans control I see is for the TCC. What I would like > to know is does anyone know of a multi-port MAF conversion or any ideas on > what parts (intake head, ECM...etc) to build one from scratch. Thanks for any > help at all > > John From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Sun Nov 19 20:40:10 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:40:10 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Charles McDowell > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 3:51 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > I'm running a TBI conversion on a Chevy 350. I just replaced > the tank and sending unit, and now I can't get the engine to > start. The situation is that for the conversion I used an > in-line electric fuel pump, placed low on the frame halfway > between the truck and engine. I never had a problem before, > but right now it seems like the pump won't prime. I don't > really understand, since I've got it to where it self siphons > from the tank at the point where it enters the pump (actually > at the fuel filter right in front of the pump)- I used a I think that's your problem, the fuel filter before the pump. Too hard to suck fuel through. --steve From charles at taildragger.info Sun Nov 19 21:19:23 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:19:23 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Don't I need that filter though? Otherwise I'd have no filter at all. I could put a high pressure one after, but I'd like to protect the pump. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Steve Ravet Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:40 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Charles McDowell > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 3:51 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > I'm running a TBI conversion on a Chevy 350. I just replaced the tank > and sending unit, and now I can't get the engine to start. The > situation is that for the conversion I used an in-line electric fuel > pump, placed low on the frame halfway between the truck and engine. I > never had a problem before, but right now it seems like the pump won't > prime. I don't really understand, since I've got it to where it self > siphons from the tank at the point where it enters the pump (actually > at the fuel filter right in front of the pump)- I used a I think that's your problem, the fuel filter before the pump. Too hard to suck fuel through. --steve _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From bcroe at juno.com Sun Nov 19 21:37:59 2006 From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:37:59 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI Message-ID: <20061119.213759.1096.0.bcroe@juno.com> I've seen a very coarse filter (blocks big stuff) to protect the pump, then a fine filter after the pump. Bruce Roe 19 Nov 06 "Charles McDowell" writes: > Don't I need that filter though? Otherwise I'd have no filter at > all. I > could put a high pressure one after, but I'd like to protect the > pump. From charles at taildragger.info Sun Nov 19 22:21:54 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:21:54 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <20061119.213759.1096.0.bcroe@juno.com> Message-ID: Right now I just have a generic plastic purolator filter. What kind of coarse filter are you talking about? I guess I wasn't considering that there was any considerable restriction in the filter. The thing about the filter though, is that it's kind of big and always has air in it, which might cause trouble for a non-self priming pump. I ordered a Carter P5001, hopefully it will work better. Having to siphon gas from the tank to get it primed is not acceptable to me. I just don't understand why it worked before and doesn't anymore (since I replaced the tank). -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of bcroe at juno.com Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 9:38 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI I've seen a very coarse filter (blocks big stuff) to protect the pump, then a fine filter after the pump. Bruce Roe 19 Nov 06 "Charles McDowell" writes: > Don't I need that filter though? Otherwise I'd have no filter at all. > I could put a high pressure one after, but I'd like to protect the > pump. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From frankmccracken at shaw.ca Sun Nov 19 23:02:29 2006 From: frankmccracken at shaw.ca (Frank McCracken) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:02:29 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI References: <0J90003PVEKEBA00@l-daemon> Message-ID: <001201c70c61$14b8e0d0$6501a8c0@flamingo> Yes, It is recomended to have a filter before the pump and a high press filter after the pump. I have both and it works fine. Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McDowell" To: Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 7:19 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > Don't I need that filter though? Otherwise I'd have no filter at all. I > could put a high pressure one after, but I'd like to protect the pump. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf > Of Steve Ravet > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:40 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Charles McDowell > > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 3:51 PM > > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > > > I'm running a TBI conversion on a Chevy 350. I just replaced the tank > > and sending unit, and now I can't get the engine to start. The > > situation is that for the conversion I used an in-line electric fuel > > pump, placed low on the frame halfway between the truck and engine. I > > never had a problem before, but right now it seems like the pump won't > > prime. I don't really understand, since I've got it to where it self > > siphons from the tank at the point where it enters the pump (actually > > at the fuel filter right in front of the pump)- I used a > > I think that's your problem, the fuel filter before the pump. Too hard to > suck fuel through. > > --steve > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 11/18/2006 > From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Sun Nov 19 23:29:55 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:29:55 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI Message-ID: > > Don't I need that filter though? Otherwise I'd have no > filter at all. I > > could put a high pressure one after, but I'd like to > protect the pump. The factory setup with an in tank pump only uses a sock filter. Not sure what factory external pumps use, ie Ford trucks. Anyone know? --steve From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Sun Nov 19 23:41:57 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:41:57 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:51 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > Steve, > > Definitely check the crystal and capacitor areas. Those are > ceramics you are using for the 18pF set? Check that it's set > up for 18pf on the xtal desired capacitance? The crystal is 20 MHz 18pf according to the digikey datasheet. They're ceramic caps. I don't know what the problem with the crystal circuit is, but I removed it and used a 4 MHz OSC instead, changing the firmware accordingly, and now it works. I tried with and without the load resistor (on the crystal) but no change. The demo board has an external load resistor but the data sheet shows a resistor internal to the part. I decided that I want USB power after all so I can reflash the PIC without external power. You mentioned the circuit you use but I can't find the note now. What is it? Craig, what do you use for schematic capture and PCB layout? Maybe there'll be a USB <-> VPW project working by Christmas now... thanks for the suggestions everyone, --steve From dennysweet at charter.net Mon Nov 20 07:07:22 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 05:07:22 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI References: Message-ID: <001201c70ca4$d12a03f0$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> I went to a junk yard and picked up a filter from a late 80's ford thunderbird and used that. When you had the tank down why didnt you just put in a pump for TBI? The filter has to go after the pump. It has to have 9psi to work on a TBI system. From charles at taildragger.info Mon Nov 20 08:00:59 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:00:59 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <001201c70ca4$d12a03f0$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Message-ID: In hindsight I should have because of this. I've never had trouble before, and wasn't up for the hassle and expense of running high pressure lines all over the place. My existing setup uses rubber hose from the tank to the pump. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Denny Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 7:07 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI I went to a junk yard and picked up a filter from a late 80's ford thunderbird and used that. When you had the tank down why didnt you just put in a pump for TBI? The filter has to go after the pump. It has to have 9psi to work on a TBI system. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From davida1 at hiwaay.net Mon Nov 20 09:04:54 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:04:54 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI References: <20061119.213759.1096.0.bcroe@juno.com> Message-ID: <005b01c70cb5$4a7b58c0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> It's really important to have a strainer ahead of the pump. All it takes is ONE PARTICLE of crap to lock-up the pump permanently. Some pumps have a removable inlet fitting which is _just the right size_ to accept a faucet aerator screen. These are a fine enough mesh to protect the pump, but not too fine to clog up. It is just about the same mesh as the factory in-tank sock filter. I've used 3 pumps same as the ones used on a Ford Ranger, all have the faucet screen and never has there been a problem. Of course after the pump there is the "stock" GM inline EFI filter. David ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 9:37 PM Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > I've seen a very coarse filter (blocks big stuff) to > protect the pump, then a fine filter after the pump. > > Bruce Roe > > 19 Nov 06 "Charles McDowell" writes: >> Don't I need that filter though? Otherwise I'd have no filter at >> all. I >> could put a high pressure one after, but I'd like to protect the >> pump. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From charles at taildragger.info Mon Nov 20 09:37:15 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:37:15 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <005b01c70cb5$4a7b58c0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Message-ID: Hmm. At least on my truck, the original carb sending unit has a "sock" filter anyway. Sounds like you are advocating removal of the in-line pre-pump filter and the installation of a high pressure filter after? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of David Allen Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 9:05 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI It's really important to have a strainer ahead of the pump. All it takes is ONE PARTICLE of crap to lock-up the pump permanently. Some pumps have a removable inlet fitting which is _just the right size_ to accept a faucet aerator screen. These are a fine enough mesh to protect the pump, but not too fine to clog up. It is just about the same mesh as the factory in-tank sock filter. I've used 3 pumps same as the ones used on a Ford Ranger, all have the faucet screen and never has there been a problem. Of course after the pump there is the "stock" GM inline EFI filter. David ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 9:37 PM Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > I've seen a very coarse filter (blocks big stuff) to > protect the pump, then a fine filter after the pump. > > Bruce Roe > > 19 Nov 06 "Charles McDowell" writes: >> Don't I need that filter though? Otherwise I'd have no filter at >> all. I >> could put a high pressure one after, but I'd like to protect the >> pump. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From tsm1 at tmcom.com Mon Nov 20 09:50:55 2006 From: tsm1 at tmcom.com (Tom Mandera) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:50:55 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <200611200409.VAA03819@main.tmcom.com> References: <200611200409.VAA03819@main.tmcom.com> Message-ID: <4561CEDF.5060304@tmcom.com> Charles McDowell wrote: > Right now I just have a generic plastic purolator filter. What kind of > coarse filter are you talking about? > > I guess I wasn't considering that there was any considerable restriction in > the filter. The thing about the filter though, is that it's kind of big and > always has air in it, which might cause trouble for a non-self priming pump. > I've always used the inline filter before the pump as a poor man's surge tank / to help hold fuel near the pump so I wouldn't have to manually prime it. The pump pumps the fuel in the filter first, and that causes a vacuum siphoning from the tank.. How much air is in your filter? You didn't pinch the fuel line to the tank, or put in a plugged up fuel pickup, did you? ;) -Tom From charles at taildragger.info Mon Nov 20 10:07:30 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:07:30 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <4561CEDF.5060304@tmcom.com> Message-ID: The filter is about half air. It's about 1.5 inches in diameter, so I don't know if it's realistic to expect it to be solid with gas. If I pull the line at the filter input, gas will pour out continuously from siphoning, so the lines seem clear. I guess they could be partially kinked, but I sure don't think so. