From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 1 03:31:42 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:31:42 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000> <1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com> Message-ID: <039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> > > And a final note: It is not desirable to offset a crank position > > sensor > > -60 deg to to allow an unmodified distributor calibration to be used > > with the 7 notch DIS system. During cranking and at any time the 5V > > bypass line is held low, ignition pulses are delivered to the coils 60 > > deg. retarded from the reference pulse. These pulses will be delivered > > 60 deg ATDC with an offset crank sensor. Starting will be extremely > > difficult, requiring large amounts of fuel and quite possibly > > backfiring > > severely through the exhaust. There is no need to alter the original > > relationship between the crank sensor and notch position to convert > > between DIS and distributor calibrations. I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how a DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm missing? (I'm used to dizzy triggering.) I've never found a clear description about what a GM DIS module does. Thanks, Robin From tsokorai at minimania.org Fri Sep 1 08:36:09 2006 From: tsokorai at minimania.org (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <000401c6cd80$ffd25440$6400a8c0@p42000> References: <000401c6cd80$ffd25440$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <200609010936.09143.tsokorai@minimania.org> On Friday 01 September 2006 00:42, Brendan Patten wrote: > > > AT 8025 I put in AA 59.8 > AT 8026 I put in FFE4 -10 > AT 8028 I put in FF39 -70 Yes, something like that, the min & max advances get reversed and negative, and initial @60 deg. I have a BMW I6 running with GM DIS and $8D code since last week. Some other changes need: Cylinder select: obviously for the 8->6 cyl change. You'll maybe want to change the DRP counts until running for easier starts (or otherwise the ECM will take control of the ignition at 400 RPM instead of 300), and the "high RPM DRPs until running" from 8 to 6 to have nice and clean starts. Copy the fueling and spark maps from the original app. as Ryan already suggested. As my retrofit was for a very different engine, I did 1001 more changes, but it *?s* possible to get a $8D running a 6 cyl. DIS engine :) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From tsokorai at minimania.org Fri Sep 1 08:41:05 2006 From: tsokorai at minimania.org (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:41:05 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine In-Reply-To: <039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000> <1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com> <039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <200609010941.05924.tsokorai@minimania.org> On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how a > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm missing? Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), the DIS module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static timing, typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has 60deg offset. -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From tsokorai at minimania.org Fri Sep 1 08:48:44 2006 From: tsokorai at minimania.org (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine In-Reply-To: <20060901022613.58897.qmail@web35906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060901022613.58897.qmail@web35906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200609010948.44455.tsokorai@minimania.org> On Thursday 31 August 2006 22:26, Ryan Hess wrote: > The obvious question to ask, is why? Seems like a lot of work for nothing > to gain... Are you trying to find more tuning support or something? I'd Well, it's not hard at all to get the $8D to run a 6 Cyl+ DIS and it is better documented than the V6 codes. The only problem I'm still having on my $8D I6 DISed BMW, is that sometimes the idle control goes crazy on starts: it gets a 2000 RPM idle and even on the ALDL the IAC count stays on the ceiling (so it is not a stuck IAC, it is software). If I stop the engine and start it again, it gets great idle again .... weird .... -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Fri Sep 1 09:05:56 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:05:56 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] search engine for lists Message-ID: for members of the DIY list, see below for a link to the archive search engine. > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Gary Evans > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:16 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > > On Aug 31, 2006, at 6:46 PM, Brendan Patten wrote: > > > Okay, I want to run the ever popular $8D code on my 1990 > Cavalier 3.1L > > Ah, see this is where a forum format (or at least a search > function!) would be immensely helpful. This subject was just > covered in detail a while back and I spent the last 20 > minutes looking all over the place for the relevant post. . Sorry, I've dropped the ball on this several times now. There has been a search engine for some time, and while the link has been posted a few times I never put a link on the WWW page. It's there now, if you go to the diy_efi or gmecm pages and click "Browse/search the article archives" you'll get there. I don't think it's indexing automatically yet, so it doesn't have Shannen's post below, but I'm checking into that. --steve -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Fri Sep 1 12:10:27 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:10:27 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] BMW I6 DIS Message-ID: <44F86983.5080006@highspeedlink.net> I've been meaning to as for a while... how are you triggering your ECM from the BMW engine? Will > From: "Tomas J. Sokorai Sch." > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It > RUNS > > On Friday 01 September 2006 00:42, Brendan Patten wrote: >> >> AT 8025 I put in AA 59.8 >> AT 8026 I put in FFE4 -10 >> AT 8028 I put in FF39 -70 > > Yes, something like that, the min & max advances get reversed and negative, > and initial @60 deg. > > I have a BMW I6 running with GM DIS and $8D code since last week. > > Some other changes need: Cylinder select: obviously for the 8->6 cyl change. > > You'll maybe want to change the DRP counts until running for easier starts (or > otherwise the ECM will take control of the ignition at 400 RPM instead of > 300), and the "high RPM DRPs until running" from 8 to 6 to have nice and > clean starts. > Copy the fueling and spark maps from the original app. as Ryan already > suggested. > > As my retrofit was for a very different engine, I did 1001 more changes, but > it *?s* possible to get a $8D running a 6 cyl. DIS engine :) From tsokorai at minimania.org Fri Sep 1 13:41:10 2006 From: tsokorai at minimania.org (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] BMW I6 DIS In-Reply-To: <44F86983.5080006@highspeedlink.net> References: <44F86983.5080006@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <200609011441.10394.tsokorai@minimania.org> On Friday 01 September 2006 13:10, William Lucke wrote: > I've been meaning to as for a while... how are you triggering your ECM > from the BMW engine? Crank triggered, from the front damper. Originally this engine had a "TDC sensor" for use by the dealership's diagnostic equipment, essentially a VR crank sensor, but with only one hole in the damper to sense. I just made other six holes in the damper to achieve the GM 6+1 trigger pattern and modified the stock sensor by adding stronger magnets to get a more powerfull signal able to trigger the DIS module. -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat Sep 2 05:46:41 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:46:41 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000><1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com><039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> <200609010941.05924.tsokorai@minimania.org> Message-ID: <041d01c6ce7d$15b14210$020101c0@gandalf> > On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: > > > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how a > > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the > > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for > > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm missing? > > Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), the DIS > module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static timing, > typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has 60deg > offset. Sorry if I'm being dim here; when the ECM is not controlling the timing, does the DIS module fire at every pulse from the trigger wheel? How does a 6 x 60deg trigger wheel work for a 4cyl engine? Thanks, Robin From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sat Sep 2 10:48:45 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:48:45 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor Message-ID: <44F9A7DD.9030509@highspeedlink.net> I'm gathering information for an engine swap in my Pontiac 6000 AWD. It uses a version of the TH125 3 speed auto that can't be changed because of the AWD. The transmission, of course, has an electrically locked torque convertor. The engine I have in mind is a 3100 SFI V6. AFAIK, this engine was only used with electronic transmissions. I'd like to retain sequential injection for fuel economy reasons (also the reasons I'm planning for a 3100 and not a 3400 or 3500). I also intend to turbocharge the engine. What ECM/mask combo can I use for this? I'd like a pretty "robust" mask with 16 cell BLM capabilities (I've heard that some masks, like the $A1, use an abbreviated 3 cell BLM structure) and, of course, boost control. Would a Turbo 3.8 controller work? Is the early DIS compatible with the later DIS that the engine would be using? Will From bpatten at centurytel.net Sat Sep 2 11:31:26 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor In-Reply-To: <44F9A7DD.9030509@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM cells. But no sequential. There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not sure of how many blm cells there $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and boost, still no sequential. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of William Lucke Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 10:49 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6,hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor I'm gathering information for an engine swap in my Pontiac 6000 AWD. It uses a version of the TH125 3 speed auto that can't be changed because of the AWD. The transmission, of course, has an electrically locked torque convertor. The engine I have in mind is a 3100 SFI V6. AFAIK, this engine was only used with electronic transmissions. I'd like to retain sequential injection for fuel economy reasons (also the reasons I'm planning for a 3100 and not a 3400 or 3500). I also intend to turbocharge the engine. What ECM/mask combo can I use for this? I'd like a pretty "robust" mask with 16 cell BLM capabilities (I've heard that some masks, like the $A1, use an abbreviated 3 cell BLM structure) and, of course, boost control. Would a Turbo 3.8 controller work? Is the early DIS compatible with the later DIS that the engine would be using? Will _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat Sep 2 13:28:18 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 19:28:18 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? References: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. Could somebody clarify? Robin From pmkls1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 18:39:05 2006 From: pmkls1 at yahoo.com (Phillip Kuhn) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <20060902233906.61212.qmail@web54614.mail.yahoo.com> Well a mask is what is used to decode the bin file. Think of the bin as a big encoded message and the mask file is a decoding device that allows you to read it. All bin files are written in hex codes and most of the editing programs we use translate that into values that we can more easily understand or rather real world values. That is where mask files come into play. The different codes used $58,$8D, etc are all coded differently and use different sets of values for the set parameters. Basically what you originally thought was right, but there are several definition files available that people have edited to make it more easy to do custom tuning. Of course this is how I understood it and I could be completely off base in which case I am sure somebody will correct me. Phil __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sun Sep 3 12:58:07 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 Message-ID: <44FB17AF.4080407@highspeedlink.net> Conceptually, I look at it hierarchically: Hardware Code Data Hardware is the ECM... 7730, 7749, etc. Code is the mask... $8D, $8F, etc. Data is the calibration... ANHT, AUJP, etc. The code consists of instructions that tell the ECM what to with the calibration data. When the ECM executes the same code instructions on different data sets, you get different outputs. Thus there can be multiple sets of calibration data for each code mask, because, for example, the speedometer data would have to be different for each axle ratio offered in a RWD car, or the calibration data for a 305 is different than that for a 350, even though they are run by the same ECM and code mask. The term "mask" is a little obtuse in that it stems from old school computer speak. If you printed out the .bin file you could theoretically cut holes in another piece of paper to lay over top of the printout so that you only looked at what you were interested in... you could then label each hole "0xAAAA - 0xAAAF: data so-and-so" and the piece of paper with the holes would become a "mask" for understanding your .bin. This is exactly what a definition file does in your PC's memory. Because each version of Code may put critical tables in different locations in the .bin, you need a different mask for each different code, and thus the term mask has come to be synonymous with the specific program used. Will > Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 19:28:18 +0100 > From: "Robin Handley" > Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? > > I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a > clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a > 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in > different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. > ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. > Could somebody clarify? > > Robin From davida1 at hiwaay.net Sun Sep 3 13:05:40 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 13:05:40 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: [Diy_efi] Mopar Small Block EFI Project References: <000c01c6cf7d$0dcc6b00$6501a8c0@davis> Message-ID: <004001c6cf83$9669a850$16ce5245@yancey.com> Thanks for the pictures! That clears up my confusion, I had thought you had somehow adapted a small-block Chevy intake manifold to a Mopar engine! You'll not be disappointed with it- every swap I have done has done nothing but improve the engine's reliability and performance. With full control over the engine, you'll definately have an easy time exceeding the stock carb'ed power level. Oh, the joys of real-time tuning! It looks like the Mopar TB uses the same stepping-motor IAC valve as Rochester did. That will be a blessing for your retrofit. Is the throttle position sensor also adaptable to the Delco computer? That's a fine looking car, by the way. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clair Davis" To: "diy_efi" Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:19 PM Subject: [Diy_efi] Mopar Small Block EFI Project > For a brief recap on the project, I'll include some links to photos I've > collected over the last couple of years. No formal web page yet, I've only > gotten as far as uploading the photos. Goal is to have a fun daily driver > with old-school style and modern reliability and handling. She'll also see > a few autocrosses every year. > > Here's the car, a 1969 Plymouth Valiant 2-door post sedan: > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/69sedan/In_The_Park2-PS-Clipped.JPG > > Engine is a low-compression 340ci/5.6L V-8 from the early 70's, freshened up > by me in the late 90's. In carbureted form, it makes 260 hp and 290 lb-ft > of torque at the rear wheels. Runs just fine on 89 octane, and might > tolerate 87, but I haven't tried. > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/340/72tweaked340-Chassis-640.jpg > > The nuts and bolts are that I've got a '730 ECM & wiring harness, a pile of > GM sensors, a pile of Mopar sensors, and a pile of Mopar hard parts, and > I've been working to make those three piles in to one coherent package. > > Mopar Performance makes, or made, an EFI-ready single plane intake for the > Magnum V-8 trucks to replace the restrictive beer-barrel intake manifold, > using all the OEM Magnum fuel goodies - rails, injectors, sensors, throttle > body, etc. This is the intake I have: > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/69sedan/upgrades/efi/M1_Magnum_Intake-01.JPG > > Distributor is a no-advance unit from a late-1980's "Lean Burn" carbureted > small block: > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/69sedan/upgrades/efi/Reluctor_Pickup-01.JPG > > Throttle body is also a Mopar Performance piece, 1000cfm 4V, billet > aluminum, all the Magnum sensors (TPS, MAP, IAC). > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/69sedan/upgrades/efi/Throttle%20Body.JPG > > I still have to wire up the coil & mount the 8-pin HEI ignition control > unit, but that's about it for wiring. That's also where I've got a couple > remaining questions, but I'll get to those later. I'm really looking > forward to getting the old girl back on the road, and then seeing how far I > can tune the EFI to improve the package. > > Clair > Fort Worth, TX > > _______________________________________________ > Diy_efi mailing list > Diy_efi at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/diy_efi > From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 3 13:52:39 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 19:52:39 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 - What really is a 'mask'? References: <44FB17AF.4080407@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <052f01c6cf8a$22fab510$020101c0@gandalf> > Because each version of Code may put critical tables in different > locations in the .bin, you need a different mask for each different > code, and thus the term mask has come to be synonymous with the specific > program used. This is the bit which does not marry completely with my previous understanding, and I realise that my original description was amibiguous in this respect, but I think clear and concise otherwise. So, in an attempt to be absolutely clear, is it true that, for a given code 'mask': - The algorithms in the executable code are identical for all instantiations (and, in fact, all executable code, aside from lookup vectors, is identical). - The calibration (lookup) data values will (obviously) vary between applications to cope with different engine configurations etc. etc. - The size and scaling etc. of all the calibration (lookup) data are identical for all instantiations. - The vector memory location of any given element (scalar/array/table) of calibration data may vary between instantiations. Is the above a necessary and sufficient description? Robin P.S. My school teachers used to have a paper 'mask' for marking multiple choice questions (a piece of paper with holes punched in). Having programmed in assembler for over 20 years, I'm also familiar with the concept of masking bits. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: 03 September 2006 18:58 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 > Conceptually, I look at it hierarchically: > Hardware > Code > Data > > Hardware is the ECM... 7730, 7749, etc. > Code is the mask... $8D, $8F, etc. > Data is the calibration... ANHT, AUJP, etc. > > The code consists of instructions that tell the ECM what to with the > calibration data. When the ECM executes the same code instructions on > different data sets, you get different outputs. Thus there can be > multiple sets of calibration data for each code mask, because, for > example, the speedometer data would have to be different for each axle > ratio offered in a RWD car, or the calibration data for a 305 is > different than that for a 350, even though they are run by the same ECM > and code mask. > > The term "mask" is a little obtuse in that it stems from old school > computer speak. If you printed out the .bin file you could theoretically > cut holes in another piece of paper to lay over top of the printout so > that you only looked at what you were interested in... you could then > label each hole "0xAAAA - 0xAAAF: data so-and-so" and the piece of paper > with the holes would become a "mask" for understanding your .bin. This > is exactly what a definition file does in your PC's memory. > > Because each version of Code may put critical tables in different > locations in the .bin, you need a different mask for each different > code, and thus the term mask has come to be synonymous with the specific > program used. > > > Will > > > > Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 19:28:18 +0100 > > From: "Robin Handley" > > Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? > > > > I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a > > clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a > > 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in > > different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. > > ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. > > Could somebody clarify? > > > > Robin > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From davida1 at hiwaay.net Sun Sep 3 17:59:10 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:59:10 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] 2732 direct EEPROM / Flash replacement Message-ID: <005e01c6cfac$95f16e70$16ce5245@yancey.com> Hey, does anyone know what chip (if any) is a pin-compatible EEPROM or Flash chip to replace a 2732 EPROM used in a 7747 ECM? I have searched the archive (thanks for getting this feature woking!!) and only found more confusion and conflicting information. I'm looking to replace it with something that will not need to be UV erased, and will not require any funky adapter to fit into my ECM. Thanks, David From jlg-sep at comcast.net Sun Sep 3 19:18:33 2006 From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 2732 direct EEPROM / Flash replacement References: <005e01c6cfac$95f16e70$16ce5245@yancey.com> Message-ID: <000c01c6cfb7$a843ac90$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP> Craig's G2 and G2X are great solutions to your problem. http://www.moates.net/adapters-and-chipkits-gm-adapters-c-25_36.html -Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Allen" To: "GM-ECM" ; Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 6:59 PM Subject: [Gmecm] 2732 direct EEPROM / Flash replacement Hey, does anyone know what chip (if any) is a pin-compatible EEPROM or Flash chip to replace a 2732 EPROM used in a 7747 ECM? I have searched the archive (thanks for getting this feature woking!!) and only found more confusion and conflicting information. I'm looking to replace it with something that will not need to be UV erased, and will not require any funky adapter to fit into my ECM. Thanks, David From ssealander at Stny.rr.com Sun Sep 3 19:25:11 2006 From: ssealander at Stny.rr.com (Scot Sealander) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:25:11 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 - What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <052f01c6cf8a$22fab510$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <200609040025.k840P9Co012242@ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com> >So, in an attempt to be absolutely clear, is it true that, for a >given code 'mask': >- The algorithms in the executable code are identical for all > instantiations (and, in fact, all executable code, aside from lookup > vectors, is identical). No. I have seen at least 3 different slight code variations of the $8D. The changes aren't large, and none of the cal data area is changed. >- The calibration (lookup) data values will (obviously) vary between >applications to cope with different engine configurations etc. etc. >- The size and scaling etc. of all the calibration (lookup) data are >identical for all instantiations. >- The vector memory location of any given element (scalar/array/table) >of calibration data may vary between instantiations. >Is the above a necessary and sufficient description? It seems that nothing is absolute. But that is a pretty good idea of what is going on. Scot From bpatten at centurytel.net Sun Sep 3 23:10:47 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 23:10:47 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <200609010936.09143.tsokorai@minimania.org> Message-ID: <000001c6cfd8$1a6a0880$6400a8c0@p42000> I have been unsuccessful to get this to work on my 3.1L. It goes into limp mode, laptop won't communicate via ALDL port with computer. Thomas, would you be willing to share your bin you are using, so that I could compare ??? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS On Friday 01 September 2006 00:42, Brendan Patten wrote: > > > AT 8025 I put in AA 59.8 > AT 8026 I put in FFE4 -10 > AT 8028 I put in FF39 -70 Yes, something like that, the min & max advances get reversed and negative, and initial @60 deg. I have a BMW I6 running with GM DIS and $8D code since last week. Some other changes need: Cylinder select: obviously for the 8->6 cyl change. You'll maybe want to change the DRP counts until running for easier starts (or otherwise the ECM will take control of the ignition at 400 RPM instead of 300), and the "high RPM DRPs until running" from 8 to 6 to have nice and clean starts. Copy the fueling and spark maps from the original app. as Ryan already suggested. As my retrofit was for a very different engine, I did 1001 more changes, but it *?s* possible to get a $8D running a 6 cyl. DIS engine :) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. _______________________________________________ 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 bpatten at centurytel.net Mon Sep 4 00:38:41 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:38:41 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <000001c6cfd8$1a6a0880$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <000101c6cfe4$649e0ad0$6400a8c0@p42000> Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Patten Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:11 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS I have been unsuccessful to get this to work on my 3.1L. It goes into limp mode, laptop won't communicate via ALDL port with computer. Thomas, would you be willing to share your bin you are using, so that I could compare ??? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS On Friday 01 September 2006 00:42, Brendan Patten wrote: > > > AT 8025 I put in AA 59.8 > AT 8026 I put in FFE4 -10 > AT 8028 I put in FF39 -70 Yes, something like that, the min & max advances get reversed and negative, and initial @60 deg. I have a BMW I6 running with GM DIS and $8D code since last week. Some other changes need: Cylinder select: obviously for the 8->6 cyl change. You'll maybe want to change the DRP counts until running for easier starts (or otherwise the ECM will take control of the ignition at 400 RPM instead of 300), and the "high RPM DRPs until running" from 8 to 6 to have nice and clean starts. Copy the fueling and spark maps from the original app. as Ryan already suggested. As my retrofit was for a very different engine, I did 1001 more changes, but it *?s* possible to get a $8D running a 6 cyl. DIS engine :) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. _______________________________________________ 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 davesnothereman at netscape.net Mon Sep 4 06:41:50 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:41:50 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> References: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C89E2E3F13531E-1230-39EB@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> From what I understand, the mask ID is a calculated number. I believe the table locations and sizes as well as code length are the main contributors to the ID. Ludis Langens wrote a program several years ago which would look at a calibration and calculate the mask ID, as well as determine whether the file was stock or modified, and if stock would return the BCC. The BCC is the broadcast code, an identifier used to pick out specific calibrations as mandated by US law. While the mask can be thought of as the "table location and code template," the various BCC's associated with a certain mask represent different calibration variables. The mask ID system does not guarantee a unique identifier for every variation of code and table. Ludis had mentioned once that there are different codes which will generate the same mask ID. Since a similar question has come up on another list, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if the term "mask" has a historical reference to the early days of prom production. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 2:28 PM Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. Could somebody clarify? Robin _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Mon Sep 4 06:51:56 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine In-Reply-To: <041d01c6ce7d$15b14210$020101c0@gandalf> References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000><1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com><039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> <200609010941.05924.tsokorai@minimania.org> <041d01c6ce7d$15b14210$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C89E2FA8449C45-1230-3A09@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> On a 4 cylinder engine the "double notch" of the 7x crank wheel indicates synch. The module fires on the next signal from the crank wheel. Two pulses are counted and the module fires on the third. One pulse is counted, then the double notch to indicate synch, and the cycle begins again. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: > > > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how a > > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the > > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for > > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm missing? > > Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), the DIS > module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static timing, > typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has 60deg > offset. Sorry if I'm being dim here; when the ECM is not controlling the timing, does the DIS module fire at every pulse from the trigger wheel? How does a 6 x 60deg trigger wheel work for a 4cyl engine? Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Mon Sep 4 07:15:44 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 08:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor In-Reply-To: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <8C89E32FB17471A-1230-3A83@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Stock $58 has 2 BLM cells, idle and off idle. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 12:31 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and boost, still no sequential. ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Mon Sep 4 07:36:04 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 08:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <000101c6cfe4$649e0ad0$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <8C89E35D2329FAB-1230-3AF7@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Changing calibration values does not generally cause communication failures. Changing spark reference angles may cause engine failure, but does not cause ECM comms failure. Timing values for max and min work like number line. Look at absolute value for conversion to degrees. For negative ($FFXX) values, use difference between $10000 and value in question. Sign for "advance" or "retard" depends on spark reference angle and sign of spark typically encountered after reference angle is subtracted from desired angle. $10000 -$ FFE3 =$ 1D $1D = d29 d29 * .35163 = 10.195 Generally speaking, for DIS calibration, typical spark angle has negative sign. More negative values indicate more advance. For distributor calibration typical spark angle has positive sign. More positive spark values indicate more advance. The $88 data posted indicates 60 deg maximum advance and negative 10 deg minimum advance. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon Sep 4 08:05:35 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:05:35 -0000 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: What, really, is a 'mask'? Message-ID: <451FBD81.4090003@highspeedlink.net> > From: "Robin Handley" > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 - What really > is a 'mask'? > >> Because each version of Code may put critical tables in different >> locations in the .bin, you need a different mask for each different >> code, and thus the term mask has come to be synonymous with the specific >> program used. > > This is the bit which does not marry completely with my previous > understanding, and I realise that my original description was amibiguous in > this respect, but I think clear and concise otherwise. > > So, in an attempt to be absolutely clear, is it true that, for a given code > 'mask': > > - The algorithms in the executable code are identical for all instantiations > (and, in fact, all executable code, aside from lookup vectors, is > identical). As was said, maybe or maybe not. FUNCTIONALLY, the program should be the same for all instances of a particular program ID. > - The calibration (lookup) data values will (obviously) vary between > applications to cope with different engine configurations etc. etc. > - The size and scaling etc. of all the calibration (lookup) data are > identical for all instantiations. These two coincide with my understanding. > - The vector memory location of any given element (scalar/array/table) of > calibration data may vary between instantiations. The memory locations of each piece of data should remain constant for a given program... after all, that is what lets us write definition files for a specific program ID. As for the program ID being a calculated and not assigned value and multiple programs with the same ID possible... I don't know... I'll leave that to the experts. Will From donsauman at cythera.net Mon Sep 4 10:50:01 2006 From: donsauman at cythera.net (Don Sauman) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:50:01 +0800 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <8C89E2E3F13531E-1230-39EB@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> References: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> <8C89E2E3F13531E-1230-39EB@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <44FC4B29.4020400@cythera.net> My understanding is that the mask is that part a program on a ROM that is created during manufacture for a specific purpose and cannot be erased. I.e. non-volatile memory. Don davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: > From what I understand, the mask ID is a calculated number. I believe the table locations and sizes as well as code length are the main contributors to the ID. Ludis Langens wrote a program several years ago which would look at a calibration and calculate the mask ID, as well as determine whether the file was stock or modified, and if stock would return the BCC. > >The BCC is the broadcast code, an identifier used to pick out specific calibrations as mandated by US law. While the mask can be thought of as the "table location and code template," the various BCC's associated with a certain mask represent different calibration variables. > >The mask ID system does not guarantee a unique identifier for every variation of code and table. Ludis had mentioned once that there are different codes which will generate the same mask ID. > >Since a similar question has come up on another list, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if the term "mask" has a historical reference to the early days of prom production. > >Zaphod > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk >To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 2:28 PM >Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? > > >I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a >clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a >'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in >different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. >ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. >Could somebody clarify? > >Robin > >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm >________________________________________________________________________ >Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. >_______________________________________________ >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 > > > -- Don Sauman Cythera Communication 35 Asteroid Way Carlisle 6101 Western Australia P: 08 9361 0337 F: 08 9361 0581 M: 0427 389 547 From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon Sep 4 12:50:27 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:50:27 -0000 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission, with lockup convertor Message-ID: <45200044.7050306@highspeedlink.net> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have functioning EGR? I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. Gearing changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, I want it. I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's certainly more responsive to boost. Will From: "Brendan Patten" Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM cells. But no sequential. There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not sure of how many blm cells there $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and boost, still no sequential. From rwhughe at oplink.net Mon Sep 4 14:33:14 2006 From: rwhughe at oplink.net (Robert W Hughes) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:33:14 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <20060904170042.53A29620854@mail.oplnk.net> References: <20060904170042.53A29620854@mail.oplnk.net> Message-ID: <44FC7F7A.1000508@oplink.net> The warly C3 ECMs had most of the software in an on board ROM (mask programmed) with some small parts in the removable PROM along with the calibration parameters. There were links in the ROM down to the PROM to execute the extra routines. -- Robert W. Hughes (Bob) BackYard Engineering 29:40.237N, 95:28.726W or perhaps 30:55.265N, 95:20.590W Houston, Texas "The city with too much Oxygen" rwhughe at oplink.net From jryan at caminofx.org Mon Sep 4 14:43:55 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:43:55 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <44FC7F7A.1000508@oplink.net> References: <20060904170042.53A29620854@mail.oplnk.net> <44FC7F7A.1000508@oplink.net> Message-ID: <8d7b9500161015b185981a8d8d8886b5@caminofx.org> Are such things as the gear ratio and tire size stored in the ROM (calpack?) of a C3 ECM? I don't see any mention of them in the PROM tables. I'm referencing specifically the 1227747 and 1228746. ---> Jared Ryan <--- jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org -- from Houston, TX as well. On Sep 4, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Robert W Hughes wrote: > The warly C3 ECMs had most of the software in an on board ROM (mask > programmed) with some small parts in the removable PROM along with the > calibration parameters. There were links in the ROM down to the PROM > to execute the extra routines. > -- > Robert W. Hughes (Bob) > BackYard Engineering > 29:40.237N, 95:28.726W or perhaps 30:55.265N, 95:20.590W > Houston, Texas "The city with too much Oxygen" > rwhughe at oplink.net > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From bpatten at centurytel.net Mon Sep 4 19:44:00 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <8C89E35D2329FAB-1230-3AF7@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000001c6d084$6455e890$6400a8c0@p42000> Okay, I've had the car running fine and timing seems to be right on track. I do have one thing happening. It is setting a code 41 after about 10 seconds of running. This is cylinder select error. I do have the number of cylinders set to 192. Other then that I don't know where else to look Anyone else encounter code 41 ? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of davesnothereman at netscape.net Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Changing calibration values does not generally cause communication failures. Changing spark reference angles may cause engine failure, but does not cause ECM comms failure. Timing values for max and min work like number line. Look at absolute value for conversion to degrees. For negative ($FFXX) values, use difference between $10000 and value in question. Sign for "advance" or "retard" depends on spark reference angle and sign of spark typically encountered after reference angle is subtracted from desired angle. $10000 -$ FFE3 =$ 1D $1D = d29 d29 * .35163 = 10.195 Generally speaking, for DIS calibration, typical spark angle has negative sign. More negative values indicate more advance. For distributor calibration typical spark angle has positive sign. More positive spark values indicate more advance. The $88 data posted indicates 60 deg maximum advance and negative 10 deg minimum advance. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ 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 rgmecm at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 20:31:57 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <000001c6d084$6455e890$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <20060905013157.60227.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Your memcal has a netres chip that is the "backup" should the prom fail. In otherwords, the prom and netres need to match (V6 or V8 or whatever) or that code is set. Brendan Patten wrote: Okay, I've had the car running fine and timing seems to be right on track. I do have one thing happening. It is setting a code 41 after about 10 seconds of running. This is cylinder select error. I do have the number of cylinders set to 192. Other then that I don't know where else to look Anyone else encounter code 41 ? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of davesnothereman at netscape.net Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Changing calibration values does not generally cause communication failures. Changing spark reference angles may cause engine failure, but does not cause ECM comms failure. Timing values for max and min work like number line. Look at absolute value for conversion to degrees. For negative ($FFXX) values, use difference between $10000 and value in question. Sign for "advance" or "retard" depends on spark reference angle and sign of spark typically encountered after reference angle is subtracted from desired angle. $10000 -$ FFE3 =$ 1D $1D = d29 d29 * .35163 = 10.195 Generally speaking, for DIS calibration, typical spark angle has negative sign. More negative values indicate more advance. For distributor calibration typical spark angle has positive sign. More positive spark values indicate more advance. The $88 data posted indicates 60 deg maximum advance and negative 10 deg minimum advance. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. From dvfagan at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 22:37:36 2006 From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <8d7b9500161015b185981a8d8d8886b5@caminofx.org> Message-ID: <20060905033736.40143.qmail@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jared, Tire size and gear ratio are handled by a device called a DRAC. It is a little board wrapped in foam adjacent to the ECM. It divides tailshaft RPM by a jumper selected code to generate speedometer drive and VSS to the computer. Dennis --- Jared Ryan wrote: > Are such things as the gear ratio and tire size > stored in the ROM > (calpack?) of a C3 ECM? I don't see any mention of > them in the PROM > tables. I'm referencing specifically the 1227747 > and 1228746. > > ---> Jared Ryan <--- > jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org > > -- from Houston, TX as well. > > On Sep 4, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Robert W Hughes wrote: > > > The warly C3 ECMs had most of the software in an > on board ROM (mask > > programmed) with some small parts in the removable > PROM along with the > > calibration parameters. There were links in the > ROM down to the PROM > > to execute the extra routines. > > -- > > Robert W. Hughes (Bob) > > BackYard Engineering > > 29:40.237N, 95:28.726W or perhaps 30:55.265N, > 95:20.590W > > Houston, Texas "The city with too much Oxygen" > > rwhughe at oplink.net > > _______________________________________________ > > Gmecm mailing list > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dvfagan at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 23:21:53 2006 From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <44FC4B29.4020400@cythera.net> Message-ID: <20060905042153.92763.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The term "mask" is used to identify a pattern of bits stored in a mask programmed ROM. In the C3 ECM arena the term is misunderstood, as a "mask" portion of the program resides on the CPU chip while a part of the program as well as the data constants (spark timing tables, fuel vs manifold pressure tables, etc.) are stored on a PROM chip. This chip, an obsolete 2732A on the C3 ECMs, could be replaced with any compatible device. Craig Moates and others offer adapters to use currently available 27C256 or 27C512 devices to enable storage and driver selection of multiple sets of data constants. The size, location and scaling of each element of the data constants is fixed by the program "mask" stored in the CPU and is non-alterable. This is why a $9A PROM cannot be used with a $A4 CPU board. An addon board by Bowling and Grippo disables the "mask" ROM on the C3 CPU and substitutes an entirely new program complete with variables for the ones that GM engineers created and can be used to control 4 barrel TBI or TPI motors. Dennis --- Don Sauman wrote: > My understanding is that the mask is that part a > program on a ROM that > is created during manufacture for a specific purpose > and cannot be > erased. I.e. non-volatile memory. > > Don > > davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: > > > From what I understand, the mask ID is a > calculated number. I believe the table locations > and sizes as well as code length are the main > contributors to the ID. Ludis Langens wrote a > program several years ago which would look at a > calibration and calculate the mask ID, as well as > determine whether the file was stock or modified, > and if stock would return the BCC. > > > >The BCC is the broadcast code, an identifier used > to pick out specific calibrations as mandated by US > law. While the mask can be thought of as the "table > location and code template," the various BCC's > associated with a certain mask represent different > calibration variables. > > > >The mask ID system does not guarantee a unique > identifier for every variation of code and table. > Ludis had mentioned once that there are different > codes which will generate the same mask ID. > > > >Since a similar question has come up on another > list, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if > the term "mask" has a historical reference to the > early days of prom production. > > > >Zaphod __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmkls1 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 00:24:43 2006 From: pmkls1 at yahoo.com (Phillip Kuhn) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? Message-ID: <20060905052443.87209.qmail@web54604.mail.yahoo.com> I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in the editing software to program for an auto or manual trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and the bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all to "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how they worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been obsolete but I have still been under the hood of plenty older cars. Anyhow if somebody could answer that question for me I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Phil __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From davida1 at hiwaay.net Tue Sep 5 10:37:31 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:37:31 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Allison transmission code reader Message-ID: <014e01c6d101$3f4978f0$16ce5245@yancey.com> Hey, all I've got a 2006 model off-highway vehicle, with a 6-speed Allison transmission. This has a stand-alone transmission controller. Anyone have any code-reading advice, or know of a commercially-available tool for reading the trouble codes on this unit. Thanks, David From ne14roxcj at gmail.com Tue Sep 5 10:59:59 2006 From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:59:59 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Allison transmission code reader In-Reply-To: <014e01c6d101$3f4978f0$16ce5245@yancey.com> Message-ID: <44fd9f0e.4b90cc2a.47cd.ffffb570@mx.gmail.com> >>> I've got a 2006 model off-highway vehicle, with a 6-speed Allison transmission. <<< Really??! What kind of OHV do you have that uses an Allison?? I'd like to see a rock-crawler that needs such a HD trans. Sorry, I'm of no help on this one, just amazed that a BIG TRUCK trans made it into a toy (if that is what you consider YOUR OHV). Must be nice. Beau From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Tue Sep 5 11:47:43 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? Message-ID: It has to do with editing images. Imagine that you "mask" out the code and only leave the data tables. This is what mask refers to. It's a specification of tables, their location and purpose. A mask ID is assigned to all applications that have the same mask. There can be many different calibrations for the same mask, and possibly different code versions, although the code would have to be substantially the same. --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Robin Handley > Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 1:28 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? > > I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never > having seen a clear definition of it. I had been beginning to > think, of late, that a 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular > version of GM code, which is used in different applications > (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. > ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm > not so sure. > Could somebody clarify? > > Robin > The 2006 ARM Developers' Conference, October 3-5, Santa Clara, US Join ARM and its technology and tools Partners from around the world at the only industry event for developers of ARM PoweredR solutions. http://www.arm.com/developersconference/ -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From matthew10_5 at netzero.net Tue Sep 5 14:19:39 2006 From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net (matthew10_5 at netzero.net) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:19:39 GMT Subject: [Gmecm] What is Asynchronous BTW Message-ID: <20060905.122013.15449.636349@webmail33.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.diy-efi.org/pipermail/gmecm/attachments/20060905/93885562/attachment.pl From Rexdina at aol.com Tue Sep 5 18:38:37 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:38:37 EDT Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e Message-ID: <4ab.456dbf6.322f647d@aol.com> Hope I don't offend anyone, but I have a 4L60e question which probably affects the ECM. I have a '94 GMC Van 4L60e that needs rebuilt. I also have a good '96 4L60e out of a '96 Chev. pickup. Both are 2 wheel drive, full sized vehicles. The '96 trans has a black box connected to the shift arm on the trans, while the '94 does not. What is the purpose of the '96 black box and it's wiring? Can it be discarded and can the '96 trans. be a bolt in replacement for the '94? Thanks in advance. RC From bpatten at centurytel.net Tue Sep 5 18:41:18 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:41:18 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <20060905013157.60227.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000201c6d144$cc4827e0$6400a8c0@p42000> Memcal is original for my 90 cavalier z24. I have chipped it. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hess Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 8:32 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Your memcal has a netres chip that is the "backup" should the prom fail. In otherwords, the prom and netres need to match (V6 or V8 or whatever) or that code is set. Brendan Patten wrote: Okay, I've had the car running fine and timing seems to be right on track. I do have one thing happening. It is setting a code 41 after about 10 seconds of running. This is cylinder select error. I do have the number of cylinders set to 192. Other then that I don't know where else to look Anyone else encounter code 41 ? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of davesnothereman at netscape.net Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Changing calibration values does not generally cause communication failures. Changing spark reference angles may cause engine failure, but does not cause ECM comms failure. Timing values for max and min work like number line. Look at absolute value for conversion to degrees. For negative ($FFXX) values, use difference between $10000 and value in question. Sign for "advance" or "retard" depends on spark reference angle and sign of spark typically encountered after reference angle is subtracted from desired angle. $10000 -$ FFE3 =$ 1D $1D = d29 d29 * .35163 = 10.195 Generally speaking, for DIS calibration, typical spark angle has negative sign. More negative values indicate more advance. For distributor calibration typical spark angle has positive sign. More positive spark values indicate more advance. The $88 data posted indicates 60 deg maximum advance and negative 10 deg minimum advance. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Sep 5 18:59:46 2006 From: wopontour at hotmail.com (WopOnTour) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:59:46 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e References: <4ab.456dbf6.322f647d@aol.com> Message-ID: AFAIK that switch mounted on the shift shaft of the 4L60E (on the 95 or newer models) is merely for the digital PRNDL readout on the cluster which wouldn't be required on the older dash.However there may be other electronic differences in the 96 model (e.g. solenoids?) that might not be totally compatible with the 93 PCM . I don't have those details in front of me, but some else here may know. Something about a different Pressure Control Solenoid PWM frequency rings a bell???... HTH WopOnTour ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:38 PM Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e > Hope I don't offend anyone, but I have a 4L60e question which probably > affects the ECM. I have a '94 GMC Van 4L60e that needs rebuilt. I also > have a good > '96 4L60e out of a '96 Chev. pickup. Both are 2 wheel drive, full sized > vehicles. The '96 trans has a black box connected to the shift arm on the > trans, > while the '94 does not. What is the purpose of the '96 black box and it's > wiring? Can it be discarded and can the '96 trans. be a bolt in > replacement for > the '94? Thanks in advance. > RC > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Sep 5 19:09:13 2006 From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:09:13 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission, with lockup convertor In-Reply-To: <45200044.7050306@highspeedlink.net> References: <45200044.7050306@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <44FE11A9.8090600@vessels-clan.com> Hi there! Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282 5-speed manual. Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24 convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from his '93 Z24 convertible ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent fuel economy (30 MPG highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd recommend tuning with a wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to maximize the benefit of whatever system you choose. As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code for a non-V8? Is there a V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) William Lucke wrote: > I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have > functioning EGR? > I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. Gearing > changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, I want it. > I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine > than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's > certainly more responsive to boost. > > > Will > > > From: "Brendan Patten" > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission > with lockup convertor > > I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode > fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) > > I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM > cells. But no sequential. > > There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not > sure of how many blm cells there > > $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and > boost, still no sequential. > _______________________________________________ > 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 dvfagan at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 19:19:27 2006 From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In-Reply-To: <20060905052443.87209.qmail@web54604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060906001927.27169.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Phillip, There is a single bit within the first ten bytes of the PROM which specifies manual or auto. Look at the disassemblies of your code set to find it. Dennis --- Phillip Kuhn wrote: > I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in > the > editing software to program for an auto or manual > trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and > the > bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were > all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all > to > "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle > has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how > they > worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I > have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited > than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most > of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been > obsolete but I have still been under the hood of > plenty older cars. Anyhow if somebody could answer > that question for me I would greatly appreciate it. > Thanks, > > Phil > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Rexdina at aol.com Tue Sep 5 19:34:12 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:34:12 EDT Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e Message-ID: <2d9.1a8b7500.322f7184@aol.com> Thanks for that info. I kind of thought it had something to do with the shift indicator, but I'm leery that the solenoids may be different. RC From hotrodder at mindspring.com Tue Sep 5 21:46:57 2006 From: hotrodder at mindspring.com (Dave Jones) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:46:57 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e References: <4ab.456dbf6.322f647d@aol.com> Message-ID: <002801c6d15e$b9207180$8bf59118@NANW> At least on the F- and B-bodies, '95 and up got the PWM version of the 4L60E. PCM code is different between PWM and non-PWM. GM cast the letters "PWM" into the face of the front pump, if you need to verify what you have. You can make a PWM valvebody function as a non-PWM by staking the TCC regulated apply valve in the full open position. Alternatively, there's a TransGo valvebody reprogramming kit that will accomplish the same thing. I'm not a tranny guy, nor have I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately, but I'm fairly certain that if you do either mod to the valvebody of your '96 trans, so it function as a non-PWM, you can bolt it in and be good to go, with no other wiring or programming changes needed. HTH, Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "WopOnTour" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 4L60e > AFAIK that switch mounted on the shift shaft of the 4L60E (on the 95 or > newer models) is merely for the digital PRNDL readout on the cluster which > wouldn't be required on the older dash.However there may be other > electronic differences in the 96 model (e.g. solenoids?) that might not be > totally compatible with the 93 PCM . I don't have those details in front > of me, but some else here may know. Something about a different Pressure > Control Solenoid PWM frequency rings a bell???... > HTH > WopOnTour > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > >> Hope I don't offend anyone, but I have a 4L60e question which probably >> affects the ECM. I have a '94 GMC Van 4L60e that needs rebuilt. I also >> have a good '96 4L60e out of a '96 Chev. pickup. Both are 2 wheel drive, >> full sized vehicles. The '96 trans has a black box connected to the >> shift arm on the trans, while the '94 does not. What is the purpose of >> the '96 black box and it's wiring? Can it be discarded and can the '96 >> trans. be a bolt in replacement for the '94? Thanks in advance. >> RC From herningg at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 21:48:03 2006 From: herningg at hotmail.com (Garrett Herning) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e In-Reply-To: <2d9.1a8b7500.322f7184@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi RC, Yes, the solenoids are different. The EPC is pulsed at a different frequency (293.5Hz up to 94 and 614 in the 95 and later). It really doesnt affect the operation. Someone posted here that the lower frequency caused interferece on the AM radio band and thats why it was changed. The big difference is the lockup. Up to 1994 there was only a single lockup solenoid, 95 and later has 2 solenoids, the normal lockup and a PWM lockup apply that can regulate the lockup pressure. If this second one isnt working (since your older PCM doesnt have the hardware to control it) you wont get lockup. I'm not sure off the top of my head, but you may be able to swap in a 94 or earlier valve body into the later trans to get it to work... don't hold me to it though... Garrett >From: Rexdina at aol.com >Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 4L60e >Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:34:12 EDT > >Thanks for that info. I kind of thought it had something to do with the >shift indicator, but I'm leery that the solenoids may be different. >RC >_______________________________________________ >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 donsauman at cythera.net Tue Sep 5 22:27:58 2006 From: donsauman at cythera.net (Don Sauman) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:27:58 +0800 Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e In-Reply-To: References: <4ab.456dbf6.322f647d@aol.com> Message-ID: <44FE403E.8040906@cythera.net> The part about the pressure control solenoid is right at least as far as a 4L80E is concerned. The force motor up to to '93 worked on a freq of 292.5Hz '94 on used 614Hz.. They not changeable in the trans. I have the same problem in that my controller is 1993, but the trans is 1996. Can get little info