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Tom Mandera Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 9:51 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI Charles McDowell wrote: > Right now I just have a generic plastic purolator filter. What kind > of coarse filter are you talking about? > > I guess I wasn't considering that there was any considerable > restriction in the filter. The thing about the filter though, is that > it's kind of big and always has air in it, which might cause trouble for a non-self priming pump. > I've always used the inline filter before the pump as a poor man's surge tank / to help hold fuel near the pump so I wouldn't have to manually prime it. The pump pumps the fuel in the filter first, and that causes a vacuum siphoning from the tank.. How much air is in your filter? You didn't pinch the fuel line to the tank, or put in a plugged up fuel pickup, did you? ;) -Tom _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 20 10:08:50 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:08:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI Message-ID: <884929.8299.qm@web60818.mail.yahoo.com> >The factory setup with an in tank pump only uses a sock filter. Not >sure what factory external pumps use, ie Ford trucks. Anyone know? Ford trucks us a low pressure high volume pump in the tank for priming purposes. This pump can pump air without a problem and uses a sock filter on the bottom of the tank. On the frame some models use an sir/fuel sperator to prevent air from getting to the boost pump. Next is the boost pump. It will NOT self prime. Then is the fuel filter, then fuel rails, etc. If the in tank pump fails the system will still work until you get an air bubble from low on gas or opening the fuel lines. Then you have a nightmare. --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate - Click now to apply From dennysweet at charter.net Mon Nov 20 20:06:43 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:06:43 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI References: <884929.8299.qm@web60818.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000e01c70d11$b0f77140$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> I will almost bet you that do not have a return line to the tank! And if you do it is plugged. From charles at taildragger.info Mon Nov 20 18:43:17 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:43:17 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <000e01c70d11$b0f77140$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Message-ID: Sure I do. This was a functioning system prior to the gas tank replacement. I also opened the return line during debug and saw no fuel coming out while the pump was running. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Denny Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:07 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI I will almost bet you that do not have a return line to the tank! And if you do it is plugged. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From doug at chaserace.com Tue Nov 21 00:50:43 2006 From: doug at chaserace.com (Doug Chase) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:50:43 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers In-Reply-To: <20061112.185632.444.0.bcroe@juno.com> Message-ID: <083001c70d39$5efec3c0$2f01a8c0@desk> It definitely makes sense to me that electronics could be subject to damage if the proper precuations aren't taken. Grounding to the chassis while welding on the exhaust, for example, could have an O2 sensor as a casualty. It also makes sense that completely removing components will protect them from being damaged by things I haven't thought of. What does NOT make sense is to why disconnecting the battery, a common precaution I've heard, would protect anything. It seems to me that it might be even better leaving it in. At least that way you have a very large capacitor to protect against voltage spikes on the +12 side of things. Thoughts? Doug Chase www.chaserace.com 425-269-5636 -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of bcroe at juno.com Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:05 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers I second that. Completely disconnect delicate electronics before welding. A car isn't one mass of metal. Many parts are isolated by rubber,etc. So things like ground straps and exhaust pipes may be taking big currents, which aren't so predictable. Not only the resistance is a factor, but the arcing weld current will respond to inductance in the circuit. If the original ground system isn't in perfect condition, currents have been known to find their way through things like shift cables. Do tie your welding ground to the piece of metal being welded, reasonably close to the weld. If there are 2 pieces, tie them electrically together. Bruce Roe 12 Nov 2006 Rexdina at aol.com writes: > The fact is that while electricity does seek the path of least > resistance, not all of the current is going to necessarily do that. > Some of it can go through any of the numerous paths to ground. Best to > disconnect or entirely remove potential sensitive electronic > components. Yes, it's a hassle, but so is trying to find out what is > "cooked" when you do ruin one. And it can get expensive. > Harry _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From krawczuk at dodo.com.au Tue Nov 21 04:20:02 2006 From: krawczuk at dodo.com.au (mark krawczuk) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:50:02 +1030 Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers References: <083001c70d39$5efec3c0$2f01a8c0@desk> Message-ID: <001e01c70d56$9c8997c0$d8ba1bcb@markzu35x5eu9m> hi, i `ve done welding on exhausts and chassis on vehicles fitted with computers and havent removed them. i `ve kept the earth clamp very close to where i`m welding, i.e if welding on teh exhaust , dont put the earth clamp on the chassis, . mark k ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Chase" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:20 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers > It definitely makes sense to me that electronics could be subject to > damage > if the proper precuations aren't taken. Grounding to the chassis while > welding on the exhaust, for example, could have an O2 sensor as a > casualty. > > It also makes sense that completely removing components will protect them > from being damaged by things I haven't thought of. > > What does NOT make sense is to why disconnecting the battery, a common > precaution I've heard, would protect anything. It seems to me that it > might > be even better leaving it in. At least that way you have a very large > capacitor to protect against voltage spikes on the +12 side of things. > Thoughts? > > Doug Chase > www.chaserace.com > 425-269-5636 > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On > Behalf > Of bcroe at juno.com > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:05 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers > > I second that. Completely disconnect delicate electronics before welding. > A car isn't one mass of metal. Many parts are isolated by rubber,etc. So > things like ground straps and exhaust pipes may be taking big currents, > which aren't so predictable. Not only the resistance is a factor, but the > arcing weld current will respond to inductance in the circuit. If the > original ground system isn't in perfect condition, currents have been > known > to find their way through things like shift cables. > > Do tie your welding ground to the piece of metal being welded, reasonably > close to the weld. If there are 2 pieces, tie them electrically together. > > Bruce Roe > > 12 Nov 2006 Rexdina at aol.com writes: >> The fact is that while electricity does seek the path of least >> resistance, not all of the current is going to necessarily do that. >> Some of it can go through any of the numerous paths to ground. Best to >> disconnect or entirely remove potential sensitive electronic >> components. Yes, it's a hassle, but so is trying to find out what is >> "cooked" when you do ruin one. And it can get expensive. >> Harry > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From red83brick at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 08:10:14 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:10:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers In-Reply-To: <001e01c70d56$9c8997c0$d8ba1bcb@markzu35x5eu9m> Message-ID: <798396.81981.qm@web61013.mail.yahoo.com> It is so simple to unplug the 1, 2, 3, or 4 oxygen sensors that are in most cars before striking up the arc. That could save high dollar sensors and a PCM. I always unplug the sensors before driving to a muffler shop and handing over the keys. mark krawczuk wrote: hi, i `ve done welding on exhausts and chassis on vehicles fitted with computers and havent removed them. i `ve kept the earth clamp very close to where i`m welding, i.e if welding on teh exhaust , dont put the earth clamp on the chassis, . mark k ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Chase" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:20 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers > It definitely makes sense to me that electronics could be subject to > damage > if the proper precuations aren't taken. Grounding to the chassis while > welding on the exhaust, for example, could have an O2 sensor as a > casualty. > > It also makes sense that completely removing components will protect them > from being damaged by things I haven't thought of. > > What does NOT make sense is to why disconnecting the battery, a common > precaution I've heard, would protect anything. It seems to me that it > might > be even better leaving it in. At least that way you have a very large > capacitor to protect against voltage spikes on the +12 side of things. > Thoughts? > > Doug Chase > www.chaserace.com > 425-269-5636 > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On > Behalf > Of bcroe at juno.com > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:05 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers > > I second that. Completely disconnect delicate electronics before welding. > A car isn't one mass of metal. Many parts are isolated by rubber,etc. So > things like ground straps and exhaust pipes may be taking big currents, > which aren't so predictable. Not only the resistance is a factor, but the > arcing weld current will respond to inductance in the circuit. If the > original ground system isn't in perfect condition, currents have been > known > to find their way through things like shift cables. > > Do tie your welding ground to the piece of metal being welded, reasonably > close to the weld. If there are 2 pieces, tie them electrically together. > > Bruce Roe > > 12 Nov 2006 Rexdina at aol.com writes: >> The fact is that while electricity does seek the path of least >> resistance, not all of the current is going to necessarily do that. >> Some of it can go through any of the numerous paths to ground. Best to >> disconnect or entirely remove potential sensitive electronic >> components. Yes, it's a hassle, but so is trying to find out what is >> "cooked" when you do ruin one. And it can get expensive. >> Harry > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Loan for $1399/mo - Calculate new house payment From bcroe at juno.com Tue Nov 21 16:50:06 2006 From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:50:06 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers Message-ID: <20061121.174114.1160.8.bcroe@juno.com> I would not remove the battery for welding. That is a precaution when working on/around wiring. Bruce Roe 20 Nov 2006 "Doug Chase" writes: > It definitely makes sense to me that electronics could be subject to > damage > if the proper precuations aren't taken. Grounding to the chassis > while > welding on the exhaust, for example, could have an O2 sensor as a > casualty. > > It also makes sense that completely removing components will protect > them > from being damaged by things I haven't thought of. > > What does NOT make sense is to why disconnecting the battery, a > common > precaution I've heard, would protect anything. It seems to me that > it might > be even better leaving it in. At least that way you have a very > large > capacitor to protect against voltage spikes on the +12 side of > things. > Thoughts? > > Doug Chase > www.chaserace.com > 425-269-5636 > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] > On Behalf > Of bcroe at juno.com > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:05 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers > > I second that. Completely disconnect delicate electronics before > welding. > A car isn't one mass of metal. Many parts are isolated by > rubber,etc. So > things like ground straps and exhaust pipes may be taking big > currents, > which aren't so predictable. Not only the resistance is a factor, > but the > arcing weld current will respond to inductance in the circuit. If > the > original ground system isn't in perfect condition, currents have > been known > to find their way through things like shift cables. > > Do tie your welding ground to the piece of metal being welded, > reasonably > close to the weld. If there are 2 pieces, tie them electrically > together. > > Bruce Roe From Rexdina at aol.com Tue Nov 21 17:44:13 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:44:13 EST Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers Message-ID: Doug, I think your thinking on the battery disconnected/not disconnected is well founded. However, and there's always a however in electronics, some electric welders might be used in the negative polarity mode. That might explain what you've been told. Wish I could remember all the electronics I've forgotten. Then, maybe I could give you a more complete answer. Harry From davida1 at hiwaay.net Tue Nov 21 17:52:01 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:52:01 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] MAP Sensor V to KPa map Message-ID: <01bb01c70dc8$1a3c2cc0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Hey does a MAP sensor have a linear relationship between the sensor signal and the pressure on the sensor? How can I convert MAP volts on a 2-bar sensor to a real-world KPa display? Thanks! David From charles at taildragger.info Tue Nov 21 20:04:09 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:04:09 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] EBL? In-Reply-To: <01bb01c70dc8$1a3c2cc0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Message-ID: Anyone have personal experience with EBL? http://www.dynamicefi.com/ I'm not tuning for performance or anything, so I'm not sure if this is for me, but it's kind of appealing to think of having "supported" software (not sure how much support is included in the purchase). From meszkos at sbcglobal.net Tue Nov 21 20:15:17 2006 From: meszkos at sbcglobal.net (william meszko) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:15:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061122021517.4252.qmail@web80712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Doug, To be safe, turn off ign., safer yet, disconnect negative battery cable. If worried about the loss of capacitance the battery provides, connect the negative terminal just removed from the battery to the positive terminal with a clip lead. Reasoning: Small glitches which don't have enough energy to destroy electronics in themselves can start an avalanche of sorts, with the almost unlimited energy available from the battery finishing the job. Tantalum capacitors fail explosively by this mechanism. Also any integrated circuit which has any pin raised more than .7 volts above the supply pin potential, or lowered .7 volts below the ground pin potential is at risk for latch-up. A latched-up IC is in a state of attempting to crow-bar its supply to ground, which is bad for both the supply and the IC. Of course, disconnecting the battery won't save the wiring harness if one tries to use the O2 sensor's ground lead to return welding current from the exhaust system to the car body, so the other suggestions you've received are even more important, IMHO. Bill Meszko Fort Worth Rexdina at aol.com wrote: Doug, I think your thinking on the battery disconnected/not disconnected is well founded. However, and there's always a however in electronics, some electric welders might be used in the negative polarity mode. That might explain what you've been told. Wish I could remember all the electronics I've forgotten. Then, maybe I could give you a more complete answer. Harry _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From red83brick at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 22:11:27 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:11:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] EBL? Message-ID: <506716.53415.qm@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> It is a very good setup, even for stock to stockish engines. I have been running one since it was in its Beta days. Charles McDowell wrote: Anyone have personal experience with EBL? http://www.dynamicefi.com/ I'm not tuning for performance or anything, so I'm not sure if this is for me, but it's kind of appealing to think of having "supported" software (not sure how much support is included in the purchase). _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Get an Online or Campus degree - Associate's, Bachelor's, or Master's -in less than one year. From charles at taildragger.info Tue Nov 21 22:30:50 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:30:50 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] EBL? In-Reply-To: <506716.53415.qm@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Do you know, is it all new code, or just tweaked GM code? How good is the documentation? Does the hardware upgrade move you away from UV-EPROMs to EEPROMs? Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Chris Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:11 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] EBL? It is a very good setup, even for stock to stockish engines. I have been running one since it was in its Beta days. Charles McDowell wrote: Anyone have personal experience with EBL? http://www.dynamicefi.com/ I'm not tuning for performance or anything, so I'm not sure if this is for me, but it's kind of appealing to think of having "supported" software (not sure how much support is included in the purchase). _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Get an Online or Campus degree - Associate's, Bachelor's, or Master's -in less than one year. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From red83brick at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 22:42:32 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:42:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] EBL? Message-ID: <318667.83729.qm@web61025.mail.yahoo.com> Yes the code is all new. I am willing to bet that it has some hold over techniques used by GM. Somethings are just more simple to leave alone. On the otherhand it is not some patched together wreck either. When you get it dialed in, the engine will run MUCH better on the EBL than on the stock TBI code. The datalogging support is faster than the 8192 Baud rate PCMs that came after the old 160 baud units. It has its own datalogging program which also offers VE correction, Fuel Economy display, Performance analysis, etc. The hardware upgrad gets you away from the UV erase proms. I use a Moates Burn1, but others have had success with Emulation for instant chip changes while the engine is running. I choose not to go that route as a EEPROM takes about 1 minute to remove, insert into the Burn1, Erase, Blank check, Flash, Verify, and put back into the ECM. I wanted to link to some threads about the EBL on Thirdgen.org (mainly the ones I participated in), but the site is currently down. Charles McDowell wrote: Do you know, is it all new code, or just tweaked GM code? How good is the documentation? Does the hardware upgrade move you away from UV-EPROMs to EEPROMs? Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Chris Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:11 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] EBL? It is a very good setup, even for stock to stockish engines. I have been running one since it was in its Beta days. Charles McDowell wrote: Anyone have personal experience with EBL? http://www.dynamicefi.com/ I'm not tuning for performance or anything, so I'm not sure if this is for me, but it's kind of appealing to think of having "supported" software (not sure how much support is included in the purchase). _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Get an Online or Campus degree - Associate's, Bachelor's, or Master's -in less than one year. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Want a degree but can't afford to quit? Online degrees from top schools - in as fast as 1 year From red83brick at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 22:43:11 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:43:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] EBL? Message-ID: <20061122044311.72015.qmail@web61022.mail.yahoo.com> Yes the code is all new. I am willing to bet that it has some hold over techniques used by GM. Somethings are just more simple to leave alone. On the otherhand it is not some patched together wreck either. When you get it dialed in, the engine will run MUCH better on the EBL than on the stock TBI code. The datalogging support is faster than the 8192 Baud rate PCMs that came after the old 160 baud units. It has its own datalogging program which also offers VE correction, Fuel Economy display, Performance analysis, etc. The hardware upgrad gets you away from the UV erase proms. I use a Moates Burn1, but others have had success with Emulation for instant chip changes while the engine is running. I choose not to go that route as a EEPROM takes about 1 minute to remove, insert into the Burn1, Erase, Blank check, Flash, Verify, and put back into the ECM. I wanted to link to some threads about the EBL on Thirdgen.org (mainly the ones I participated in), but the site is currently down. Charles McDowell wrote: Do you know, is it all new code, or just tweaked GM code? How good is the documentation? Does the hardware upgrade move you away from UV-EPROMs to EEPROMs? Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Chris Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:11 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] EBL? It is a very good setup, even for stock to stockish engines. I have been running one since it was in its Beta days. Charles McDowell wrote: Anyone have personal experience with EBL? http://www.dynamicefi.com/ I'm not tuning for performance or anything, so I'm not sure if this is for me, but it's kind of appealing to think of having "supported" software (not sure how much support is included in the purchase). _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Get an Online or Campus degree - Associate's, Bachelor's, or Master's -in less than one year. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Degrees for employed people - in as fast as 1 year. A.S. / Bachelors / Masters From red83brick at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 22:54:32 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:54:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <884929.8299.qm@web60818.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <313079.39959.qm@web61013.mail.yahoo.com> I agree, I used the Master E2000 on my TBI swap on my 1983 Chevrolet G20 Van. It had low pressure electrical pump in the tank to feed the engine mounted fuel pump in stock form. The E2000 worked well with the in-tank boost pump. I ran up to 40 PSI on my TBI setup without trouble from the 190 lph E2000. Andrew Gibson wrote: >The factory setup with an in tank pump only uses a sock filter. Not >sure what factory external pumps use, ie Ford trucks. Anyone know? Ford trucks us a low pressure high volume pump in the tank for priming purposes. This pump can pump air without a problem and uses a sock filter on the bottom of the tank. On the frame some models use an sir/fuel sperator to prevent air from getting to the boost pump. Next is the boost pump. It will NOT self prime. Then is the fuel filter, then fuel rails, etc. If the in tank pump fails the system will still work until you get an air bubble from low on gas or opening the fuel lines. Then you have a nightmare. --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate - Click now to apply _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Get an Online or Campus degree - Associate's, Bachelor's, or Master's -in less than one year. From clare at snyder.on.ca Tue Nov 21 23:07:45 2006 From: clare at snyder.on.ca (Clare Snyder) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:07:45 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re:welding and battery Message-ID: <001301c70df4$260e4840$6901a8c0@snyderxp> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:55 PM Subject: Gmecm Digest, Vol 21, Issue 16 Removing the battery and grounding the live lead is recommended if MIG or Tig welding (Tig inparticular with high frequency high voltage scratchless start) Normal low voltage stick and wirefeed (mig or fluxcore) is LESS likely to cause a problem. I've never had an issue welding without removing the battery - it might just be luck, but generally I don't have a lot of that. From bcroe at juno.com Tue Nov 21 23:22:17 2006 From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:22:17 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] MAP Sensor V to KPa map Message-ID: <20061121.233550.1060.1.bcroe@juno.com> The MAP sensors I have used have a linear output. An op amp could convert this to the scale your display requires. Bruce Roe 21 Nov 06 "David Allen" writes: > Hey does a MAP sensor have a linear relationship between the sensor > signal and the pressure on the sensor? How can I convert MAP volts > on a 2-bar sensor to a real-world KPa display? > Thanks! > David From captain_krill at yahoo.com Wed Nov 22 00:42:46 2006 From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:42:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] John's MPFI Engine Conversion Message-ID: <630729.11377.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello John, I went through similar research myself, when I converted a carb'ed 3.4l to fuel injection. I had planned to go TBI, as I had zero experience with FI and thought it might be easier, but the TBI was too tall to close the hood, so I went MPFI. As mentioned before, the Camaro 2.8/3.1, the Fiero 2.8, and a number of mid size FWD cars had cast iron heads, so they're what you need. All the bottom and intermediate manifolds are the same, but I've seen 4 or 5 different upper plenums (plena?) for the "Cast Iron Head MPFI" intake manifolds (I actually really liked the totally smooth one from a particular Buick!). They have slightly different configurations for the snouts, but I bet you have lots of room in the Lumina, so it won't matter as much. If you have trouble fitting them, remember the upper plenum can be reversed, as the intermediate plenum is symmetrical! That is, unless the snout hits your distributor... While you're at it though, why not convert to DIS? Grab a DIS and a 1227730 off a Cavalier, Pontiac 6000, etc. and plug it in. Yup, that simple! I'm currently very happy with this mishmash: 1. a cast iron head 3.4l, (from Camaro? Isuzu SUV?) 2. Fiero intake, injectors, sensors, and wiring harness, 3. Cavalier DIS 4. 1227730 (from a 3.1l Pontiac 6000 wagon) It passes Aircare with no cat and runs perfect in closed loop. I love GM's mixability! I will eventually learn to reprogram, so I can use full throttle! :) Good luck, Duncan **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link Rates near 39yr lows. $510,000 Loan for $1698/mo. Calcuate new payment. www.LowerMyBills.com/lre From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Wed Nov 22 01:06:01 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:06:01 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] John's MPFI Engine Conversion References: <630729.11377.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005501c70e04$acf601d0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> What did you do for a crank position sensor? I don't know much about changes to the 60 degree v6 family after the early 90's. As far as I'm aware the "rear drive" engines (ones with distributors and cast iron heads) had no provisions for a crank sensor. This is at least true for the 80's/early 90's s-10 and camaro engines. The front wheel drive/DIS engines have a sensor boss and cast in trigger ring on the crank, and a little stub that takes the place of the distributor so the oil pump can be turned. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cowen" > While you're at it though, why not convert to DIS? > Grab a DIS and a 1227730 off a Cavalier, Pontiac 6000, > etc. and plug it in. Yup, that simple! > > I'm currently very happy with this mishmash: > > 1. a cast iron head 3.4l, (from Camaro? Isuzu SUV?) > 2. Fiero intake, injectors, sensors, and wiring > harness, > 3. Cavalier DIS > 4. 1227730 (from a 3.1l Pontiac 6000 wagon) > From jay at vessels-clan.com Wed Nov 22 08:23:13 2006 From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] John's MPFI Engine Conversion In-Reply-To: <005501c70e04$acf601d0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> References: <630729.11377.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005501c70e04$acf601d0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Message-ID: <45645D51.5000105@vessels-clan.com> Hi there! All 3.4 V6 engines have provisions for the crank sensor. I'm not sure about RWD 3.1 and 2.8 blocks. Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) Jason M. wrote: > What did you do for a crank position sensor? I don't know much about > changes to the 60 degree v6 family after the early 90's. As far as I'm > aware the "rear drive" engines (ones with distributors and cast iron > heads) had no provisions for a crank sensor. This is at least true for > the 80's/early 90's s-10 and camaro engines. > > The front wheel drive/DIS engines have a sensor boss and cast in trigger > ring on the crank, and a little stub that takes the place of the > distributor so the oil pump can be turned. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cowen" >> While you're at it though, why not convert to DIS? >> Grab a DIS and a 1227730 off a Cavalier, Pontiac 6000, >> etc. and plug it in. Yup, that simple! >> >> I'm currently very happy with this mishmash: >> >> 1. a cast iron head 3.4l, (from Camaro? Isuzu SUV?) >> 2. Fiero intake, injectors, sensors, and wiring >> harness, >> 3. Cavalier DIS >> 4. 