on either effect of using the cross configuration or the later controller with a NA diesel. I am looking at designing my own Tiptronics style shift. Don WopOnTour wrote: > AFAIK that switch mounted on the shift shaft of the 4L60E (on the 95 > or newer models) is merely for the digital PRNDL readout on the > cluster which wouldn't be required on the older dash.However there may > be other electronic differences in the 96 model (e.g. solenoids?) that > might not be totally compatible with the 93 PCM . I don't have those > details in front of me, but some else here may know. Something about a > different Pressure Control Solenoid PWM frequency rings a bell???... > HTH > WopOnTour > ----- Original Message ----- From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:38 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e > > >> Hope I don't offend anyone, but I have a 4L60e question which probably >> affects the ECM. I have a '94 GMC Van 4L60e that needs rebuilt. I >> also have a good >> '96 4L60e out of a '96 Chev. pickup. Both are 2 wheel drive, full sized >> vehicles. The '96 trans has a black box connected to the shift arm on >> the trans, >> while the '94 does not. What is the purpose of the '96 black box and >> it's >> wiring? Can it be discarded and can the '96 trans. be a bolt in >> replacement for >> the '94? Thanks in advance. >> RC >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Don Sauman Cythera Communication 35 Asteroid Way Carlisle 6101 Western Australia P: 08 9361 0337 F: 08 9361 0581 M: 0427 389 547 From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Tue Sep 5 23:20:14 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:20:14 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor Message-ID: <44FE4C7E.6030509@highspeedlink.net> A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is all wheel drive and this particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 tires on the front (205's on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared to cheap 195's all around. If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change (24 is more likely), the best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for me is 28 mpg. I won't see that because the real world isn't theoretical ideal (the real world has hills that will cause me to get into PE and convertor unlock with a 2.39 final drive). As I said before, I can do better than I am, but if sequential is worth anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will come with sequential sensors & wiring, actually running that way sounds as simple as picking the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit accomplish this? A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF? The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor used on the LT1's is quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that interprets that signal being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder operation. Will > From: Jay Vessels > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic > transmission, with lockup convertor > > Hi there! > > Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282 > 5-speed manual. > > Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost > impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24 > convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from his '93 Z24 convertible > ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent fuel economy (30 MPG > highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd recommend tuning with a > wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to maximize the benefit of > whatever system you choose. > > As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code for a non-V8? Is there a > V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? > > Jay Vessels > 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI > 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) > > William Lucke wrote: >> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have >> functioning EGR? >> I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. Gearing >> changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, I want it. >> I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine >> than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's >> certainly more responsive to boost. >> >> >> Will >> >> >> From: "Brendan Patten" >> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission >> with lockup convertor >> >> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode >> fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) >> >> I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM >> cells. But no sequential. >> >> There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not >> sure of how many blm cells there >> >> $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and >> boost, still no sequential. From info at jenkinseng.com Wed Sep 6 01:38:47 2006 From: info at jenkinseng.com (Peter Jenkins) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:38:47 +1000 Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? Message-ID: <000601c6d17f$5ead1110$6501a8c0@PETER> the ecu can only determine manual or auto from the park/neutral switch . as a manual trans does not have one. and most of the programs can be written for just manual just auto or both so there is something there in the code but it only matters if you want to run an auto with a manual program > 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!!! From b.shaw at comcast.net Wed Sep 6 06:37:19 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill - Comcast) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In-Reply-To: <20060906001927.27169.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060906001927.27169.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44FEB2EF.5090601@comcast.net> In addition, both Tunercat and Promgrammer let you edit this bit. Bill DV Fagan wrote: > Phillip, > There is a single bit within the first ten bytes of > the PROM which specifies manual or auto. Look at the > disassemblies of your code set to find it. > Dennis > > --- Phillip Kuhn wrote: > > >> I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in >> the >> editing software to program for an auto or manual >> trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and >> the >> bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were >> all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all >> to >> "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle >> has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how >> they >> worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I >> have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited >> than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most >> of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been >> obsolete but I have still been under the hood of >> plenty older cars. Anyhow if somebody could answer >> that question for me I would greatly appreciate it. >> Thanks, >> >> Phil >> >> _______________________________________________ >> From robert.sjodin at scania.com Wed Sep 6 08:58:52 2006 From: robert.sjodin at scania.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sj=F6din_Robert?=) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:58:52 +0200 Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In-Reply-To: <44FEB2EF.5090601@comcast.net> Message-ID: <02A3C863F485574985DC489CE97DA40C02542C4F@sesoexmb02.scania.se> Perhaps the $58 is different but in my case ($8D) there are quite a few tables and constants that will differ. Eg compare main SA table for low RPM and high MAP you will see that auto has much more spark advance due to converter. My Corvette came with an ANHT-based (auto) "custom" chip but it should have been AXCN (manual). When I started to compare those two I found that several hundred bytes calibration data were different. I would be surprised if it was only one bit differece between auto and manual gearbox for the $58 since there are so may differences in case of the $8D. Rob -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Bill - Comcast Sent: den 6 september 2006 13:37 To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In addition, both Tunercat and Promgrammer let you edit this bit. Bill DV Fagan wrote: > Phillip, > There is a single bit within the first ten bytes of > the PROM which specifies manual or auto. Look at the disassemblies of > your code set to find it. Dennis > > --- Phillip Kuhn wrote: > > >> I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in >> the >> editing software to program for an auto or manual >> trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and >> the >> bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were >> all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all >> to >> "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle >> has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how >> they >> worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I >> have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited >> than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most >> of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been obsolete but I >> have still been under the hood of plenty older cars. Anyhow if >> somebody could answer that question for me I would greatly appreciate >> it. Thanks, >> >> Phil >> >> _______________________________________________ >> _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From ahuxtable at sola.com.au Wed Sep 6 21:16:07 2006 From: ahuxtable at sola.com.au (Andrew Huxtable) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:46:07 +0930 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum Message-ID: <000001c6d223$94a90130$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Well, I'm willing to give it a try.... I am willing to offer web space, bandwidth and my time to get a forum going. I have been watching this list for years but I don't post too much because most of it does not relate to me or my cars (mainly because I'm an aussie). I am no mechanic, nor do I regularly do conversions to efi or constantly tinker (although I have done it quite a bit) BUT I am a very competent network engineer/administrator willing to donate for a cause. That's right - I am offering to host and maintain a specific GM-ECM forum. This is not 'backyard' hosting, it's real hosting on a dedicated beefy server living in a proper diesel power backed server room and decent internet connection. Now, to try and keep everyone happy, I'm going to try for the 'forum with email' approach as discussed going back a few months. The idea is also to keep graphics and other bandwidth hungry stuff to an absolute minimum. That way those people on dialup/slow connections should not be too concerned. I think email lists have their place but I think GM-ECM has matured too much for a list. People are afraid of change but I encourage you to give it a try and see how it feels. **To get this up and running, I need to get some suggestions of categories that would be appropriate for the forum and other constructive input to make it the forum YOU want** Please do not comment if you do not have any positive input in moving to a forum. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Doug Chase Sent: Thursday, 31 August 2006 4:30 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum I've seen this discussion come up on many mailing lists and what usually happens is this: 1) Somebody suggests moving to a forum 2) Lots of debate, with a large contingent (usually including the list owner) wanting to stay as a mailing list. 3) Eventually somebody on the forum side of the debate goes ahead and starts a forum on their own. 4a) People migrate to the forum. or 4b) The forum never really catches on and most people stay on the list. I've seen both 4a) and 4b) happen. The only way to find out is for somebody to start a forum. I've never seen a "let's switch to a forum" discussion actually end up in an official switch of a mailing list into a forum (but that doesn't mean it's never happened). Doug Chase www.chaserace.com 425-269-5636 -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Hess Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:28 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum Data is lost? I'm on probably 20 forums for everything from v6's to engineering. Of those 20, one forum has a problem with going down occasionally. There has NEVER been a loss of data or posts on ANY of the forums in the 10+ years I've been on them. Never. Conversely, I have had emails get lost. I have no idea how that happens, but apparently it does. It might be 1/100th of 1%, but it's there. Who's going to mind it? Whoever wants to. Nominate a couple admins. I'll do it without hesitation. It's no surprise thirdgen gets soooo many people from other backgrounds. "How do I tune my $DF code?" "I'm running an MG with a 3.4DOHC, which binary do I need?" Probably 20% of the posts there are not thirdgen related, which I think goes to show the number of people who want a general GM tuning/PROM/ECM/EFI forum. What I was sort of surprised of, was the number of people who have heard of this list, but don't sign up because they hate "spam". In that case, emails they'd rather not receive. Everybody is happy now only because it's no work to keep it the way it is, and to be honest I think everybody is afraid of change. _______________________________________________ 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 Sep 7 05:42:15 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:42:15 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In-Reply-To: <02A3C863F485574985DC489CE97DA40C02542C4F@sesoexmb02.scania.se> Message-ID: <8C8A0816B3E595F-11E0-1DF@mblk-d40.sysops.aol.com> This is the case with most manual vs automatic trans calibrations. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: robert.sjodin at scania.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 9:58 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? Perhaps the $58 is different but in my case ($8D) there are quite a few tables and constants that will differ. Eg compare main SA table for low RPM and high MAP you will see that auto has much more spark advance due to converter. My Corvette came with an ANHT-based (auto) "custom" chip but it should have been AXCN (manual). When I started to compare those two I found that several hundred bytes calibration data were different. I would be surprised if it was only one bit differece between auto and manual gearbox for the $58 since there are so may differences in case of the $8D. Rob -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Bill - Comcast Sent: den 6 september 2006 13:37 To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In addition, both Tunercat and Promgrammer let you edit this bit. Bill DV Fagan wrote: > Phillip, > There is a single bit within the first ten bytes of > the PROM which specifies manual or auto. Look at the disassemblies of > your code set to find it. Dennis > > --- Phillip Kuhn wrote: > > >> I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in >> the >> editing software to program for an auto or manual >> trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and >> the >> bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were >> all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all >> to >> "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle >> has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how >> they >> worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I >> have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited >> than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most >> of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been obsolete but I >> have still been under the hood of plenty older cars. Anyhow if >> somebody could answer that question for me I would greatly appreciate >> it. Thanks, >> >> Phil >> >> _______________________________________________ >> _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ 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 rgmecm at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 18:18:45 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <000001c6d223$94a90130$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Message-ID: <20060907231845.41633.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks!!! Wow, that's awesome! I really think we only need two categories- 1) ECM Hardware and wiring 2) ECM Software and tuning Maybe another catchall category like "other automotive topics" I don't know... I really don't care what you have, I'm just glad you'll have it! I'll be sure to point some people on other forums your way. Ryan Andrew Huxtable wrote: Well, I'm willing to give it a try.... I am willing to offer web space, bandwidth and my time to get a forum going. I have been watching this list for years but I don't post too much because most of it does not relate to me or my cars (mainly because I'm an aussie). I am no mechanic, nor do I regularly do conversions to efi or constantly tinker (although I have done it quite a bit) BUT I am a very competent network engineer/administrator willing to donate for a cause. That's right - I am offering to host and maintain a specific GM-ECM forum. This is not 'backyard' hosting, it's real hosting on a dedicated beefy server living in a proper diesel power backed server room and decent internet connection. Now, to try and keep everyone happy, I'm going to try for the 'forum with email' approach as discussed going back a few months. The idea is also to keep graphics and other bandwidth hungry stuff to an absolute minimum. That way those people on dialup/slow connections should not be too concerned. I think email lists have their place but I think GM-ECM has matured too much for a list. People are afraid of change but I encourage you to give it a try and see how it feels. **To get this up and running, I need to get some suggestions of categories that would be appropriate for the forum and other constructive input to make it the forum YOU want** Please do not comment if you do not have any positive input in moving to a forum. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Doug Chase Sent: Thursday, 31 August 2006 4:30 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum I've seen this discussion come up on many mailing lists and what usually happens is this: 1) Somebody suggests moving to a forum 2) Lots of debate, with a large contingent (usually including the list owner) wanting to stay as a mailing list. 3) Eventually somebody on the forum side of the debate goes ahead and starts a forum on their own. 4a) People migrate to the forum. or 4b) The forum never really catches on and most people stay on the list. I've seen both 4a) and 4b) happen. The only way to find out is for somebody to start a forum. I've never seen a "let's switch to a forum" discussion actually end up in an official switch of a mailing list into a forum (but that doesn't mean it's never happened). Doug Chase www.chaserace.com 425-269-5636 -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Hess Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:28 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum Data is lost? I'm on probably 20 forums for everything from v6's to engineering. Of those 20, one forum has a problem with going down occasionally. There has NEVER been a loss of data or posts on ANY of the forums in the 10+ years I've been on them. Never. Conversely, I have had emails get lost. I have no idea how that happens, but apparently it does. It might be 1/100th of 1%, but it's there. Who's going to mind it? Whoever wants to. Nominate a couple admins. I'll do it without hesitation. It's no surprise thirdgen gets soooo many people from other backgrounds. "How do I tune my $DF code?" "I'm running an MG with a 3.4DOHC, which binary do I need?" Probably 20% of the posts there are not thirdgen related, which I think goes to show the number of people who want a general GM tuning/PROM/ECM/EFI forum. What I was sort of surprised of, was the number of people who have heard of this list, but don't sign up because they hate "spam". In that case, emails they'd rather not receive. Everybody is happy now only because it's no work to keep it the way it is, and to be honest I think everybody is afraid of change. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. From gary at garyandliz.com Thu Sep 7 18:49:57 2006 From: gary at garyandliz.com (Gary Evans) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:49:57 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <20060907231845.41633.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060907231845.41633.