1227730 (from a 3.1l Pontiac 6000 wagon) >> From craig.moates at cox.net Wed Nov 22 09:37:21 2006 From: craig.moates at cox.net (Craig Moates) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:37:21 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? References: Message-ID: <014301c70e4c$199b9b00$0201a8c0@antec> Steve, Ok, cool. That all sounds consistent then. Glad it's going! Maybe the xtal frequency needs to be accounted for appropriately in the PIC's fuse bit settings? Like a clock divisor for the USB bus? That'd be sweet if that's all it is. I've been using Eagle 4.16 for pretty much everything. Some folks groan about it, but in my experience, everything has a downside. But it gets the job done and helps greatly when it comes to exchanging ideas and information. If you'd like me to take a stab at revising the layout, I'd be happy to. I've done some work around trying to optimize the 68HC58 incorporation. Here's one that I did: http://www.moates.net/images/rr2/rr2_compare.jpg Top right of leftmost picture. Been going to smaller 0402 components, they're sweet ;^). Best regards, Craig Moates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ravet" To: Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:41 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:51 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > Steve, > > Definitely check the crystal and capacitor areas. Those are > ceramics you are using for the 18pF set? Check that it's set > up for 18pf on the xtal desired capacitance? The crystal is 20 MHz 18pf according to the digikey datasheet. They're ceramic caps. I don't know what the problem with the crystal circuit is, but I removed it and used a 4 MHz OSC instead, changing the firmware accordingly, and now it works. I tried with and without the load resistor (on the crystal) but no change. The demo board has an external load resistor but the data sheet shows a resistor internal to the part. I decided that I want USB power after all so I can reflash the PIC without external power. You mentioned the circuit you use but I can't find the note now. What is it? Craig, what do you use for schematic capture and PCB layout? Maybe there'll be a USB <-> VPW project working by Christmas now... thanks for the suggestions everyone, --steve _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From burntkat at sc.rr.com Wed Nov 22 10:39:25 2006 From: burntkat at sc.rr.com (burntkat) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:39:25 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Welding vs. computers In-Reply-To: <083001c70d39$5efec3c0$2f01a8c0@desk> References: <083001c70d39$5efec3c0$2f01a8c0@desk> Message-ID: <45647D3D.40809@sc.rr.com> I think a point we're overlooking is that it's bad welding practice not to attach the ground as close to the work as possible. As in, attaching it to the chassis when welding the exhaust = bad. I'm another who's welded chassis and exhausts and never had a problem. I agree with leaving the battery in and connected for exactly the reason Doug mentions. Doug Chase wrote: > It definitely makes sense to me that electronics could be subject to damage > if the proper precuations aren't taken. Grounding to the chassis while > welding on the exhaust, for example, could have an O2 sensor as a casualty. > > It also makes sense that completely removing components will protect them > from being damaged by things I haven't thought of. > > What does NOT make sense is to why disconnecting the battery, a common > precaution I've heard, would protect anything. It seems to me that it might > be even better leaving it in. At least that way you have a very large > capacitor to protect against voltage spikes on the +12 side of things. > Thoughts? > > Doug Chase > www.chaserace.com > 425-269-5636 > From lwester at lincsat.com Wed Nov 22 17:26:59 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:26:59 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? References: <014301c70e4c$199b9b00$0201a8c0@antec> Message-ID: <002b01c70e8d$bbea2390$0200a8c0@WESTER2> Hey Craig, I see the new board is quite a bit smaller...nice work ! Lyndon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Moates" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > Steve, > > Ok, cool. That all sounds consistent then. Glad it's going! Maybe the xtal > frequency needs to be accounted for appropriately in the PIC's fuse bit > settings? Like a clock divisor for the USB bus? That'd be sweet if that's > all it is. > > I've been using Eagle 4.16 for pretty much everything. Some folks groan > about it, but in my experience, everything has a downside. But it gets the > job done and helps greatly when it comes to exchanging ideas and > information. > > If you'd like me to take a stab at revising the layout, I'd be happy to. > I've done some work around trying to optimize the 68HC58 incorporation. > Here's one that I did: > http://www.moates.net/images/rr2/rr2_compare.jpg > Top right of leftmost picture. Been going to smaller 0402 components, > they're sweet ;^). > > Best regards, > Craig Moates > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ravet" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:41 PM > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates >> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:51 AM >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? >> >> Steve, >> >> Definitely check the crystal and capacitor areas. Those are >> ceramics you are using for the 18pF set? Check that it's set >> up for 18pf on the xtal desired capacitance? > > The crystal is 20 MHz 18pf according to the digikey datasheet. They're > ceramic caps. > > I don't know what the problem with the crystal circuit is, but I removed > it and used a 4 MHz OSC instead, changing the firmware accordingly, and > now it works. I tried with and without the load resistor (on the > crystal) but no change. The demo board has an external load resistor > but the data sheet shows a resistor internal to the part. > > I decided that I want USB power after all so I can reflash the PIC > without external power. You mentioned the circuit you use but I can't > find the note now. What is it? > > Craig, what do you use for schematic capture and PCB layout? > > Maybe there'll be a USB <-> VPW project working by Christmas now... > > thanks for the suggestions everyone, > > --steve > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From captain_krill at yahoo.com Wed Nov 22 18:16:41 2006 From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:16:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion Message-ID: <319269.39958.qm@web34306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What did I do about a Crank Position Sensor? As mentioned, my block (RWD) had one. I just plugged it in! In addition, the 2.8l Cavalier DIS donor (FWD) had one. The Lumina is also FWD. I think the Lumina block is new enough it might have the sensor hole? I wonder if all FWD blocks after a certain date have provisions for the sensor? Do all FWD cranks after a certain date have the trigger wheel? With economy of scale in manufacturing, I wouldn't be surprised... Next project is TBI in a 1970 Wildcat. That won't be as Plug-&-Play as this Cherokee was! Anyone know a good spot to find a TBI setup from a 454? Probably in with the Hens Teeth on eBay! :) Duncan **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From dennysweet at charter.net Wed Nov 22 21:01:06 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:01:06 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] John's MPFI Engine Conversion References: <630729.11377.qm@web34314.mail.mud.yahoo.com><005501c70e04$acf601d0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> <45645D51.5000105@vessels-clan.com> Message-ID: <001301c70eab$9ed76060$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> I am running a 3.4 from a 95 Camaro in my 86 blazer, I removed the mpfi and put my tbi off the 2.8 on it. It also has a crank posistion sensor. Kinda makes me wish I had tried to use the mpfi on it. From efi at dyakron.com Wed Nov 22 19:31:34 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:31:34 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion In-Reply-To: <319269.39958.qm@web34306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061122203015.037068e0@dyakron.com> I had a 90 FWD Beretta with 3.1 that had DIS and the crank sensor you mentioned. mv At 04:16 PM 11/22/2006 -0800, you wrote: >In addition, the 2.8l Cavalier DIS donor (FWD) had >one. The Lumina is also FWD. I think the Lumina >block is new enough it might have the sensor hole? I >wonder if all FWD blocks after a certain date have >provisions for the sensor? Do all FWD cranks after a >certain date have the trigger wheel? With economy of >scale in manufacturing, I wouldn't be surprised... From davida1 at hiwaay.net Wed Nov 22 19:39:51 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:39:51 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] =?iso-8859-1?q?60=B0_V6_Cam?= Message-ID: <023501c70ea0$46393920$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> All this talk about DIS crank sensors has me thinking about building up a DIS-fitted engine for my Century. Currently it has a 1985-spec 2.8 MPFI motor (modified) with a distributor. This engine has a flat-tappet hydraulic cam (from the factory). Did GM ever produce a factory roller-lifter 60? V6 motor? I've heard that it is best to stay with the iron heads for a turbo application. But I would like to have the improved performance of a roller cam and DIS ignition. Any ideas of where to look in the JY for a motor that has a factory roller cam and is new enough to have DIS? I want to keep the same MPFI and turbo setup. Thanks, David From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Wed Nov 22 20:39:17 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:39:17 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BGmecm=5D_60=B0_V6_Cam?= References: <023501c70ea0$46393920$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Message-ID: <008701c70ea9$e727b6f0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> I would have to check but a friend of mine has a 3.4 out of a later model mini-van with roller lifters and roller trunion rocker arms setting on his garage floor. I don't think it was more then 10 years old. Will ask him what year it is. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Allen" Did GM ever produce a factory roller-lifter 60? V6 motor? I've heard that it is best to stay with the iron heads for a turbo application. But I would like to have the improved performance of a roller cam and DIS ignition. Any ideas of where to look in the JY for a motor that has a factory roller cam and is new enough to have DIS? I want to keep the same MPFI and turbo setup. Thanks, David From dennysweet at charter.net Thu Nov 23 07:55:53 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 05:55:53 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061122203015.037068e0@dyakron.com> Message-ID: <000c01c70f07$17abef00$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> I beleive that they went to overhead cam rather than roller cam but not sure. If you just look at a NorthernAuto engine kits ubder 3.4 you will see if they do because the price junps a bunch for a roller cam replacement. From dennysweet at charter.net Thu Nov 23 08:03:50 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 06:03:50 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061122203015.037068e0@dyakron.com> <000c01c70f07$17abef00$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Message-ID: <000401c70f08$33f52f90$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> I just checked and maybe the 97-99 3.1M motor must be roller cam. However I think this is a Alum. headed transverse engine. Internal parts may be the same. From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Thu Nov 23 07:06:20 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:06:20 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061122203015.037068e0@dyakron.com> <000c01c70f07$17abef00$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Message-ID: <00c601c70f00$fcf575b0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> There was a dual overhead cam 3.4 that came out for the early 90's mini-vans. From what I remember reading it was initially used for a year or two, maybe '92 or '93. It has also been used more recently for the monte carlo. I didn't know that until I had to check an alternator and battery on one when I was working for Advance Auto. The heads on that thing are huge in comparison to the pushrod 3.4 and the intake manifold is also oddly shapped. The owner said you have to take the upper plenum off the intake just to change the rear spark plugs. I didn't care to look but you can probably get to them from under the car. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Denny" To: Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion >I beleive that they went to overhead cam rather than roller cam but not >sure. If you just look at a NorthernAuto engine kits ubder 3.4 you will see >if they do because the price junps a bunch for a roller cam replacement. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net Thu Nov 23 07:12:09 2006 From: galaxiecustom500 at sbcglobal.net (Jason M.) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:12:09 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061122203015.037068e0@dyakron.com><000c01c70f07$17abef00$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> <000401c70f08$33f52f90$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Message-ID: <00c701c70f00$fd27a940$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Checked with my friend to find out what year that mini-van engine was, all he told me was he sold it. As I remember it was late 90's, 3.4L. It is aluminum headed, does have the roller lifters, and roller trunion rocker arms. I have a couple pictures that show the lifter valley. Asked him again for the year and what it came out of exactly. I would imagine a safe bet would be any 2000+ GM mini van with a 3.4L would be the same. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Denny" >I just checked and maybe the 97-99 3.1M motor must be roller cam. However I >think this is a Alum. headed transverse engine. Internal parts may be the >same. From davida1 at hiwaay.net Thu Nov 23 08:27:08 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:27:08 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061122203015.037068e0@dyakron.com><000c01c70f07$17abef00$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj><000401c70f08$33f52f90$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> <00c701c70f00$fd27a940$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Message-ID: <026f01c70f0b$765b99c0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Thanks for all the info - time to go JY surfing for a late-model 3.4 after the Thanksgiving holiday. My original modified 2.8 has had a piston slap since day-one (long story as to why). I've been playing with the VE tables and spark timing now that I have a working wideband datalogger. Even though my calibration is far from perfect it will break the front end loose in first or second gear, with 10 PSI boost. I know the "tired" engine will not hold up to much more; but I want to get it up to 15 PSI (the limit of my speed-density EFI system). > Checked with my friend to find out what year that mini-van engine was, all > he told me was he sold it. > > As I remember it was late 90's, 3.4L. It is aluminum headed, does have the > roller lifters, and roller trunion rocker arms. I have a couple pictures > that show the lifter valley. > > Asked him again for the year and what it came out of exactly. I would > imagine a safe bet would be any 2000+ GM mini van with a 3.4L would be the > same. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Denny" > > > >>I just checked and maybe the 97-99 3.1M motor must be roller cam. However I >>think this is a Alum. headed transverse engine. Internal parts may be the >>same. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From jay at vessels-clan.com Thu Nov 23 08:37:53 2006 From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:37:53 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?60=B0_V6_Cam?= In-Reply-To: <023501c70ea0$46393920$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> References: <023501c70ea0$46393920$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Message-ID: <4565B241.30207@vessels-clan.com> Hi there! First, this site may be helpful: http://60degreev6.com/ > All this talk about DIS crank sensors has me thinking about building > up a DIS-fitted engine for my Century. Currently it has a 1985-spec > 2.8 MPFI motor (modified) with a distributor. This engine has a > flat-tappet hydraulic cam (from the factory). Did GM ever produce a > factory roller-lifter 60? V6 motor? Yes. All GenIII engines have roller cams. The GenIII engines are the 3100, 3400, and 3500. Production dates are fuzzy since they started using them in different years for different car lines, but by 1995 all V6/60 engines were GenIII engines. By '96 they had 1.6:1 roller rockers as well as roller cams. The downside to the roller cam is that there aren't any aftermarket cams to speak of, so you're stuck with the stock cam or a regrind. I've heard that it is best to > stay with the iron heads for a turbo application. But I would like > to have the improved performance of a roller cam and DIS ignition. You can fit a non-roller cam V6/60 block with a roller cam but there's nothing stock about it. I doubt it's worth the work. You cannot fit the late-model roller cam to the older block since the block is different. DIS is easier, by grabbing a block with provisions for the crank trigger (1987+ V6/60 FWD for your Century) and using the factory DIS hardware. > Any ideas of where to look in the JY for a motor that has a factory > roller cam and is new enough to have DIS? All of the roller cam engines had DIS. DIS came first, starting in 1987. Roller cams started in the mid-1990s. Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) From jay at vessels-clan.com Thu Nov 23 08:43:30 2006 From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:43:30 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion In-Reply-To: <00c601c70f00$fcf575b0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061122203015.037068e0@dyakron.com> <000c01c70f07$17abef00$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> <00c601c70f00$fcf575b0$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> Message-ID: <4565B392.10705@vessels-clan.com> Hi there! The 3.4V6 DOHC ("Twin Dual Cam") engine was only used in the W-body cars (Lumina, Grand Prix, Cutlass) from '91-'97. It was not used in any minivans in the U.S. Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) Jason M. wrote: > There was a dual overhead cam 3.4 that came out for the early 90's > mini-vans. From what I remember reading it was initially used for a > year or two, maybe '92 or '93. It has also been used more recently for > the monte carlo. I didn't know that until I had to check an alternator > and battery on one when I was working for Advance Auto. The heads on > that thing are huge in comparison to the pushrod 3.4 and the intake > manifold is also oddly shapped. The owner said you have to take the > upper plenum off the intake just to change the rear spark plugs. I > didn't care to look but you can probably get to them from under the car. From dennysweet at charter.net Thu Nov 23 18:26:49 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:26:49 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] re: John's MPFI conversion References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061122203015.037068e0@dyakron.com><000c01c70f07$17abef00$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj><000401c70f08$33f52f90$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj><00c701c70f00$fd27a940$4101a8c0@BILLYBOB> <026f01c70f0b$765b99c0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Message-ID: <000c01c70f5f$3bd45770$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> The 3.4 will really surprize you. I can stay up with the 4.3's without a problem and I am using the 2.8 tbi setup. I also have a Z34 Lumina and the DOHC 3.4 rear plugs can be changed by rolling the motor forward just like the 3.1. From davida1 at hiwaay.net Thu Nov 23 19:22:41 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:22:41 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Datalogging with knock sensor Message-ID: <02bf01c70f67$0c18aba0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> I've been playing with my new 'toy' which is a wideband datalogger. My AFR is now very close (after some logging and tweaking) and I want to start tweaking the spark timing. When I started this project I copied and pasted in a "stock" 2-bar sy/ty spark map into my ECM and it runs quite well. However, there are a few pingy spots at part throttle. My ECM does not have a knock sensor and this function is disabled in the calibration. (I do plan to use this feature eventually.) I was thinking about getting an appropriate knock sensor and interface box (the thing between the ECM and knock sensor) for my engine block. Then logging it with MAP and RPM to look for the areas with detonation; so I know where to edit the table in the ECM. My ECM has the old slow ALDL which is poor for real-time logging. Has anyone any experience with this? Thanks for any ideas! David From charles at taildragger.info Thu Nov 23 21:34:34 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:34:34 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <00e501c70c28$6c5196e0$6501a8c0@flamingo> Message-ID: I installed my Carter P5001 in-line pump today. The engine fired right up after that. Maybe someone who has used this pump can help me with a detail though. The pump didn't come with any adapters or anything to allow the output to go to rubber hose instead of steel line. I got a 3/8" nipple adapter at Autozone, but it's leaking just a little. How have others done this? Should I have used thread tape (I didn't)? Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Frank McCracken Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:17 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI I have used this same pump for my TBI conversion on my sb400 chev for 2 years, summers only. I understand it is capable of 90psi Mine is now a gravity feed. Before I had to 'suck' prime it. Fun. It must be closer to the tank as it is a 'push' not suck type pump. --- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McDowell" To: Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:50 PM Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > I'm running a TBI conversion on a Chevy 350. I just replaced the tank and > sending unit, and now I can't get the engine to start. The situation is > that for the conversion I used an in-line electric fuel pump, placed low on > the frame halfway between the truck and engine. I never had a problem > before, but right now it seems like the pump won't prime. I don't really > understand, since I've got it to where it self siphons from the tank at the > point where it enters the pump (actually at the fuel filter right in front > of the pump)- I used a shop-vac to prime the lines. I opened the return > line though, and no fuel is coming out during the key-on prime or during > cranking. > > The pump is a Master E2000, which I believe is the boost pump in a Ford > truck application, where it would also have a lower pressure in-tank pump. > > Any ideas why this thing doesn't seem to pump gas anymore? Suggestions for > a self priming in-line pump? I believe there is a Carter pump available from > Summit that is self priming, but it's kinda steep at $140. Anything self > priming from Autozone? > > Thanks for any help. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 11/18/2006 > > _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From dennysweet at charter.net Fri Nov 24 00:44:15 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:44:15 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI References: <20061124033444.SSJX8276.aa05.charter.net@nitro.got-boost.net> Message-ID: <000801c70f93$f6288bd0$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Yup From charles at taildragger.info Fri Nov 24 07:23:19 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:23:19 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <000801c70f93$f6288bd0$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Message-ID: Yup thread tape? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Denny Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 12:44 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI Yup _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From dennysweet at charter.net Fri Nov 24 09:35:33 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:35:33 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI References: <20061124132344.CYQR10028.aa02.charter.net@nitro.got-boost.net> Message-ID: <000601c70fde$2e570640$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Yes thread tape, That barb will leak if ya dont use it. From davida1 at hiwaay.net Fri Nov 24 08:39:44 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:39:44 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI References: <200611240334.kAO3YgHY933794@ant.hiwaay.net> Message-ID: <030101c70fd6$8385a3e0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> My favorite thread sealant for metal lines is Loctite. Especially on fuel and any fluid where contamination or clogging is a factor is. It's applied as a liquid and it is reactive to metal and being in a thin layer. The Loctite trapped in the threads will turn rock-hard, but the excess not liquid not trapped in the threads will harmlessly flush away. The product Loctite 569 Thread Sealant is for threaded hydraulic fittings and will seal and lock the threads. It can be removed with great effort using hand tools. The product Loctite 640 Sleeve Retainer and/ or Caterpillar 4C-4032 Bearing Mount Loctite are similar to 569, but take longer to cure, and they will permanently lock the threads. Good when you have a threaded adapter that you don't want to unscrew when you remove the line from it. These products are standard on many OEM asseblies in industry and are well-proven. Hope this helps! David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McDowell" To: Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:34 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI >I installed my Carter P5001 in-line pump today. The engine fired right up > after that. > > Maybe someone who has used this pump can help me with a detail though. The > pump didn't come with any adapters or anything to allow the output to go to > rubber hose instead of steel line. I got a 3/8" nipple adapter at Autozone, > but it's leaking just a little. How have others done this? Should I have > used thread tape (I didn't)? > > Thanks. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf > Of Frank McCracken > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:17 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > I have used this same pump for my TBI conversion on my sb400 chev for 2 > years, summers only. I understand it is capable of 90psi Mine is now a > gravity feed. Before I had to 'suck' prime it. Fun. It must be closer to the > tank as it is a 'push' not suck type pump. > > > --- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles McDowell" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:50 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > >> I'm running a TBI conversion on a Chevy 350. I just replaced the tank and >> sending unit, and now I can't get the engine to start. The situation is >> that for the conversion I used an in-line electric fuel pump, placed low > on >> the frame halfway between the truck and engine. I never had a problem >> before, but right now it seems like the pump won't prime. I don't really >> understand, since I've got it to where it self siphons from the tank at > the >> point where it enters the pump (actually at the fuel filter right in front >> of the pump)- I used a shop-vac to prime the lines. I opened the return >> line though, and no fuel is coming out during the key-on prime or during >> cranking. >> >> The pump is a Master E2000, which I believe is the boost pump in a Ford >> truck application, where it would also have a lower pressure in-tank pump. >> >> Any ideas why this thing doesn't seem to pump gas anymore? Suggestions > for >> a self priming in-line pump? I believe there is a Carter pump available > from >> Summit that is self priming, but it's kinda steep at $140. Anything self >> priming from Autozone? >> >> Thanks for any help. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 11/18/2006 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From lwester at lincsat.com Fri Nov 24 09:03:40 2006 From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:03:40 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI References: <200611240334.kAO3Ytgb010597@mx2.xplornet.com> Message-ID: <002001c70fd9$be8d0020$0200a8c0@WESTER2> Teflon tape on pipe thread only...or liquid teflon (more is not better) from Loctite. Don't use teflon or sealants on flare, inverted or other type fittings. LW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McDowell" To: Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 8:34 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI >I installed my Carter P5001 in-line pump today. The engine fired right up > after that. > > Maybe someone who has used this pump can help me with a detail though. > The > pump didn't come with any adapters or anything to allow the output to go > to > rubber hose instead of steel line. I got a 3/8" nipple adapter at > Autozone, > but it's leaking just a little. How have others done this? Should I have > used thread tape (I didn't)? > > Thanks. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On > Behalf > Of Frank McCracken > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:17 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > I have used this same pump for my TBI conversion on my sb400 chev for 2 > years, summers only. I understand it is capable of 90psi Mine is now a > gravity feed. Before I had to 'suck' prime it. Fun. It must be closer to > the > tank as it is a 'push' not suck type pump. > > > --- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles McDowell" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:50 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > >> I'm running a TBI conversion on a Chevy 350. I just replaced the tank >> and >> sending unit, and now I can't get the engine to start. The situation is >> that for the conversion I used an in-line electric fuel pump, placed low > on >> the frame halfway between the truck and engine. I never had a problem >> before, but right now it seems like the pump won't prime. I don't really >> understand, since I've got it to where it self siphons from the tank at > the >> point where it enters the pump (actually at the fuel filter right in >> front >> of the pump)- I used a shop-vac to prime the lines. I opened the return >> line though, and no fuel is coming out during the key-on prime or during >> cranking. >> >> The pump is a Master E2000, which I believe is the boost pump in a Ford >> truck application, where it would also have a lower pressure in-tank >> pump. >> >> Any ideas why this thing doesn't seem to pump gas anymore? Suggestions > for >> a self priming in-line pump? I believe there is a Carter pump available > from >> Summit that is self priming, but it's kinda steep at $140. Anything self >> priming from Autozone? >> >> Thanks for any help. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: >> 11/18/2006 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Fri Nov 24 10:48:18 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:48:18 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] more 60 degree v6 info Message-ID: <45672252.1070303@highspeedlink.net> If you're building a turbo 60 degree, check out http://www.turboz24.com/ From charles at taildragger.info Fri Nov 24 12:28:12 2006 From: charles at taildragger.info (Charles McDowell) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:28:12 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI In-Reply-To: <002001c70fd9$be8d0020$0200a8c0@WESTER2> Message-ID: Thanks for the replies. I think my problem was failure to understand that an AN won't mate properly with a fitting intended to take a flare, even though the shape looks similar. I found a barb to 3/8" flare adapter at a local specialty hose/connector shop. Must be too unusual to stock at the auto parts store. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Programmer Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:04 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI Teflon tape on pipe thread only...or liquid teflon (more is not better) from Loctite. Don't use teflon or sealants on flare, inverted or other type fittings. LW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McDowell" To: Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 8:34 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI >I installed my Carter P5001 in-line pump today. The engine fired right up > after that. > > Maybe someone who has used this pump can help me with a detail though. > The > pump didn't come with any adapters or anything to allow the output to go > to > rubber hose instead of steel line. I got a 3/8" nipple adapter at > Autozone, > but it's leaking just a little. How have others done this? Should I have > used thread tape (I didn't)? > > Thanks. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On > Behalf > Of Frank McCracken > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:17 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > I have used this same pump for my TBI conversion on my sb400 chev for 2 > years, summers only. I understand it is capable of 90psi Mine is now a > gravity feed. Before I had to 'suck' prime it. Fun. It must be closer to > the > tank as it is a 'push' not suck type pump. > > > --- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles McDowell" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 1:50 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] In-line fuel pumps with TBI > > >> I'm running a TBI conversion on a Chevy 350. I just replaced the tank >> and >> sending unit, and now I can't get the engine to start. The situation is >> that for the conversion I used an in-line electric fuel pump, placed low > on >> the frame halfway between the truck and engine. I never had a problem >> before, but right now it seems like the pump won't prime. I don't really >> understand, since I've got it to where it self siphons from the tank at > the >> point where it enters the pump (actually at the fuel filter right in >> front >> of the pump)- I used a shop-vac to prime the lines. I opened the return >> line though, and no fuel is coming out during the key-on prime or during >> cranking. >> >> The pump is a Master E2000, which I believe is the boost pump in a Ford >> truck application, where it would also have a lower pressure in-tank >> pump. >> >> Any ideas why this thing doesn't seem to pump gas anymore? Suggestions > for >> a self priming in-line pump? I believe there is a Carter pump available > from >> Summit that is self priming, but it's kinda steep at $140. Anything self >> priming from Autozone? >> >> Thanks for any help. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: >> 11/18/2006 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From craig.moates at cox.net Fri Nov 24 22:45:23 2006 From: craig.moates at cox.net (Craig Moates) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:45:23 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? References: <014301c70e4c$199b9b00$0201a8c0@antec> <002b01c70e8d$bbea2390$0200a8c0@WESTER2> Message-ID: <002601c7104c$84bd35e0$0201a8c0@antec> Yep, it fits in the V6, 98LS1, etc now. Muahaha! Best regards, Craig Moates ----- Original Message ----- From: "Programmer" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > Hey Craig, > > I see the new board is quite a bit smaller...nice work ! > > Lyndon. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Craig Moates" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:37 AM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? > > >> Steve, >> >> Ok, cool. That all sounds consistent then. Glad it's going! Maybe the xtal >> frequency needs to be accounted for appropriately in the PIC's fuse bit >> settings? Like a clock divisor for the USB bus? That'd be sweet if that's >> all it is. >> >> I've been using Eagle 4.16 for pretty much everything. Some folks groan >> about it, but in my experience, everything has a downside. But it gets the >> job done and helps greatly when it comes to exchanging ideas and >> information. >> >> If you'd like me to take a stab at revising the layout, I'd be happy to. >> I've done some work around trying to optimize the 68HC58 incorporation. >> Here's one that I did: >> http://www.moates.net/images/rr2/rr2_compare.jpg >> Top right of leftmost picture. Been going to smaller 0402 components, >> they're sweet ;^). >> >> Best regards, >> Craig Moates >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Ravet" >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:41 PM >> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >>> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Craig Moates >>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:51 AM >>> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Any USB developers out there? >>> >>> Steve, >>> >>> Definitely check the crystal and capacitor areas. Those are >>> ceramics you are using for the 18pF set? Check that it's set >>> up for 18pf on the xtal desired capacitance? >> >> The crystal is 20 MHz 18pf according to the digikey datasheet. They're >> ceramic caps. >> >> I don't know what the problem with the crystal circuit is, but I removed >> it and used a 4 MHz OSC instead, changing the firmware accordingly, and >> now it works. I tried with and without the load resistor (on the >> crystal) but no change. The demo board has an external load resistor >> but the data sheet shows a resistor internal to the part. >> >> I decided that I want USB power after all so I can reflash the PIC >> without external power. You mentioned the circuit you use but I can't >> find the note now. What is it? >> >> Craig, what do you use for schematic capture and PCB layout? >> >> Maybe there'll be a USB <-> VPW project working by Christmas now... >> >> thanks for the suggestions everyone, >> >> --steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From nick_cooper at yahoo.com Sat Nov 25 19:55:52 2006 From: nick_cooper at yahoo.com (Nick Cooper) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] TPI, starting up 383ci with 7730 Message-ID: <002e01c710fe$01bb7af0$6801a8c0@ParentsDell> I'm hoping that someone might have a bin file I could use to start up a 383ci small block. I've got a lot of the factory bins from the ftp site, but obviously I have more work to do using one of these (looks like $8D is very common). I fired the engine originally using the 165 MAF system, but assume it'll be inadequate when I get to full throttle. Thanks in advance for any help. Nick From davida1 at hiwaay.net Sun Nov 26 13:38:42 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:38:42 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Off Topic - revenge on kids with dirtbikes on the road... Message-ID: <03f701c71192$7c8951a0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> We have a set of neighbors' kids that ride loud, unmuffled motorbikes around the neighborhood. They are annoying to say the least. Let alone the way they are likely to get killed. Our neighborhood is hilly, curvey, and borders a lake. Cars go about 15 to 20 MPH on the 1-lane roads in here. These teenagers have been seen going faster than 60 on their dirtbikes, ON THE ROAD, in the heighborhood. Anyway, they were out in their yard working on their bikes. SO.... Against my better judgment, I eased to a stop, shifted to Low, and did a LOUD, SMOKING, RAUCOUS turbocharger shrieking front-wheel-drive BURNOUT. When I let off the gas and drove away, the kids were staring with their jaws on the ground, as the blue cloud of acrid-smelling tire smoke drifted over them. It took the silly grin at least 5 minutes to wear off my face after that! David From ne14roxcj at gmail.com Sun Nov 26 14:32:52 2006 From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:32:52 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Off Topic - revenge on kids with dirtbikes on the road... In-Reply-To: <03f701c71192$7c8951a0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Message-ID: <4569f9fa.0273410f.25e3.fffffbb5@mx.google.com> Just remember that these are teenagers you are dealing with. Those things can be vicious. You should be glad that they aren't doing their thing on your front lawn. A couple of dirt bikes could do a real job on some nicely manicured grass. And the trouble they would get in will be forgotten in a couple of years when they turn 18. revenge? Spike strips? Cops? Their PARENTS? Good luck, and remember, they are teenagers. You were one once too. Beau -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of David Allen Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:39 PM To: GM-ECM; JY-Turbo List Subject: [Gmecm] Off Topic - revenge on kids with dirtbikes on the road... We have a set of neighbors' kids that ride loud, unmuffled motorbikes around the neighborhood. They are annoying to say the least. Let alone the way they are likely to get killed. Our neighborhood is hilly, curvey, and borders a lake. Cars go about 15 to 20 MPH on the 1-lane roads in here. These teenagers have been seen going faster than 60 on their dirtbikes, ON THE ROAD, in the heighborhood. Anyway, they were out in their yard working on their bikes. SO.... Against my better judgment, I eased to a stop, shifted to Low, and did a LOUD, SMOKING, RAUCOUS turbocharger shrieking front-wheel-drive BURNOUT. When I let off the gas and drove away, the kids were staring with their jaws on the ground, as the blue cloud of acrid-smelling tire smoke drifted over them. It took the silly grin at least 5 minutes to wear off my face after that! David _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From red83brick at yahoo.com Sun Nov 26 20:02:47 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:02:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] 60° V6 Cam In-Reply-To: <023501c70ea0$46393920$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Message-ID: <374581.44393.qm@web61025.mail.yahoo.com> The Gen IIs are roller cammed, such as my Grandma's 3400 in her 1995 Oldsmobile Achieva (was a roller 3.1). David Allen wrote: All this talk about DIS crank sensors has me thinking about building up a DIS-fitted engine for my Century. Currently it has a 1985-spec 2.8 MPFI motor (modified) with a distributor. This engine has a flat-tappet hydraulic cam (from the factory). Did GM ever produce a factory roller-lifter 60? V6 motor? I've heard that it is best to stay with the iron heads for a turbo application. But I would like to have the improved performance of a roller cam and DIS ignition. Any ideas of where to look in the JY for a motor that has a factory roller cam and is new enough to have DIS? I want to keep the same MPFI and turbo setup. Thanks, David _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. From jay at vessels-clan.com Sun Nov 26 20:12:54 2006 From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:12:54 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?60=B0_V6_Cam?= In-Reply-To: <374581.44393.qm@web61025.mail.yahoo.com> References: <374581.44393.qm@web61025.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <456A49A6.7070007@vessels-clan.com> Hi there! Chris Reynolds wrote: > The Gen IIs are roller cammed, such as my Grandma's 3400 in her 1995 > Oldsmobile Achieva (was a roller 3.1). A nit -- GenII stopped by 1994 (the '94 J-body was the last to get a GenII engine). By 1995 all V6/60 FWD engines were Gen III. No Gen II engines (1987-1994 at the latest) had roller cams. Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) From red83brick at yahoo.com Sun Nov 26 22:25:12 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:25:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] 60° V6 Cam In-Reply-To: <456A49A6.7070007@vessels-clan.com> Message-ID: <161934.35184.qm@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> I see no difference in the older 60* V6s prior to some minor changes up to 1994 or so. The older engines were all very similar, both FWD and RWD up until the change to DIS. To my knowlege the 60* V6s were never even refered to as Series I, II, or III. The Buick 3800 was, but no the 60*s. Jay Vessels wrote: Hi there! Chris Reynolds wrote: > The Gen IIs are roller cammed, such as my Grandma's 3400 in her 1995 > Oldsmobile Achieva (was a roller 3.1). A nit -- GenII stopped by 1994 (the '94 J-body was the last to get a GenII engine). By 1995 all V6/60 FWD engines were Gen III. No Gen II engines (1987-1994 at the latest) had roller cams. Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. From davida1 at hiwaay.net Sun Nov 26 23:10:00 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:10:00 -0600 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_=5BGmecm=5D_60=B0_V6_Cam?= References: <161934.35184.qm@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <046e01c711e2$4ef6d9b0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> So Chris; if I get a 1996 or newer 3400 engine, it will have a roller cam. How much remodification will be needed to attach the motor mounts from my existing 1985 FWD 2.8 MPFI to this block? I have read and gathered it will be a bolt-in swap. Will the timing chain cover interchange? I can deal with the engine management aspect of it. Thanks! David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Reynolds" To: Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 60? V6 Cam >I see no difference in the older 60* V6s prior to some minor changes up to 1994 or so. The older engines were all very similar, both FWD and RWD up until the change to DIS. > > To my knowlege the 60* V6s were never even refered to as Series I, II, or III. The Buick 3800 was, but no the 60*s. > Jay Vessels wrote: > Hi there! > > Chris Reynolds wrote: >> The Gen IIs are roller cammed, such as my Grandma's 3400 in her 1995 >> Oldsmobile Achieva (was a roller 3.1). > > A nit -- GenII stopped by 1994 (the '94 J-body was the last to get a > GenII engine). By 1995 all V6/60 FWD engines were Gen III. No Gen II > engines (1987-1994 at the latest) had roller cams. > > Jay Vessels > 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI > 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > --------------------------------- > Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From red83brick at yahoo.com Sun Nov 26 23:17:49 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:17:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] 60° V6 Cam In-Reply-To: <046e01c711e2$4ef6d9b0$1c7ca6a6@yancey.com> Message-ID: <316387.99628.qm@web61025.mail.yahoo.com> I honestly couldn't tell you about the mount thing. I have had the newer FWD, the older FWD, and the RWD blocks on stands, sitting in my garage, etc, just never even thought to look at the mounts. IIRC, if it is FWD the mounts will bolt right up. I do not know about the interchange of the timing chain cover. The newer 3100/3400 has a waterpump that is mounted offset to the front of the vehicle in the timing cover. The extent of my 60* V6 work little and far between. I mostly deal with Chevrolet V8s. Engine management is my strong point as well. David Allen wrote: So Chris; if I get a 1996 or newer 3400 engine, it will have a roller cam. How much remodification will be needed to attach the motor mounts from my existing 1985 FWD 2.8 MPFI to this block? I have read and gathered it will be a bolt-in swap. Will the timing chain cover interchange? I can deal with the engine management aspect of it. Thanks! David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Reynolds" To: Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 60? V6 Cam >I see no difference in the older 60* V6s prior to some minor changes up to 1994 or so. The older engines were all very similar, both FWD and RWD up until the change to DIS. > > To my knowlege the 60* V6s were never even refered to as Series I, II, or III. The Buick 3800 was, but no the 60*s. > Jay Vessels wrote: > Hi there! > > Chris Reynolds wrote: >> The Gen IIs are roller cammed, such as my Grandma's 3400 in her 1995 >> Oldsmobile Achieva (was a roller 3.1). > > A nit -- GenII stopped by 1994 (the '94 J-body was the last to get a > GenII engine). By 1995 all V6/60 FWD engines were Gen III. No Gen II > engines (1987-1994 at the latest) had roller cams. > > Jay Vessels > 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI > 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > --------------------------------- > Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. From dennysweet at charter.net Mon Nov 27 20:59:25 2006 From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:59:25 -0800 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BGmecm=5D_60=B0_V6_Cam?= References: <316387.99628.qm@web61025.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003001c71299$36d16fa0$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj> Front wheel drive yes were roller cammed. My 3.4 came out of a 95 Camero and it dosent have a roller cam, but sure runs good with the 2.8 stuff added. I rebuilt the heads off a mid 90's Olds Cutlass with a 3.1 and it was rollered. From jay at vessels-clan.com Mon Nov 27 20:13:23 2006 From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:13:23 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?60=B0_V6_Cam?= In-Reply-To: <161934.35184.qm@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> References: <161934.35184.qm@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <456B9B43.2020308@vessels-clan.com> Hi there! V6/60 engines are defined primarily by the heads they have. They're not referred to as "Series", but rather by generation. The first generation V6/60 had iron heads. The second generation V6/60 had aluminum heads and was only in FWD vehicles. The third generation V6/60 has redesigned aluminum heads, roller cams, and more, and is the current V6/60 in production. It is also only in FWD vehicles. The V6/60 family tree is here: http://60degreev6.com/view.php?pg=familytree Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) Chris Reynolds wrote: > I see no difference in the older 60* V6s prior to some minor changes > up to 1994 or so. The older engines were all very similar, both FWD > and RWD up until the change to DIS. > > To my knowlege the 60* V6s were never even refered to as Series I, > II, or III. The Buick 3800 was, but no the 60*s. Jay Vessels > wrote: Hi there! > > Chris Reynolds wrote: >> The Gen IIs are roller cammed, such as my Grandma's 3400 in her >> 1995 Oldsmobile Achieva (was a roller 3.1). > > A nit -- GenII stopped by 1994 (the '94 J-body was the last to get a > GenII engine). By 1995 all V6/60 FWD engines were Gen III. No Gen II > engines (1987-1994 at the latest) had roller cams. > > Jay Vessels > 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI > 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) From BNRVL at aol.com Thu Nov 30 09:43:02 2006 From: BNRVL at aol.com (BNRVL at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:43:02 EST Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion Message-ID: Hello , I have a print of an article from January 1994 issue of Street Rod , written by Doc Frohmader who outlines some details for a Low Budget Injection system for Mike Moeller's 1939 Chevy Sedan . The parts are from a 1988-92 Chevy Truck , salvage yard variety . I want to follw this recepie for my 1933 Dodge Pickem-up Truck .It has a 1969 Corvette 350 CI engine ,Sig Erson can, numbers unknown but a nice smooth 800-1000 rpm idle , factory alum intake , Carter 4 Bbl. carb. 350 automatic trans.. and at 3500 rpm it will jump one lane when opened up to 4200 rpm , so I do not need any more speed for a daily driver , just improved gas mileage which now is 15 mpg highway . Ihave not been able to locate an email for Mr. Frohmader nor Mr. Moeller , so a follow up for current info on the project is not possible as of today . Can any one help me ?, in that I am ready to begin a parts list and begin to accumilate pieces for this endeavor now. Thank you Bob Norville Memphis,Tn. area From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Thu Nov 30 10:59:18 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:59:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion Message-ID: <20061130165918.80872.qmail@web80505.mail.yahoo.com> I'm currently in the beggining stages of a similar conversion, but on an ElCamino that currently has a computer controlled carb engine :-( and here is the 'recipe' we're trying to follow, very similar to what you outlined. Good luck, let's converse as we progress. Currently uses a 1226865, target using a 1227747/1228747 ECM (very common unit) Painless Harness 60101 (they engineered wiring based on a 90 Chevy P/U for the 1227747 as well as other similar ECMs) Holley TBI adapter 17-41 or (Painless 60118) (solves the bolt pattern match issue) Painless VSS Adapter 60115 (gets 2PPM from mechanical speedo cable), car may have an acceptable feed already since CCC may require one ThrottleBody from same size engine or modify cal on PROM to change inj size PROM from same size engine (I can modify to suit) Sensors/inputs: Knock, TPS, Temp, MAP, Spark, Speed I would intend to make a plate to mount fuses, relays, MAP, etc onto to make installation clean * Knock sensor exists * TPS should be part of the TBI * Coolant sensor (this is still an outstanding question, will the existing one suffice - I think so, if not acquire correct one) * MAP sensor (this is still an outstanding question, will probabally have to acquire correct one) My sources show a valid 90 TBI 305 P/U part # as OEM to be 16137939 but the parts houses show it to be 16137039, so am a little puzzled here * Vehicle has large HEI dizzy, so Painless harness should plug right up * VSS will be from the Painless VSS adapter or the existing speedo output to CCC The last area that I'm not yet sure of is EGR and AIR (not A/C): * I'm hoping the existing EGR controls will adapt to the new ECM w/ little or no changes. * AIR, haven't spent much time under the hood yet, so I don't know what is there in this area if any, may not need to go here at all. We'll wait to figure this one out when I see if the hardware is ther now. ----- Original Message ---- From: "BNRVL at aol.com" To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:43:02 AM Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion Hello , I have a print of an article from January 1994 issue of Street Rod , written by Doc Frohmader who outlines some details for a Low Budget Injection system for Mike Moeller's 1939 Chevy Sedan . The parts are from a 1988-92 Chevy Truck , salvage yard variety . I want to follw this recepie for my 1933 Dodge Pickem-up Truck .It has a 1969 Corvette 350 CI engine ,Sig Erson can, numbers unknown but a nice smooth 800-1000 rpm idle , factory alum intake , Carter 4 Bbl. carb. 350 automatic trans.. and at 3500 rpm it will jump one lane when opened up to 4200 rpm , so I do not need any more speed for a daily driver , just improved gas mileage which now is 15 mpg highway . Ihave not been able to locate an email for Mr. Frohmader nor Mr. Moeller , so a follow up for current info on the project is not possible as of today . Can any one help me ?, in that I am ready to begin a parts list and begin to accumilate pieces for this endeavor now. Thank you Bob Norville Memphis,Tn. area _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Thu Nov 30 11:51:43 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:51:43 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:59 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] TBI conversion www.jagsthatrun.com has a lot of EFI conversion parts like VSS, also various mechanical bits, and plumbing elbows and straights for MAF sensors. > > > Currently uses a 1226865, target using a 1227747/1228747 ECM > (very common unit) Painless Harness 60101 (they engineered > wiring based on a 90 Chevy P/U for the 1227747 as well as > other similar ECMs) Holley TBI adapter 17-41 or (Painless > 60118) (solves the bolt pattern match issue) Painless VSS > Adapter 60115 (gets 2PPM from mechanical speedo cable), car > may have an acceptable feed already since CCC may require one > ThrottleBody from same size engine or modify cal on PROM to > change inj size PROM from same size engine (I can modify to suit) > Sensors/inputs: Knock, TPS, Temp, MAP, Spark, Speed > I would intend to make a plate to mount fuses, relays, > MAP, etc onto to make installation clean > * Knock sensor exists > * TPS should be part of the TBI > * Coolant sensor (this is still an outstanding question, > will the existing one suffice - I think so, if not acquire > correct one) The computer and dash cannot share a sensor, so you'll probably need two. > * MAP sensor (this is still an outstanding question, will > probabally have to acquire correct one) My sources show a > valid 90 TBI 305 P/U part # as OEM to be 16137939 but the > parts houses show it to be 16137039, so am a little puzzled here MAFs for TBI and TPI normally aspirated are all the same, although they come in different packages. Any one of them would work for you. Get the factory service manual that corresponds to the donor ECM and its calibration. --steve From jryan at caminofx.org Thu Nov 30 12:12:43 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:12:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A Chevy V-8 has two coolant sensors. There is one on the intake manifold, in or near the thermostat housing. That is for the ECM. There is another one in the driver-side cylinder head. That is for the gauge in the dashboard. They are totally separate. On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Steve Ravet wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod >> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:59 AM >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] TBI conversion > > www.jagsthatrun.com has a lot of EFI conversion parts like VSS, also > various mechanical bits, and plumbing elbows and straights for MAF > sensors. > >> >> >> Currently uses a 1226865, target using a 1227747/1228747 ECM >> (very common unit) Painless Harness 60101 (they engineered >> wiring based on a 90 Chevy P/U for the 1227747 as well as >> other similar ECMs) Holley TBI adapter 17-41 or (Painless >> 60118) (solves the bolt pattern match issue) Painless VSS >> Adapter 60115 (gets 2PPM from mechanical speedo cable), car >> may have an acceptable feed already since CCC may require one >> ThrottleBody from same size engine or modify cal on PROM to >> change inj size PROM from same size engine (I can modify to suit) >> Sensors/inputs: Knock, TPS, Temp, MAP, Spark, Speed >> I would intend to make a plate to mount fuses, relays, >> MAP, etc onto to make installation clean >> * Knock sensor exists >> * TPS should be part of the TBI >> * Coolant sensor (this is still an outstanding question, >> will the existing one suffice - I think so, if not acquire >> correct one) > > The computer and dash cannot share a sensor, so you'll probably need > two. > >> * MAP sensor (this is still an outstanding question, will >> probabally have to acquire correct one) My sources show a >> valid 90 TBI 305 P/U part # as OEM to be 16137939 but the >> parts houses show it to be 16137039, so am a little puzzled here > > MAFs for TBI and TPI normally aspirated are all the same, although they > come in different packages. Any one of them would work for you. > > Get the factory service manual that corresponds to the donor ECM and its > calibration. > > --steve > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Thu Nov 30 13:27:21 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:27:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion Message-ID: <20061130192721.16442.qmail@web80515.