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <799CFA10-9E65-4064-B7D7-3AC0D3EAC3CB@garyandliz.com> Yes, agreed this is a great offer. I vote for just one category. I don't think there is a great need to subdivide the forum into multiple of categories. We are all talking about the same thing here; it's easier to follow what's going on if all of the discussion is happening in one place. Perhaps the need for categories will become evident later, but for now I think one monolithic forum would be fantastic. -Gary On Sep 7, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Ryan Hess wrote: > Thanks!!! Wow, that's awesome! > > I really think we only need two categories- > > 1) ECM Hardware and wiring > 2) ECM Software and tuning > > Maybe another catchall category like "other automotive topics" > > I don't know... I really don't care what you have, I'm just glad > you'll have it! I'll be sure to point some people on other forums > your way. > > Ryan > > Andrew Huxtable wrote: Well, I'm willing to > give it a try.... > > > > I am willing to offer web space, bandwidth and my time to get a > forum going. > > > > I have been watching this list for years but I don't post too much > because > most of it does not relate to me or my cars (mainly because I'm an > aussie). > > > > I am no mechanic, nor do I regularly do conversions to efi or > constantly > tinker (although I have done it quite a bit) BUT I am a very competent > network engineer/administrator willing to donate for a cause. > > > > That's right - I am offering to host and maintain a specific GM-ECM > forum. > This is not 'backyard' hosting, it's real hosting on a dedicated beefy > server living in a proper diesel power backed server room and decent > internet connection. > > > > Now, to try and keep everyone happy, I'm going to try for the > 'forum with > email' approach as discussed going back a few months. The idea is > also to > keep graphics and other bandwidth hungry stuff to an absolute > minimum. That > way those people on dialup/slow connections should not be too > concerned. > > > > I think email lists have their place but I think GM-ECM has matured > too much > for a list. People are afraid of change but I encourage you to > give it a > try and see how it feels. > > > > **To get this up and running, I need to get some suggestions of > categories > that would be appropriate for the forum and other constructive > input to make > it the forum YOU want** > > > > Please do not comment if you do not have any positive input in > moving to a > forum. > > > > Andrew From rgmecm at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 19:55:14 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 17:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Message-ID: <20060908005514.49247.qmail@web35902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. From rgmecm at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 20:37:17 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <20060908005514.49247.qmail@web35902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060908013717.69956.qmail@web35908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Wait, what are these: Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is cut? Does that mean it defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? What's the point of that? If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would surely kill the motor? Second, there is: RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering [KSFILRPM] - 800 I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 lower than stock, should that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock 3.1 idle I believe is 900) Thanks in advance, Ryan Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com From ttownsley at sprynet.com Thu Sep 7 22:48:29 2006 From: ttownsley at sprynet.com (Tyler Townsley) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <799CFA10-9E65-4064-B7D7-3AC0D3EAC3CB@garyandliz.com> References: <20060907231845.41633.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <799CFA10-9E65-4064-B7D7-3AC0D3EAC3CB@garyandliz.com> Message-ID: <4500E80D.4030800@sprynet.com> The forum software used by the Megasquirt forum allows you to subscribe to the general topics and get all posts as emails just like you get them as a listservice. This satisfied all parties. Its " Powered by phpBB ? 2001, 2005 phpBB Group" and having that option made the difference. When you log on the first time you go in and edit your profile to sign up for the catagories you want coming as email. Tyler Gary Evans wrote: > Yes, agreed this is a great offer. > > I vote for just one category. > > I don't think there is a great need to subdivide the forum into > multiple of categories. We are all talking about the same thing here; > it's easier to follow what's going on if all of the discussion is > happening in one place. > > Perhaps the need for categories will become evident later, but for > now I think one monolithic forum would be fantastic. > > -Gary > > > On Sep 7, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Ryan Hess wrote: > >> Thanks!!! Wow, that's awesome! >> >> I really think we only need two categories- >> >> 1) ECM Hardware and wiring >> 2) ECM Software and tuning >> >> Maybe another catchall category like "other automotive topics" >> >> I don't know... I really don't care what you have, I'm just glad >> you'll have it! I'll be sure to point some people on other forums >> your way. >> >> Ryan >> >> Andrew Huxtable wrote: Well, I'm willing to >> give it a try.... >> >> >> >> I am willing to offer web space, bandwidth and my time to get a >> forum going. >> >> >> >> I have been watching this list for years but I don't post too much >> because >> most of it does not relate to me or my cars (mainly because I'm an >> aussie). >> >> >> >> I am no mechanic, nor do I regularly do conversions to efi or >> constantly >> tinker (although I have done it quite a bit) BUT I am a very competent >> network engineer/administrator willing to donate for a cause. >> >> >> >> That's right - I am offering to host and maintain a specific GM-ECM >> forum. >> This is not 'backyard' hosting, it's real hosting on a dedicated beefy >> server living in a proper diesel power backed server room and decent >> internet connection. >> >> >> >> Now, to try and keep everyone happy, I'm going to try for the 'forum >> with >> email' approach as discussed going back a few months. The idea is >> also to >> keep graphics and other bandwidth hungry stuff to an absolute >> minimum. That >> way those people on dialup/slow connections should not be too >> concerned. >> >> >> >> I think email lists have their place but I think GM-ECM has matured >> too much >> for a list. People are afraid of change but I encourage you to give >> it a >> try and see how it feels. >> >> >> >> **To get this up and running, I need to get some suggestions of >> categories >> that would be appropriate for the forum and other constructive input >> to make >> it the forum YOU want** >> >> >> >> Please do not comment if you do not have any positive input in >> moving to a >> forum. >> >> >> >> Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ahuxtable at sola.com.au Thu Sep 7 23:23:42 2006 From: ahuxtable at sola.com.au (Andrew Huxtable) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:53:42 +0930 Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum Message-ID: <000001c6d2fe$916cf180$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> It is my intention to use phpBB for that exact reason (other than the fact that it's free!) I was intending on using the 'Minimalistic' interface (See http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php to see what it looks like) The advantage is that it makes a nice sleek interface that is not all 'ricey'. Might throw a bit of colour in there tho. I have been working on the server today and should have something to show you by mid next week. Some Categories I have come up with: Announcements Getting Started Board/site discussion Electronics and Wiring Software and Datalogging BIN request/info ECM/U model Specific Aussie ECM specific What/Where to buy For sale/Trade Help - Urgent! The pub (general off topic discussion) Totally open for discussion of course, this is just what I have come up with so far. Some may be sub topics Of other topics. Sales and trades will be limited to private sales only, I do not want this to be a commercial site. This may mean that No NEW items will be able to be sold. I may provide an option for people that contribute to the site for commercial sales. Not sure on domain name yet. I was hoping to be able to get a subdomain of diy-efi.org if that is at all possible (without wanting to step on toes) but not sure who to talk to about that yet. Other than that, if anyone has a suggestion.. If I can't get a sub of diy-efi I might just (in the short term) use a Dyndns domain name eg http://gmecm.mine.nu or something to that effect. Please - Your feedback is IMPORTANT. The more feedback I get, the more I will be able to make it YOUR forum. I don't want to make a forum that no one visits because it's not what they want - this is your chance to speak up!! Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- The forum software used by the Megasquirt forum allows you to subscribe to the general topics and get all posts as emails just like you get them as a listservice. This satisfied all parties. Its " Powered by phpBB C 2001, 2005 phpBB Group" and having that option made the difference. When you log on the first time you go in and edit your profile to sign up for the catagories you want coming as email. Tyler From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 05:44:25 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 03:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <000001c6d2fe$916cf180$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Message-ID: <20060908104425.44842.qmail@web35913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I like it. I'd only change 2 things - I'd delete the ECM and aussie categories (so like was said before, we don't have too many categories), and change the titles a bit so people know instinctively where to go.. Announcements Getting Started Board/site discussion Hardware, Electronics and Wiring Software, Tuning, Programming BIN request/info What/Where to buy For sale/Trade Help - Urgent! The pub (general off topic discussion) I think that's perfect right there ^^^ Andrew Huxtable wrote: It is my intention to use phpBB for that exact reason (other than the fact that it's free!) I was intending on using the 'Minimalistic' interface (See http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php to see what it looks like) The advantage is that it makes a nice sleek interface that is not all 'ricey'. Might throw a bit of colour in there tho. I have been working on the server today and should have something to show you by mid next week. Some Categories I have come up with: Announcements Getting Started Board/site discussion Electronics and Wiring Software and Datalogging BIN request/info ECM/U model Specific Aussie ECM specific What/Where to buy For sale/Trade Help - Urgent! The pub (general off topic discussion) Totally open for discussion of course, this is just what I have come up with so far. Some may be sub topics Of other topics. Sales and trades will be limited to private sales only, I do not want this to be a commercial site. This may mean that No NEW items will be able to be sold. I may provide an option for people that contribute to the site for commercial sales. Not sure on domain name yet. I was hoping to be able to get a subdomain of diy-efi.org if that is at all possible (without wanting to step on toes) but not sure who to talk to about that yet. Other than that, if anyone has a suggestion.. If I can't get a sub of diy-efi I might just (in the short term) use a Dyndns domain name eg http://gmecm.mine.nu or something to that effect. Please - Your feedback is IMPORTANT. The more feedback I get, the more I will be able to make it YOUR forum. I don't want to make a forum that no one visits because it's not what they want - this is your chance to speak up!! Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- The forum software used by the Megasquirt forum allows you to subscribe to the general topics and get all posts as emails just like you get them as a listservice. This satisfied all parties. Its " Powered by phpBB C 2001, 2005 phpBB Group" and having that option made the difference. When you log on the first time you go in and edit your profile to sign up for the catagories you want coming as email. Tyler _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com From davesnothereman at netscape.net Fri Sep 8 06:18:00 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:18:00 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <20060908013717.69956.qmail@web35908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C8A14F93FEB3E6-278-2DBE@WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com> These are conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine RPM should not be dropping to 300. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Wait, what are these: Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is cut? Does that mean it defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? What's the point of that? If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would surely kill the motor? Second, there is: RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering [KSFILRPM] - 800 I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 lower than stock, should that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock 3.1 idle I believe is 900) Thanks in advance, Ryan Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 09:02:17 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 07:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <8C8A14F93FEB3E6-278-2DBE@WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20060908140217.47367.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Well, it is. I posted this on TGO, but here it is again: If I burn a chip that runs in open loop, it will run all day with a rock solid idle. My P/N switch isn't hooked up (workign on it ), but when I put it from P to D, the rpm dips a very tiny amount, but it catches it just fine. Now, enter the closed loop chip. BLM's are pretty darn good at 126, INT about the same. You let it sit for a while in park, and it will start surging. Desired idle is 700, and it starts bouncing up and down, usually getting more severe each time, till eventually it hits 300rpm and either stalls or revs to 1200+ and stalls the next time. Additionally, when in closed loop, if I put it from P to D, it instantly stalls. So it's like it has no torque or momentum when in closed loop idle. Or it can't deal with any sudden changes in rpm fast enough?? Oh - no surging in drive. It handles itself just fine there... I don't understand what is causing this. How can taking out 1.6% fuel can make that much difference? There has to be some other idle constant that is being "enabled" during CL that causes these things to happen..... Any ideas? TIA, Ryan davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: These are conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine RPM should not be dropping to 300. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Wait, what are these: Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is cut? Does that mean it defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? What's the point of that? If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would surely kill the motor? Second, there is: RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering [KSFILRPM] - 800 I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 lower than stock, should that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock 3.1 idle I believe is 900) Thanks in advance, Ryan Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 09:28:39 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 07:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] What is the "Idle Spark Multiplier"s function? Message-ID: <20060908142839.86567.qmail@web35908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In 8D, there is an idle spark multiplier vs MAP table, that is filled with 0.996 all the way. In other codes - eg $A1, and $DF, they are filled like so: 20kpa - 0.625 26kpa - 0.625 32kpa - 0.617 38kpa - 0.602 44kpa - 0.5 49kpa - 0.5 55kpa - 0.5 61kpa - 0.375 The question is, why would there be a need to change the spark advance by MAP? Or specifically the way they did it? It would make sense that an increasing load would need more spark advance to keep the RPM the same, but isn't that taken care of with the idle advance/retard tables? Besides that, this table seems to take OUT timing with increasing load. Ryan --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 8 09:42:42 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 07:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <000001c6d2fe$916cf180$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Message-ID: <20060908144242.14578.qmail@web80508.mail.yahoo.com> I'd suggest one more pertinent category, fuel supply ----- Original Message ---- From: Andrew Huxtable To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 11:23:42 PM Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum It is my intention to use phpBB for that exact reason (other than the fact that it's free!) I was intending on using the 'Minimalistic' interface (See http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php to see what it looks like) The advantage is that it makes a nice sleek interface that is not all 'ricey'. Might throw a bit of colour in there tho. I have been working on the server today and should have something to show you by mid next week. Some Categories I have come up with: Announcements Getting Started Board/site discussion Electronics and Wiring Software and Datalogging BIN request/info ECM/U model Specific Aussie ECM specific What/Where to buy For sale/Trade Help - Urgent! The pub (general off topic discussion) Totally open for discussion of course, this is just what I have come up with so far. Some may be sub topics Of other topics. Sales and trades will be limited to private sales only, I do not want this to be a commercial site. This may mean that No NEW items will be able to be sold. I may provide an option for people that contribute to the site for commercial sales. Not sure on domain name yet. I was hoping to be able to get a subdomain of diy-efi.org if that is at all possible (without wanting to step on toes) but not sure who to talk to about that yet. Other than that, if anyone has a suggestion.. If I can't get a sub of diy-efi I might just (in the short term) use a Dyndns domain name eg http://gmecm.mine.nu or something to that effect. Please - Your feedback is IMPORTANT. The more feedback I get, the more I will be able to make it YOUR forum. I don't want to make a forum that no one visits because it's not what they want - this is your chance to speak up!! Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- The forum software used by the Megasquirt forum allows you to subscribe to the general topics and get all posts as emails just like you get them as a listservice. This satisfied all parties. Its " Powered by phpBB C 2001, 2005 phpBB Group" and having that option made the difference. When you log on the first time you go in and edit your profile to sign up for the catagories you want coming as email. Tyler _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 8 09:54:00 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill - Comcast) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:54:00 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <20060908144242.14578.qmail@web80508.