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Thanks for the comments, Jared and Steve, my outstanding issues are more from a mechanical/physical logistics than electrical/connections point, I'm quite familiar w/ the sensors to computers, ie 2 coolant, etc, and am when I say will it work (or in the case of this engine, I'm still not been under the hood to know if there is really a ECM coolant sensor), it is more from an ease of connections standpoint than electrical connectivity and compatibility. These are definately areas that the chap I was replying to may have concerns, though so the comments may help him. My reply was more to help him get started in it lists some of the quesitons I'm working through in my project. From frankmccracken at shaw.ca Thu Nov 30 14:01:24 2006 From: frankmccracken at shaw.ca (Frank McCracken) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:01:24 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion References: Message-ID: <002301c714ba$50a71bf0$6501a8c0@flamingo> Use a '7747 based TBI system. Chev Pickup and Van, late '80s early '90s. If this is your conversion, get everything off the same doner vehicle. The Van has the most stand alone wiring harness. The only thing you really need to buy other than that is a VSS, [vehicle speed sensor] that fits inline in your speedo cable. If you want to hot rod it you'll want a Holley Throttle Body Injector [502-6?] and not use the Rodchester unit that comes with the oem system. There is much information about modifying your harness in the 'net. In retrospect it is easy enough, but everything is once you know how. Then you will need to get a prom [chip] burnt for your set up. You may even want to get into data logging and burn your own chips fine tuning your system. Frank. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jared Ryan" To: Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:12 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] TBI conversion > A Chevy V-8 has two coolant sensors. There is one on the intake manifold, > in or near the thermostat housing. That is for the ECM. There is another > one in the driver-side cylinder head. That is for the gauge in the > dashboard. They are totally separate. > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Steve Ravet wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > >> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod > >> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:59 AM > >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] TBI conversion > > > > www.jagsthatrun.com has a lot of EFI conversion parts like VSS, also > > various mechanical bits, and plumbing elbows and straights for MAF > > sensors. > > > >> > >> > >> Currently uses a 1226865, target using a 1227747/1228747 ECM > >> (very common unit) Painless Harness 60101 (they engineered > >> wiring based on a 90 Chevy P/U for the 1227747 as well as > >> other similar ECMs) Holley TBI adapter 17-41 or (Painless > >> 60118) (solves the bolt pattern match issue) Painless VSS > >> Adapter 60115 (gets 2PPM from mechanical speedo cable), car > >> may have an acceptable feed already since CCC may require one > >> ThrottleBody from same size engine or modify cal on PROM to > >> change inj size PROM from same size engine (I can modify to suit) > >> Sensors/inputs: Knock, TPS, Temp, MAP, Spark, Speed > >> I would intend to make a plate to mount fuses, relays, > >> MAP, etc onto to make installation clean > >> * Knock sensor exists > >> * TPS should be part of the TBI > >> * Coolant sensor (this is still an outstanding question, > >> will the existing one suffice - I think so, if not acquire > >> correct one) > > > > The computer and dash cannot share a sensor, so you'll probably need > > two. > > > >> * MAP sensor (this is still an outstanding question, will > >> probabally have to acquire correct one) My sources show a > >> valid 90 TBI 305 P/U part # as OEM to be 16137939 but the > >> parts houses show it to be 16137039, so am a little puzzled here > > > > MAFs for TBI and TPI normally aspirated are all the same, although they > > come in different packages. Any one of them would work for you. > > > > Get the factory service manual that corresponds to the donor ECM and its > > calibration. > > > > --steve > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.2/560 - Release Date: 11/30/2006 > > From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 30 18:05:25 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:05:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Gmecm] Re: TBI conversion Message-ID: <247584.54128.qm@web60811.mail.yahoo.com> www dot lindertech dot com has a TBI conversion article they did in one of the monthly newsletters. It will be in the archives. It has all the info on the logistics you will need with pictures. --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. From jktucker at usamedia.tv Thu Nov 30 18:53:52 2006 From: jktucker at usamedia.tv (Jake Tucker) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:53:52 -0800 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c714e3$33443bf0$0300a8c0@office> Bob, Just a few other tidbits I've learned from several conversions (two TBI's, one TPI, and two vortec's, also two Holly Pro-jections :( ). You can use the stock intake instead of an adapter, but the middle intake holes are at the wrong angle, and require a bit of work with a grinder. It doesn't look pretty, but it will work. You're better off using the adapter as stated in earlier e-mails. Also, the stock intake is known to crack. The painless harnesses are definitely easier. However, they are not for the budget conscious, and if you have a wiring diagram for the TBI system, it's not too hard to convert a stock harness with a little time and effort. Make sure you have an adequate alternator. The stock ones from a '69 vette don't provide enough juice, and it's best to upgrade to a newer system. The best choice is to get the entire serpentine setup off a late model truck. In fact, I have a friend with a complete serpentine system off a '95 Chevy Truck including A/C. We replaced that motor with a vortec one. He has the '95 harness, but it doesn't use the 747 computer, and the stock '95 computer was fried. The '95 harness is pretty stand-alone also, and would be nice for a retrofit since it has an under-hood fuse and relay box. In my opinion, the biggest pain is the fuel system. You will need a return line to your tank, and provide a high pressure fuel pump. I prefer to use a stock injected fuel tank, with the stock in-tank pump. You can use an external pump, which is considerably easier, but they're also more expensive, and noisier. You will then have to work with fuel lines. The throttle body will have brass colored adapters that connect to a special flare nut that I've only seen on GM fuel lines. Some early Cadillacs, which use the same throttle body, have a brass colored adapter that connects to a standard inverted flare. I don't know which year, I just know that I found one in a junkyard once, and grabbed it before I knew how rare it was. On the fuel pump side, it will use the same GM fuel line flare. The supply line will be 3/8", and the return will be 5/16". From the throttle body to the frame rail, you can get the stock unit, which will have the proper bends to drop the fuel lines from the throttle body to the frame rail. From there, you can use a chunk of stock fuel line and cut it off and use a compression fitting to connect it to some standard 3/8" line. Remember to use a high pressure fuel filter on the supply side at this point. On the fuel tank side, if you are using a stock tank, you can get some flexible fuel lines to connect to the tank, then use some stubs from a stock fuel line and compression fittings to get to the frame rail area above. Most GM vehicles used the same fittings in the late 80's and early 90's, so just look for two rubber hoses (one of each size) that are long enough for your installation. With the TBI system, the cam may be a slight issure, but if you have a good idle at 800 RPM, it should be O.K. You'll definitely need to do some tuning, but there is a lot of expertise for that in this forum. Jake Tucker -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of BNRVL at aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:43 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion Hello , I have a print of an article from January 1994 issue of Street Rod , written by Doc Frohmader who outlines some details for a Low Budget Injection system for Mike Moeller's 1939 Chevy Sedan . The parts are from a 1988-92 Chevy Truck , salvage yard variety . I want to follw this recepie for my 1933 Dodge Pickem-up Truck .It has a 1969 Corvette 350 CI engine ,Sig Erson can, numbers unknown but a nice smooth 800-1000 rpm idle , factory alum intake , Carter 4 Bbl. carb. 350 automatic trans.. and at 3500 rpm it will jump one lane when opened up to 4200 rpm , so I do not need any more speed for a daily driver , just improved gas mileage which now is 15 mpg highway . Ihave not been able to locate an email for Mr. Frohmader nor Mr. Moeller , so a follow up for current info on the project is not possible as of today . Can any one help me ?, in that I am ready to begin a parts list and begin to accumilate pieces for this endeavor now. Thank you Bob Norville Memphis,Tn. area _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From davesnothereman at netscape.net Thu Nov 30 19:18:27 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion In-Reply-To: <20061130165918.80872.qmail@web80505.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061130165918.80872.qmail@web80505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C8E2FDBD7C76A3-AEC-763@webmail-db15.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] TBI conversion Painless VSS Adapter 60115 (gets 2PPM from mechanical speedo cable), car may have an acceptable feed already since CCC may require one Speedo cable spins 1000 rev per mile. Speed sensor on back of speesometer produces 2 pulses per cable revolution, or 2000 pulses per mile. Output should not need buffering for 7747. ThrottleBody from same size engine or modify cal on PROM to change inj size PROM from same size engine (I can modify to suit) Sensors/inputs: Knock, TPS, Temp, MAP, Spark, Speed I would intend to make a plate to mount fuses, relays, MAP, etc onto to make installation clean * Knock sensor exists * TPS should be part of the TBI * Coolant sensor (this is still an outstanding question, will the existing one suffice - I think so, if not acquire correct one) Early CTS used a different form. The connector looked similar to a knock sensor. These sensors were not terribly reliable, although if you have one it has probably proven itself by now. Either the new or style will work with both carby and efi ecm. * MAP sensor (this is still an outstanding question, will probabally have to acquire correct one) My sources show a valid 90 TBI 305 P/U part # as OEM to be 16137939 but the parts houses show it to be 16137039, so am a little puzzled here. You almost have to try to get a wrong MAP sensor. Any of the TBI V8 vehicles will supply one which will work. Zaphod * Vehicle has large HEI dizzy, so Painless harness should plug right up * VSS will be from the Painless VSS adapter or the existing speedo output to CCC The last area that I'm not yet sure of is EGR and AIR (not A/C): * I'm hoping the existing EGR controls will adapt to the new ECM w/ little or no changes. * AIR, haven't spent much time under the hood yet, so I don't know what is there in this area if any, may not need to go here at all. We'll wait to figure this one out when I see if the hardware is ther now. ----- Original Message ---- From: "BNRVL at aol.com" To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:43:02 AM Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion Hello , I have a print of an article from January 1994 issue of Street Rod , written by Doc Frohmader who outlines some details for a Low Budget Injection system for Mike Moeller's 1939 Chevy Sedan . The parts are from a 1988-92 Chevy Truck , salvage yard variety . I want to follw this recepie for my 1933 Dodge Pickem-up Truck .It has a 1969 Corvette 350 CI engine ,Sig Erson can, numbers unknown but a nice smooth 800-1000 rpm idle , factory alum intake , Carter 4 Bbl. carb. 350 automatic trans.. and at 3500 rpm it will jump one lane when opened up to 4200 rpm , so I do not need any more speed for a daily driver , just improved gas mileage which now is 15 mpg highway . Ihave not been able to locate an email for Mr. Frohmader nor Mr. Moeller , so a follow up for current info on the project is not possible as of today . Can any one help me ?, in that I am ready to begin a parts list and begin to accumilate pieces for this endeavor now. Thank you Bob Norville Memphis,Tn. area _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From bcroe at juno.com Thu Nov 30 22:09:13 2006 From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:09:13 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] TBI conversion Message-ID: <20061130.225005.280.0.bcroe@juno.com> My understanding is EFI cars have true MAP sensors, but CCC engines have a sensor referenced to air pressure (as opposed to absolute zero pressure), is that right? Bruce Roe 30 Nov 06 davesnothereman at netscape.net writes: > > -----Original Message----- > From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: 30 Nov 06 11:59 AM > * MAP sensor (this is still an outstanding question, will > probabally have to acquire correct one) My sources show > a valid 90 TBI 305 P/U part # as OEM to be 16137939 but > the parts houses show it to be 16137039, so am a little > puzzled here. > > You almost have to try to get a wrong MAP sensor. Any of > the TBI V8 vehicles will supply one which will work. > Zaphod