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060908144242.14578.qmail@web80508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45018408.2030908@comcast.net> Rather that trying to splinter off yet another web forum, I'd suggest that you just sign up to the thirdgen list. There is some serious EFI knowledge on that list already, in fact a lot of the core members of this list moved over there after the Techedge/DIY-WB debacle. It'll save you a lot of work and you will find far more talent there than you will be able to attract to a new forum. Either way, good luck with it. Bill > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Andrew Huxtable > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 11:23:42 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum > > > It is my intention to use phpBB for that exact reason (other than the fact > that it's free!) > > > > I was intending on using the 'Minimalistic' interface (See > http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php to see what it looks like) The > advantage is that it makes a nice sleek interface that is not all 'ricey'. > Might throw a bit of colour in there tho. > > > > I have been working on the server today and should have something to show > you by mid next week. > > > > Some Categories I have come up with: > > Announcements > > Getting Started > > Board/site discussion > > Electronics and Wiring > > Software and Datalogging > > BIN request/info > > ECM/U model Specific > > Aussie ECM specific > > What/Where to buy > > For sale/Trade > > Help - Urgent! > > The pub (general off topic discussion) > > > > Totally open for discussion of course, this is just what I have come up with > so far. Some may be sub topics > > Of other topics. > > > > Sales and trades will be limited to private sales only, I do not want this > to be a commercial site. This may mean that > > No NEW items will be able to be sold. I may provide an option for people > that contribute to the site for commercial sales. > > > > Not sure on domain name yet. I was hoping to be able to get a subdomain of > diy-efi.org if that is at all possible > > (without wanting to step on toes) but not sure who to talk to about that > yet. Other than that, if anyone has a suggestion.. > > > > If I can't get a sub of diy-efi I might just (in the short term) use a > Dyndns domain name eg http://gmecm.mine.nu or > something to that effect. > > > > Please - Your feedback is IMPORTANT. The more feedback I get, the more I > will be able to make it YOUR forum. > > I don't want to make a forum that no one visits because it's not what they > want - this is your chance to speak up!! > > > > Andrew > > > From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 11:37:17 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <45018408.2030908@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20060908163717.70860.qmail@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This is true. However, being that it is a Third Gen F-BODY list, they somewhat discourage active discussion about anything else. In addition, you don't see many V6'ers there because most of the people there are familiar only with 8D. IMHO, any all-encompassing tuning/ECM/hacking forum will be well received. Bill - Comcast wrote: Rather that trying to splinter off yet another web forum, I'd suggest that you just sign up to the thirdgen list. There is some serious EFI knowledge on that list already, in fact a lot of the core members of this list moved over there after the Techedge/DIY-WB debacle. It'll save you a lot of work and you will find far more talent there than you will be able to attract to a new forum. Either way, good luck with it. Bill > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Andrew Huxtable > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 11:23:42 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum > > > It is my intention to use phpBB for that exact reason (other than the fact > that it's free!) > > > > I was intending on using the 'Minimalistic' interface (See > http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php to see what it looks like) The > advantage is that it makes a nice sleek interface that is not all 'ricey'. > Might throw a bit of colour in there tho. > > > > I have been working on the server today and should have something to show > you by mid next week. > > > > Some Categories I have come up with: > > Announcements > > Getting Started > > Board/site discussion > > Electronics and Wiring > > Software and Datalogging > > BIN request/info > > ECM/U model Specific > > Aussie ECM specific > > What/Where to buy > > For sale/Trade > > Help - Urgent! > > The pub (general off topic discussion) > > > > Totally open for discussion of course, this is just what I have come up with > so far. Some may be sub topics > > Of other topics. > > > > Sales and trades will be limited to private sales only, I do not want this > to be a commercial site. This may mean that > > No NEW items will be able to be sold. I may provide an option for people > that contribute to the site for commercial sales. > > > > Not sure on domain name yet. I was hoping to be able to get a subdomain of > diy-efi.org if that is at all possible > > (without wanting to step on toes) but not sure who to talk to about that > yet. Other than that, if anyone has a suggestion.. > > > > If I can't get a sub of diy-efi I might just (in the short term) use a > Dyndns domain name eg http://gmecm.mine.nu or > something to that effect. > > > > Please - Your feedback is IMPORTANT. The more feedback I get, the more I > will be able to make it YOUR forum. > > I don't want to make a forum that no one visits because it's not what they > want - this is your chance to speak up!! > > > > Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Fri Sep 8 12:00:23 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:00:23 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <20060908140217.47367.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C8A17F68EC9012-55C-5A1E@WEBMAIL-RA11.sysops.aol.com> Check the VE (or load) and spark tables. Check the MAP and RPM ranges that the engine is passing through as it surges. Often the OE tables aren't really tuned for very low RPM and high load conditions, as the engine rarely operates under those conditions. You might try smoothing the tables out to see if the condition improves. Also, watch the surge to see if the engine speed increases as the mixture goes richer. Often the condition you describe (runs fine open loop, surges under closed loop) exists when open loop fueling is a bit on the rich side. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Well, it is. I posted this on TGO, but here it is again: If I burn a chip that runs in open loop, it will run all day with a rock solid idle. My P/N switch isn't hooked up (workign on it ), but when I put it from P to D, the rpm dips a very tiny amount, but it catches it just fine. Now, enter the closed loop chip. BLM's are pretty darn good at 126, INT about the same. You let it sit for a while in park, and it will start surging. Desired idle is 700, and it starts bouncing up and down, usually getting more severe each time, till eventually it hits 300rpm and either stalls or revs to 1200+ and stalls the next time. Additionally, when in closed loop, if I put it from P to D, it instantly stalls. So it's like it has no torque or momentum when in closed loop idle. Or it can't deal with any sudden changes in rpm fast enough?? Oh - no surging in drive. It handles itself just fine there... I don't understand what is causing this. How can taking out 1.6% fuel can make that much difference? There has to be some other idle constant that is being "enabled" during CL that causes these things to happen..... Any ideas? TIA, Ryan davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: These are conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine RPM should not be dropping to 300. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Wait, what are these: Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is cut? Does that mean it defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? What's the point of that? If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would surely kill the motor? Second, there is: RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering [KSFILRPM] - 800 I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 lower than stock, should that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock 3.1 idle I believe is 900) Thanks in advance, Ryan Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. _______________________________________________ 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 matthew10_5 at netzero.net Fri Sep 8 12:04:01 2006 From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net (matthew10_5 at netzero.net) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:04:01 GMT Subject: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Message-ID: <20060908.100500.19107.896496@webmail50.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.diy-efi.org/pipermail/gmecm/attachments/20060908/edd0047a/attachment.pl From dvfagan at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 12:46:43 2006 From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <20060908140217.47367.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060908174644.59053.qmail@web30303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Ryan, What is your manifold vacuum at idle? You could have a vacuum leak, an inoperative IAC, or EGR. Any of these could be adjusted out in open loop with the throttle stop and fueling tables but would cuase surging in closed loop where O2 enters the equations. A bad CTS value causes mine to hunt and stall as well. Dennis --- Ryan Hess wrote: > Well, it is. I posted this on TGO, but here it is > again: > > If I burn a chip that runs in open loop, it will run > all day with a rock solid idle. My P/N switch isn't > hooked up (workign on it ), but when I put it from > P to D, the rpm dips a very tiny amount, but it > catches it just fine. > > Now, enter the closed loop chip. BLM's are pretty > darn good at 126, INT about the same. You let it sit > for a while in park, and it will start surging. > Desired idle is 700, and it starts bouncing up and > down, usually getting more severe each time, till > eventually it hits 300rpm and either stalls or revs > to 1200+ and stalls the next time. > > Additionally, when in closed loop, if I put it from > P to D, it instantly stalls. So it's like it has no > torque or momentum when in closed loop idle. Or it > can't deal with any sudden changes in rpm fast > enough?? > > Oh - no surging in drive. It handles itself just > fine there... > > I don't understand what is causing this. How can > taking out 1.6% fuel can make that much difference? > There has to be some other idle constant that is > being "enabled" during CL that causes these things > to happen..... Any ideas? TIA, > > Ryan > > davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: These are > conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine > RPM should not be dropping to 300. > > Zaphod > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rgmecm at yahoo.com > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" > algorithm? > > > Wait, what are these: > > Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM > High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa > > Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is > cut? Does that mean it > defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? > What's the point of that? > If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would > surely kill the motor? > > Second, there is: > > RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering > [KSFILRPM] - 800 > I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 > lower than stock, should > that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock > 3.1 idle I believe is 900) > > Thanks in advance, > > Ryan > > Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum > RPM > constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? > > Ryan > > > --------------------------------- > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. > We'll help. Yahoo! Small > Business. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of > storage and industry-leading spam and email virus > protection. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low > PC-to-Phone call rates. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 12:50:44 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <20060908174644.59053.qmail@web30303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060908175044.1581.qmail@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Vacuum is about 30kpa. It's not a vacuum leak, or IAC problem. EGR has been disabled in the chip. DV Fagan wrote: Ryan, What is your manifold vacuum at idle? You could have a vacuum leak, an inoperative IAC, or EGR. Any of these could be adjusted out in open loop with the throttle stop and fueling tables but would cuase surging in closed loop where O2 enters the equations. A bad CTS value causes mine to hunt and stall as well. Dennis --- Ryan Hess wrote: > Well, it is. I posted this on TGO, but here it is > again: > > If I burn a chip that runs in open loop, it will run > all day with a rock solid idle. My P/N switch isn't > hooked up (workign on it ), but when I put it from > P to D, the rpm dips a very tiny amount, but it > catches it just fine. > > Now, enter the closed loop chip. BLM's are pretty > darn good at 126, INT about the same. You let it sit > for a while in park, and it will start surging. > Desired idle is 700, and it starts bouncing up and > down, usually getting more severe each time, till > eventually it hits 300rpm and either stalls or revs > to 1200+ and stalls the next time. > > Additionally, when in closed loop, if I put it from > P to D, it instantly stalls. So it's like it has no > torque or momentum when in closed loop idle. Or it > can't deal with any sudden changes in rpm fast > enough?? > > Oh - no surging in drive. It handles itself just > fine there... > > I don't understand what is causing this. How can > taking out 1.6% fuel can make that much difference? > There has to be some other idle constant that is > being "enabled" during CL that causes these things > to happen..... Any ideas? TIA, > > Ryan > > davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: These are > conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine > RPM should not be dropping to 300. > > Zaphod > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rgmecm at yahoo.com > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" > algorithm? > > > Wait, what are these: > > Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM > High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa > > Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is > cut? Does that mean it > defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? > What's the point of that? > If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would > surely kill the motor? > > Second, there is: > > RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering > [KSFILRPM] - 800 > I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 > lower than stock, should > that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock > 3.1 idle I believe is 900) > > Thanks in advance, > > Ryan > > Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum > RPM > constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? > > Ryan > > > --------------------------------- > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. > We'll help. Yahoo! Small > Business. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of > storage and industry-leading spam and email virus > protection. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low > PC-to-Phone call rates. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. From dgilbert78 at juno.com Fri Sep 8 12:51:02 2006 From: dgilbert78 at juno.com (dgilbert78 at juno.com) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:51:02 GMT Subject: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Message-ID: <20060908.105104.3679.893120@webmail16.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.diy-efi.org/pipermail/gmecm/attachments/20060908/dd52309a/attachment.pl From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 12:59:06 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <8C8A17F68EC9012-55C-5A1E@WEBMAIL-RA11.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20060908175906.43393.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It's not the OEM tables, it's been modified, and I think they're pretty darn smooth there already. I flattened the spark table there as well. Going strictly by what the narrow band says, during one surge/recover cycle, it goes from 1200rpm, 0.8 V/rich, 1.1mS PW, falls to 475rpm, still rich 0.8/no crosscount inc, 1.63mS PW. By this time the IAC ratchets open 6 steps (as compared to the 1200 rpm value), and the RPM starts to increase (about 500), and it has a 1.9mS PW. The normal steady state idle PW is about 1.3mS. Should the low RPM/moderate load (40kpa) pulse width be lower? I think I want more fuel when it's trying to stall, but I'm not 100% sure. Ryan davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Check the VE (or load) and spark tables. Check the MAP and RPM ranges that the engine is passing through as it surges. Often the OE tables aren't really tuned for very low RPM and high load conditions, as the engine rarely operates under those conditions. You might try smoothing the tables out to see if the condition improves. Also, watch the surge to see if the engine speed increases as the mixture goes richer. Often the condition you describe (runs fine open loop, surges under closed loop) exists when open loop fueling is a bit on the rich side. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Well, it is. I posted this on TGO, but here it is again: If I burn a chip that runs in open loop, it will run all day with a rock solid idle. My P/N switch isn't hooked up (workign on it ), but when I put it from P to D, the rpm dips a very tiny amount, but it catches it just fine. Now, enter the closed loop chip. BLM's are pretty darn good at 126, INT about the same. You let it sit for a while in park, and it will start surging. Desired idle is 700, and it starts bouncing up and down, usually getting more severe each time, till eventually it hits 300rpm and either stalls or revs to 1200+ and stalls the next time. Additionally, when in closed loop, if I put it from P to D, it instantly stalls. So it's like it has no torque or momentum when in closed loop idle. Or it can't deal with any sudden changes in rpm fast enough?? Oh - no surging in drive. It handles itself just fine there... I don't understand what is causing this. How can taking out 1.6% fuel can make that much difference? There has to be some other idle constant that is being "enabled" during CL that causes these things to happen..... Any ideas? TIA, Ryan davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: These are conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine RPM should not be dropping to 300. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Wait, what are these: Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is cut? Does that mean it defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? What's the point of that? If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would surely kill the motor? Second, there is: RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering [KSFILRPM] - 800 I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 lower than stock, should that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock 3.1 idle I believe is 900) Thanks in advance, Ryan Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger???s low PC-to-Phone call rates. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. From ne14roxcj at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 13:01:24 2006 From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:01:24 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW In-Reply-To: <20060908.100500.19107.896496@webmail50.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: <4501affc.08e2cabf.7cc3.ffffc8fd@mx.gmail.com> After looking at my old TBI files, I found that I never touched those Async BPW tables. I'm not sure, but I don't recall those tables being used much. The system doesn't run the injectors out of sync in many conditions (cranking? Maybe...) Somebody please correct me if that is untrue. You never mentioned tuning your PE or AE tables. AE or Accel Enrich is like the pump shot on a carb. Different engines (cam, intake, exhaust, heads, etc...) all require different AE settings. Try taking a little out of your delta MAP Accel pump and/or delta TPS accel pump tables. Just don't get carried away. Small steps... Beau -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of matthew10_5 at netzero.net Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:04 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW I have been unable to remedy the stumble problem with my 305 using the 7747. I have readjusted the timing tables, the VE tables. Although the motor runs great it still stumbles on takeoff in open or closed loop. The system goes rich under partial throttle between 800 and 1100 RPM without going into WOT inrichment. My question is about the asynchronous BTW handles in three tables. One table is for Maximum and one is for Minimum and still one is for RPM. One blog that I ran across tells off fixing the stumble problem that I have by setting one of these table values to "0". Can someone shed some light on the asynchronous BTW modes? What is it, and does it overide the VE table, or work with them, or none of the above? Which setting would potentially remedy my problem. Any Thoughts? Matt _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 8 13:07:37 2006 From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:07:37 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <20060908175044.1581.qmail@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4501b174.08bcdd57.342b.ffffa35c@mx.gmail.com> Could it be a problem with a lazy O2 sensor or one cooling off at idle? Is it manifolds or headers, 1-wire or heated O2, how far away from the exh. port? Maybe tweaking the prop term of the O2 sensor to slow its reaction time down a bit. Or forcing open-loop at idle or in park? Beau -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hess Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:51 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Surging Idle,was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Vacuum is about 30kpa. It's not a vacuum leak, or IAC problem. EGR has been disabled in the chip. DV Fagan wrote: Ryan, What is your manifold vacuum at idle? You could have a vacuum leak, an inoperative IAC, or EGR. Any of these could be adjusted out in open loop with the throttle stop and fueling tables but would cuase surging in closed loop where O2 enters the equations. A bad CTS value causes mine to hunt and stall as well. Dennis --- Ryan Hess wrote: > Well, it is. I posted this on TGO, but here it is > again: > > If I burn a chip that runs in open loop, it will run > all day with a rock solid idle. My P/N switch isn't > hooked up (workign on it ), but when I put it from > P to D, the rpm dips a very tiny amount, but it > catches it just fine. > > Now, enter the closed loop chip. BLM's are pretty > darn good at 126, INT about the same. You let it sit > for a while in park, and it will start surging. > Desired idle is 700, and it starts bouncing up and > down, usually getting more severe each time, till > eventually it hits 300rpm and either stalls or revs > to 1200+ and stalls the next time. > > Additionally, when in closed loop, if I put it from > P to D, it instantly stalls. So it's like it has no > torque or momentum when in closed loop idle. Or it > can't deal with any sudden changes in rpm fast > enough?? > > Oh - no surging in drive. It handles itself just > fine there... > > I don't understand what is causing this. How can > taking out 1.6% fuel can make that much difference? > There has to be some other idle constant that is > being "enabled" during CL that causes these things > to happen..... Any ideas? TIA, > > Ryan > > davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: These are > conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine > RPM should not be dropping to 300. > > Zaphod > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rgmecm at yahoo.com > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" > algorithm? > > > Wait, what are these: > > Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM > High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa > > Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is > cut? Does that mean it > defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? > What's the point of that? > If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would > surely kill the motor? > > Second, there is: > > RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering > [KSFILRPM] - 800 > I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 > lower than stock, should > that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock > 3.1 idle I believe is 900) > > Thanks in advance, > > Ryan > > Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum > RPM > constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? > > Ryan > > > --------------------------------- > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. > We'll help. Yahoo! Small > Business. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of > storage and industry-leading spam and email virus > protection. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low > PC-to-Phone call rates. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. _______________________________________________ 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 rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 13:25:05 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <4501b174.08bcdd57.342b.ffffa35c@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060908182505.29189.qmail@web35913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It's possible, but it's a new heated o2 about 10" from the port. Forcing open loop at idle might be what I'm forced to do if I can't figure out what's causing it to begin with... Beau Blankenship wrote: Could it be a problem with a lazy O2 sensor or one cooling off at idle? Is it manifolds or headers, 1-wire or heated O2, how far away from the exh. port? Maybe tweaking the prop term of the O2 sensor to slow its reaction time down a bit. Or forcing open-loop at idle or in park? Beau -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hess Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:51 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Surging Idle,was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Vacuum is about 30kpa. It's not a vacuum leak, or IAC problem. EGR has been disabled in the chip. DV Fagan wrote: Ryan, What is your manifold vacuum at idle? You could have a vacuum leak, an inoperative IAC, or EGR. Any of these could be adjusted out in open loop with the throttle stop and fueling tables but would cuase surging in closed loop where O2 enters the equations. A bad CTS value causes mine to hunt and stall as well. Dennis --- Ryan Hess wrote: > Well, it is. I posted this on TGO, but here it is > again: > > If I burn a chip that runs in open loop, it will run > all day with a rock solid idle. My P/N switch isn't > hooked up (workign on it ), but when I put it from > P to D, the rpm dips a very tiny amount, but it > catches it just fine. > > Now, enter the closed loop chip. BLM's are pretty > darn good at 126, INT about the same. You let it sit > for a while in park, and it will start surging. > Desired idle is 700, and it starts bouncing up and > down, usually getting more severe each time, till > eventually it hits 300rpm and either stalls or revs > to 1200+ and stalls the next time. > > Additionally, when in closed loop, if I put it from > P to D, it instantly stalls. So it's like it has no > torque or momentum when in closed loop idle. Or it > can't deal with any sudden changes in rpm fast > enough?? > > Oh - no surging in drive. It handles itself just > fine there... > > I don't understand what is causing this. How can > taking out 1.6% fuel can make that much difference? > There has to be some other idle constant that is > being "enabled" during CL that causes these things > to happen..... Any ideas? TIA, > > Ryan > > davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: These are > conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine > RPM should not be dropping to 300. > > Zaphod > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rgmecm at yahoo.com > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" > algorithm? > > > Wait, what are these: > > Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM > High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa > > Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is > cut? Does that mean it > defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? > What's the point of that? > If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would > surely kill the motor? > > Second, there is: > > RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering > [KSFILRPM] - 800 > I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 > lower than stock, should > that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock > 3.1 idle I believe is 900) > > Thanks in advance, > > Ryan > > Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum > RPM > constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? > > Ryan > > > --------------------------------- > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. > We'll help. Yahoo! Small > Business. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of > storage and industry-leading spam and email virus > protection. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low > PC-to-Phone call rates. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Fri Sep 8 14:22:50 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:22:50 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum Message-ID: <4501C30A.80008@highspeedlink.net> I'd join a forum. I don't post much at TGO because they are exactly as Ryan described... Third Gen F-body and nothing else. I haven't used this list's archive & search capacities *recently*, but from the last time I did use them, the archive & search capacities of a forum seem superior. Will > From: Ryan Hess > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum > > This is true. However, being that it is a Third Gen F-BODY list, they somewhat discourage active discussion about anything else. In addition, you don't see many V6'ers there because most of the people there are familiar only with 8D. IMHO, any all-encompassing tuning/ECM/hacking forum will be well received. > > > Bill - Comcast wrote: Rather that trying to splinter off yet another web forum, I'd suggest > that you just sign up to the thirdgen list. There is some serious EFI > knowledge on that list already, in fact a lot of the core members of > this list moved over there after the Techedge/DIY-WB debacle. It'll > save you a lot of work and you will find far more talent there than you > will be able to attract to a new forum. > > Either way, good luck with it. > > Bill >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Andrew Huxtable >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 11:23:42 PM >> Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum >> >> >> It is my intention to use phpBB for that exact reason (other than the fact >> that it's free!) >> >> >> >> I was intending on using the 'Minimalistic' interface (See >> http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php to see what it looks like) The >> advantage is that it makes a nice sleek interface that is not all 'ricey'. >> Might throw a bit of colour in there tho. >> >> >> >> I have been working on the server today and should have something to show >> you by mid next week. >> >> >> >> Some Categories I have come up with: >> >> Announcements >> >> Getting Started >> >> Board/site discussion >> >> Electronics and Wiring >> >> Software and Datalogging >> >> BIN request/info >> >> ECM/U model Specific >> >> Aussie ECM specific >> >> What/Where to buy >> >> For sale/Trade >> >> Help - Urgent! >> >> The pub (general off topic discussion) >> >> >> >> Totally open for discussion of course, this is just what I have come up with >> so far. Some may be sub topics >> >> Of other topics. >> >> >> >> Sales and trades will be limited to private sales only, I do not want this >> to be a commercial site. This may mean that >> >> No NEW items will be able to be sold. I may provide an option for people >> that contribute to the site for commercial sales. >> >> >> >> Not sure on domain name yet. I was hoping to be able to get a subdomain of >> diy-efi.org if that is at all possible >> >> (without wanting to step on toes) but not sure who to talk to about that >> yet. Other than that, if anyone has a suggestion.. >> >> >> >> If I can't get a sub of diy-efi I might just (in the short term) use a >> Dyndns domain name eg http://gmecm.mine.nu or >> something to that effect. >> >> >> >> Please - Your feedback is IMPORTANT. The more feedback I get, the more I >> will be able to make it YOUR forum. >> >> I don't want to make a forum that no one visits because it's not what they >> want - this is your chance to speak up!! >> >> >> >> Andrew From ahuxtable at sola.com.au Fri Sep 8 18:42:46 2006 From: ahuxtable at sola.com.au (Andrew Huxtable) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 09:12:46 +0930 Subject: [Gmecm] The Forum Lives!!! Message-ID: <000001c6d3a0$81b6d970$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Hi all, point your browsers to http://gmecm.mine.nu This is a 'proof of concept' design at this stage. The domain will likely change later if I can get a sub of diy-efi.org, we'll see. Feel free to create an account and make some posts etc but it's likely that there will be changes in the near future that *may* mean you lose your account and have to re-create it. The theme that I chose was one of the smallest total footprint - ALL the graphics and pages come to less than 1Mb so it should be pretty sleek. Let me know what you think..... Andrew From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 20:37:17 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] The Forum Lives!!! In-Reply-To: <000001c6d3a0$81b6d970$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Message-ID: <20060909013717.99285.qmail@web35913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm there. :) I'll spread the word. The gospel of the GMECM shall continue on, in a new and portable form. Andrew Huxtable wrote: Hi all, point your browsers to http://gmecm.mine.nu This is a 'proof of concept' design at this stage. The domain will likely change later if I can get a sub of diy-efi.org, we'll see. Feel free to create an account and make some posts etc but it's likely that there will be changes in the near future that *may* mean you lose your account and have to re-create it. The theme that I chose was one of the smallest total footprint - ALL the graphics and pages come to less than 1Mb so it should be pretty sleek. Let me know what you think..... Andrew _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat Sep 9 05:36:24 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 11:36:24 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000><1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com><039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> <200609010941.05924.tsokorai@minimania.org><041d01c6ce7d$15b14210$020101c0@gandalf> <8C89E2FA8449C45-1230-3A09@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <089101c6d3fb$d4ccc740$020101c0@gandalf> Been studying the DIS timing diagram. Apologies for my dumb questions (I've never really looked very closely at GM DIS before). 1) Is there still a rotor arm to distribute the spark to the correct plug? If not, how is this done? Is there still just one coil (I know some DIS systems have 2 and fire 2 cylinders at the same time - but that still requires cam phase knowledge, to know which 2 to fire.) 2) When the ECM isn't in the loop, with the DIS system, is the SA 60deg? 3) AIUI, a _dizzy_ (reluctor) trigger generates a pulse via the HEI module to the ECM when any cylinder is at the static advance position (e.g. 10deg BTDC), defined by the rotation of the dizzy mounting. So, when the ECM is out of the loop, the HEI module fires the coil straight away - which gives 10deg SA. I'm not sure whether the pulse from the HEI module to the ECM is high to low or vice versa. Assuming high to low, then it is equivalent to the 60deg BTDC trigger from the DIS. So, what if notches 1 & 4 on the DIS trigger wheel were moved to be 10deg before notch 5? Would this resync the DIS module? Why is the logic of the DIS module needed (i.e. can't the raw trigger go straight to an HEI module, like the dizzy one, so you'd just have 2 notches on the wheel)? Is the answer to this related to the answer to 1)? :-) Thanks, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 04 September 2006 12:51 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > On a 4 cylinder engine the "double notch" of the 7x crank wheel indicates synch. The module fires on the next signal from the crank wheel. Two pulses are counted and the module fires on the third. One pulse is counted, then the double notch to indicate synch, and the cycle begins again. > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 6:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > > > > On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: > > > > > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how > a > > > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the > > > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for > > > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm > missing? > > > > Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), the DIS > > module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static timing, > > typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has 60deg > > offset. > > Sorry if I'm being dim here; when the ECM is not controlling the timing, > does the DIS module fire at every pulse from the trigger wheel? How does a 6 > x 60deg trigger wheel work for a 4cyl engine? > > Thanks, > > Robin > From jg_lawson at optusnet.com.au Sat Sep 9 08:02:33 2006 From: jg_lawson at optusnet.com.au (John Lawson) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:02:33 +1000 Subject: [Gmecm] The Forum Lives!!! References: <000001c6d3a0$81b6d970$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Message-ID: <005e01c6d410$376db620$e7621ed3@john> That is the fastest forum I think I've accessed. I suppose it only had 4 users at the time, but the lack of ads and graphics seems to make it fly. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Huxtable" To: Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:42 AM Subject: [Gmecm] The Forum Lives!!! > Hi all, point your browsers to http://gmecm.mine.nu This is a 'proof of > concept' design at this stage. The domain will likely change later if I > can > get a sub of diy-efi.org, we'll see. > > Feel free to create an account and make some posts etc but it's likely > that > there will be changes in the near future that *may* mean you lose your > account and have to re-create it. > > The theme that I chose was one of the smallest total footprint - ALL the > graphics and pages come to less than 1Mb so it should be pretty sleek. > > Let me know what you think..... > > Andrew > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date: 7/09/2006 From efi at dyakron.com Sat Sep 9 08:29:39 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:29:39 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <20060908163717.70860.qmail@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <45018408.2030908@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060909092732.037a3990@dyakron.com> At 09:37 AM 9/8/2006 -0700, you wrote: >This is true. However, being that it is a Third Gen F-BODY list, they >somewhat discourage active discussion about anything else. In addition, >you don't see many V6'ers there because most of the people there are >familiar only with 8D. IMHO, any all-encompassing tuning/ECM/hacking >forum will be well received. These guys are mostly honda-related at the moment, but don't restrict content. They just want to spread EFI knowledge. Nowhere do I see that GM technology is unwelcome. http://www.pgmfi.org/ Already aboard type list. mv From efi at dyakron.com Sat Sep 9 08:34:47 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060909092732.037a3990@dyakron.com> References: <20060908163717.70860.qmail@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45018408.2030908@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060909093343.037a5980@dyakron.com> Scratch that, IT'S RIGHT ON THE FIRST PAGE!! 8_P HONDA ECU "more coffee please" mv At 09:29 AM 9/9/2006 -0400, you wrote: >These guys are mostly honda-related at the moment, but don't restrict content. >They just want to spread EFI knowledge. >Nowhere do I see that GM technology is unwelcome. >http://www.pgmfi.org/ >Already aboard type list. >mv From matthew10_5 at netzero.net Sat Sep 9 13:02:49 2006 From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net (matthew10_5 at netzero.net) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:02:49 GMT Subject: [Gmecm] RE Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Message-ID: <20060909.110314.10883.904399@webmail28.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.diy-efi.org/pipermail/gmecm/attachments/20060909/7be27b95/attachment.pl From ne14roxcj at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 14:52:12 2006 From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 14:52:12 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] RE Tweaking Asynchronous BTW In-Reply-To: <20060909.110314.10883.904399@webmail28.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: <45031b75.5b3a018e.2442.4996@mx.gmail.com> >>Back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION , what is "ASYNCHRONOUS BTW" and how does it affect the VE tables. Is it nessessary or should it just be disabled.? If your reading this Steve, do you have any comments?>> A quick Google search for "Asynchronous Fuel" turned up lots of results. A few are information about the patent for "asynchronous control of fuel injection". The patent itself is very interesting and informative, and should answer your question very well. There is another link to Custom EFI's info page. As far as the BTW part, I have never seen that acronym in GM ECM talk. You may be referring to the "base pulse width" which is commonly referred to as the BPW. Adjusting the VE tables is not a very good way to make up for oversized injectors, IMO. There is a constant in TunerPro called "BPW constant for EGR off" or something similar depending on which def file you use. Stock setting is usually 135. I had to set mine to 95 to account for the 85lb holley injectors. I probably should have adjusted those asynch tables also, but I DID adjust my accel enrich tables for that purpose. Sorry I'm not Steve. Just thought I'd share my experiences. Hope it helps. Beau From tl34ru at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 16:25:08 2006 From: tl34ru at yahoo.com (terry) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 14:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] RE Tweaking Asynchronous BTW In-Reply-To: <45031b75.5b3a018e.2442.4996@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060909212508.55365.qmail@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Speaking of EGR are you running one, if so have you check it to see if you have egr in park when you open the throttle if so the solinoid is bad. Off idle the egr valve could be slamming open. Terry --- Beau Blankenship wrote: > >>Back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION , what is > "ASYNCHRONOUS BTW" and how does it > affect the VE tables. Is it nessessary or should it > just be disabled.? > If your reading this Steve, do you have any > comments?>> > > > A quick Google search for "Asynchronous Fuel" turned > up lots of results. A > few are information about the patent for > "asynchronous control of fuel > injection". The patent itself is very interesting > and informative, and > should answer your question very well. There is > another link to Custom EFI's > info page. As far as the BTW part, I have never seen > that acronym in GM ECM > talk. You may be referring to the "base pulse width" > which is commonly > referred to as the BPW. Adjusting the VE tables is > not a very good way to > make up for oversized injectors, IMO. There is a > constant in TunerPro called > "BPW constant for EGR off" or something similar > depending on which def file > you use. Stock setting is usually 135. I had to set > mine to 95 to account > for the 85lb holley injectors. I probably should > have adjusted those asynch > tables also, but I DID adjust my accel enrich tables > for that purpose. Sorry > I'm not Steve. Just thought I'd share my > experiences. Hope it helps. > > Beau > > _______________________________________________ > 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 dgilbert78 at juno.com Sat Sep 9 19:35:06 2006 From: dgilbert78 at juno.com (dgilbert78 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:35:06 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] RE Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Message-ID: <20060909.203507.-175793.1.dgilbert78@juno.com> Hello: Not really sure what BTW even is?? Black smoke = excessive fuel, I guess we all know that Ha!. A couple things come to mind, If you have a fuel pump test pigtail (ability to run fuel pump without any ignition on) Apply 12 volts to pump test pigtail and see if the injectors or pressure regulator is puking fuel into the TBI. The pump should run and no fuel should appear anywhere in throttle body area. I assume that you can verify regulator pressure setting someway??? I had a problem where there was air being sucked in from the lifter valley through the intake manifold to head mating surface, this made the O2 sensor read lean all the time and applied more fuel when it was not needed, just a thought. If it is sucking air in through the lifter valley it will pull oil in also and show up on the plugs, pull them and read them, see what they look like. In my case i had to pull the intake, regasket it, use high temp RTV and retighten. As i tightened each bolt slightly beat the intake into the lifter valley area with a rubber mallet, tighten and beat on it until torqued to specs, that fixed that problem. The temp sensor plays a big role in fuel mixture, make sure it is working properly. Because the ECM deals with low voltages dealing in tenths of volts make sure all connections are in very good shape and your engine block is grounded properly, this can raise big trouble with electronic controlled engines. The ECM is only as smart as the data it receives from sensors. Bad reading from sensor = bad happenings from the ECM. I have several 1" wide braided ground straps on my engine to chassis and the ground wire from the battery goes directly to the engine block. Make sure all the ECM grounds go to the engine block and are in good shape. I have a scope so I can actually see things and how good or how bad they are. My engine still has some minor tweaking problems only because I have not had time to get to it. With a scope you can easily see the O2 sensor working and can see if the mixture is being controlled properly by the ECM. Because you seem to be running rich from what I can gather I would satisfy yourself that none of your injectors are leaking and the "o" rings are sealing properly and the regulator is not leaking or is not regulating properly. Until you are satisfied that the engine, sensors, injectors are in working order, you will tear your hear out trying to program around a problem with the mechanics. That is about it. I wish you luck Darryl... On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:02:49 GMT "matthew10_5 at netzero.net" writes: > Thanks Darryl.. > Maybe a bit more info would be in order. I built this engine 2500 > miles ago. I put every thing new inside and out. It has been > overbored > has a cam a little taller than stock. I thought that maybe one of > the > new sensors might be bad , so one by one they have all been > replaced > again. The wiring harness was replaced and the speed sensor. The > TBI > unit is from a 350 cid and therfore has larger injectors . This > larger > injector size facilitated an 8% lowering of the VE tables almost > across > the board (so far). The timing tables have been tweaked only > slightly > mostly to stop preignition. I had taken my van to a Chip maker to > start > with because at the timeI was unfamiliar with reprogaming the ECM. > When > the engine was first fired it would hardly run blowing clouds of > unburned fuel from the tail pipe. When I picked up the van it was > better and it would idle now but was still blowing black smoke > under > what I now know as WOT. After taking the van back 3 times for the > same > problem, and after an $800 bill, I deceided to try it myself even > though it didn't have the Dyno. Everything the shop did has been > undone > except for the increased fuel pressure regulator. For some reason > they > thought this was part of the problem. Anyway I bought all of the > equipment, (except the Dyno and Sniffer) and have burned 27 EPROMS > so far. > This is why I am now at the place it must be something else. All > the > sensors and the IAC are working properly. The BLM is still low at > this > point in Real time using a data logging program. I have extensive > records of in car actual driving conditions, even through the Rocky > Mountains. > Back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION , what is "ASYNCHRONOUS BTW" and how > does > it affect the VE tables. Is it nessessary or should it just be > disabled.? > If your reading this Steve, do you have any comments? > > > > From: "dgilbert78 at juno.com" > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Message-ID: <20060908.105104.3679.893120 at webmail16.lax.untd.com> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Hello: make absolutely sure that the MAP sensor is seeing proper > vacuum. No > kinked hose, no mushy hose, no partially carboned map port in the > TBI > body. > Restricted (delayed) vacuum to the MAP will act like bad acclerator > pump in a > carb. Make sure that is absolutely perfect befort re programming. > May > have to > remove TBI and rod out the MAP vacuum port, these become carboned > and > gummed. > Good luck. Spent many hours finding that one. > Darryl.. > > Tweaking Asynchronous BTW > > Date : Fri, Sep 08, 2006 10:04 AM > > > > > > I have been unable to remedy the stumble problem with my 305 using > the 7747. I have readjusted the timing tables, the VE tables. > Although the motor runs great it still stumbles on takeoff in open > or > closed loop. The system goes rich under partial throttle between > 800 > and 1100 RPM without going into WOT inrichment. My question is > about > the asynchronous BTW handles in three tables. One table is for > Maximum > and one is for Minimum and still one is for RPM. > One blog that I ran across tells off fixing the stumble problem that > I > have by setting one of these table values to "0". Can someone shed > some > light on the asynchronous BTW modes? What is it, and does it > overide > the VE table, or work with them, or none of the above? Which > setting > would potentially remedy my problem. Any Thoughts? Matt > Darryl.. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Sep 10 06:31:31 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine In-Reply-To: <089101c6d3fb$d4ccc740$020101c0@gandalf> References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000><1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com><039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> <200609010941.05924.tsokorai@minimania.org><041d01c6ce7d$15b14210$020101c0@gandalf> <8C89E2FA8449C45-1230-3A09@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> <089101c6d3fb$d4ccc740$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C8A2E3CC0ED6D1-880-2891@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> The generation of Delco DIS related to that timing diagram uses only crank information to synchronize the ignition coils. The coils, one for each cylinder pair, are sequenced by the ignition module in a repeating pattern initiated by the synch notch in the crank sensor. Both pistons of each coil pair are at TDC simultaneously, with one ending the exhaust stroke and one starting the power stroke. The coil provides spark to both cylinders. One cylinder uses this spark to combust fuel, the other does nothing with the energy. When the ecm isn't in the loop, the SA is 0 deg advanced. The reference pulse is 60 deg advanced. I would have to say that moving the fire notches for a 4 cylinder engine would likely advance timing, although there is probably a limit to how far they can be moved before the module flags a problem. If the synch notch is removed the module will stop providing spark and reference signals and will do it straight away. With only 2 notches on your crank, how do you determine which coil to fire first? What safety is incorporated to prevent a sequencing failure from ruining an engine? You'll need an additional signal of some type. When the Delco DIS system was released there were not many ecm's in production with the hardware or code to utilize a cam position signal. Functionally the DIS replaces a distributor as a complete unit. With 3 variable changes in software, the distributor and DIS are interchangeable. It seems like a cost effective design to me. With that in mind you might to wonder why, when the 2.0L OHC engine was converted from distributor to DIS, GM decided to forgo the entire US made DIS system. Instead they used the Euro / Bosch "extra tooth" crank sensor and coils and a completely new / separate Delco ecm dedicated specifically to an engine which would only be used for 2 years before disappearing. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine Been studying the DIS timing diagram. Apologies for my dumb questions (I've never really looked very closely at GM DIS before). 1) Is there still a rotor arm to distribute the spark to the correct plug? If not, how is this done? Is there still just one coil (I know some DIS systems have 2 and fire 2 cylinders at the same time - but that still requires cam phase knowledge, to know which 2 to fire.) 2) When the ECM isn't in the loop, with the DIS system, is the SA 60deg? 3) AIUI, a _dizzy_ (reluctor) trigger generates a pulse via the HEI module to the ECM when any cylinder is at the static advance position (e.g. 10deg BTDC), defined by the rotation of the dizzy mounting. So, when the ECM is out of the loop, the HEI module fires the coil straight away - which gives 10deg SA. I'm not sure whether the pulse from the HEI module to the ECM is high to low or vice versa. Assuming high to low, then it is equivalent to the 60deg BTDC trigger from the DIS. So, what if notches 1 & 4 on the DIS trigger wheel were moved to be 10deg before notch 5? Would this resync the DIS module? Why is the logic of the DIS module needed (i.e. can't the raw trigger go straight to an HEI module, like the dizzy one, so you'd just have 2 notches on the wheel)? Is the answer to this related to the answer to 1)? :-) Thanks, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 04 September 2006 12:51 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > On a 4 cylinder engine the "double notch" of the 7x crank wheel indicates synch. The module fires on the next signal from the crank wheel. Two pulses are counted and the module fires on the third. One pulse is counted, then the double notch to indicate synch, and the cycle begins again. > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 6:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > > > > On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: > > > > > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how > a > > > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the > > > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for > > > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm > missing? > > > > Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), the DIS > > module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static timing, > > typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has 60deg > > offset. > > Sorry if I'm being dim here; when the ECM is not controlling the timing, > does the DIS module fire at every pulse from the trigger wheel? How does a 6 > x 60deg trigger wheel work for a 4cyl engine? > > Thanks, > > Robin > _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Sun Sep 10 06:32:05 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:32:05 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <20060908175906.43393.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C8A2E3E065DE19-880-2894@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> At idle, engine speed will respond to spark changes first, fuel next, and IAC last. It might help to eliminate IAC as a variable by unplugging the connector. It might also help to mark the balancer / lower pulley and view spark activity with a timing light. You might increase the RPM at which EST becomes active to some value well above idle in order to check the effect of fuel alone. Richer mixtures generally fire easier. If watching the engine run well in open loop, watch O2 and PW values for an idea of what does work. Your tables should generally be leaner at lower MAP or lower load. During transitions, conditions where the car almost stalls and idle is really hunting, you need to ensure that AE isn't activated. At low rpm the O2 signal can tend to lag behind the fuel changes causing one to misinterpret the datalog results. The tables may be smooth, but remember that it's the engine, not you, which decides how to set the calibration up. You just need to be understand what it's trying to tell you. My approach if using an emulator would be to set closed loop enable values to force open loop then let the engine idle in open loop for a significant amount of time. 1 min? 2 mins? Maybe more. If the idle seems stable I'd note as many values as I could from the ALDL monitor. Then I'd adjust the closed loop enable parameters so the ecm enters closed loop. At this point I'd try to distinguish which factors start the cycle. Without an emulator I'd be forced to burn a chip which would cycle into closed loop after a fair amount of time. Maybe set enable temp to something between fan on temp and the thermostat open temp, or set an enable timer to a fairly high value. But the point would be to watch things go from good to bad, not necessarily try to fix them after they're bad (that's a game for another day). Think of it like a car wreck. Trying to evaluate the last 10 seconds of the driver's performance with the intent of pinpointing why he crashed might be tough. It would probably be easier to determine the reason the car went out of control in the first place. HTH. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? It's not the OEM tables, it's been modified, and I think they're pretty darn smooth there already. I flattened the spark table there as well. Going strictly by what the narrow band says, during one surge/recover cycle, it goes from 1200rpm, 0.8 V/rich, 1.1mS PW, falls to 475rpm, still rich 0.8/no crosscount inc, 1.63mS PW. By this time the IAC ratchets open 6 steps (as compared to the 1200 rpm value), and the RPM starts to increase (about 500), and it has a 1.9mS PW. The normal steady state idle PW is about 1.3mS. Should the low RPM/moderate load (40kpa) pulse width be lower? I think I want more fuel when it's trying to stall, but I'm not 100% sure. Ryan davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: Check the VE (or load) and spark tables. Check the MAP and RPM ranges that the engine is passing through as it surges. Often the OE tables aren't really tuned for very low RPM and high load conditions, as the engine rarely operates under those conditions. You might try smoothing the tables out to see if the condition improves. Also, watch the surge to see if the engine speed increases as the mixture goes richer. Often the condition you describe (runs fine open loop, surges under closed loop) exists when open loop fueling is a bit on the rich side. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Well, it is. I posted this on TGO, but here it is again: If I burn a chip that runs in open loop, it will run all day with a rock solid idle. My P/N switch isn't hooked up (workign on it ), but when I put it from P to D, the rpm dips a very tiny amount, but it catches it just fine. Now, enter the closed loop chip. BLM's are pretty darn good at 126, INT about the same. You let it sit for a while in park, and it will start surging. Desired idle is 700, and it starts bouncing up and down, usually getting more severe each time, till eventually it hits 300rpm and either stalls or revs to 1200+ and stalls the next time. Additionally, when in closed loop, if I put it from P to D, it instantly stalls. So it's like it has no torque or momentum when in closed loop idle. Or it can't deal with any sudden changes in rpm fast enough?? Oh - no surging in drive. It handles itself just fine there... I don't understand what is causing this. How can taking out 1.6% fuel can make that much difference? There has to be some other idle constant that is being "enabled" during CL that causes these things to happen..... Any ideas? TIA, Ryan davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: These are conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine RPM should not be dropping to 300. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Wait, what are these: Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is cut? Does that mean it defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? What's the point of that? If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would surely kill the motor? Second, there is: RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering [KSFILRPM] - 800 I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 lower than stock, should that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock 3.1 idle I believe is 900) Thanks in advance, Ryan Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger???s low PC-to-Phone call rates. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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 davesnothereman at netscape.net Sun Sep 10 06:51:25 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] RE Tweaking Asynchronous BTW In-Reply-To: <20060909.110314.10883.904399@webmail28.lax.untd.com> References: <20060909.110314.10883.904399@webmail28.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: <8C8A2E6944F6EDF-880-28DA@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> Where have you found that term? BTW? Sounds like a type-O. Asynch BPW makes more sense (Base Pulse Width). Asynch pulses are used during AE among other conditions. Setting asynch BPW to zero would at a minimum reduce the AE shot, and likely decrease it to 0 ms of fuel added. I without a better understanding of this table, I would play it safe and "leave it alone." 27 Eproms? Consider that a good start. You might be into it for far more by the time you get done. Most of the fuel delivery calcs in the ecm are tied in with the injector constant. If the constant is adjusted, the fuel delivery calculations will also be adjusted. One function which is ignorant of injector size is the Acceleration Enrichment. AE is delivered as timed shots of fuel to help during transient conditions. AE is set up to prevent stumbles, bogs, and excess emissions by trial and error. If you alter engine airflow and response, as well as injector size, you'll need to re-adjust the AE to fit your engine and injectors. If you have a "low end" cam it will tend accelerate the engine faster at lower engine rpm. There will be less change in airflow at higher rpm. AE should follow, with greater fuel delivery at lower engine rpm. If you have a "top end" cam you'll get more effective cylinder filling at higher rpm. AE should tend to be higher at higher rpm. Larger injectors really affect AE the most. And larger injectors with increased fuel pressure are even worse. In the old days of Holley Carburetor madness it was tough to get too much AE. Not so today. Too much AE is very common now and the results are a squishy, saggy, hesitating engine which can run great under steady load, but will show rich O2 readings and can spew black smoke at the same load if it's after a rapid increase in MAP or TPS. If we're voting, I'm with Beau. Less AE may save the day. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 2:02 PM Subject: [Gmecm] RE Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Thanks Darryl.. Maybe a bit more info would be in order. I built this engine 2500 miles ago. I put every thing new inside and out. It has been overbored has a cam a little taller than stock. I thought that maybe one of the new sensors might be bad , so one by one they have all been replaced again. The wiring harness was replaced and the speed sensor. The TBI unit is from a 350 cid and therfore has larger injectors . This larger injector size facilitated an 8% lowering of the VE tables almost across the board (so far). The timing tables have been tweaked only slightly mostly to stop preignition. I had taken my van to a Chip maker to start with because at the timeI was unfamiliar with reprogaming the ECM. When the engine was first fired it would hardly run blowing clouds of unburned fuel from the tail pipe. When I picked up the van it was better and it would idle now but was still blowing black smoke under what I now know as WOT. After taking the van back 3 times for the same problem, and after an $800 bill, I deceided to try it myself even though it didn't have the Dyno. Everything the shop did has been undone except for the increased fuel pressure regulator. For some reason they thought this was part of the problem. Anyway I bought all of the equipment, (except the Dyno and Sniffer) and have burned 27 EPROMS so far. This is why I am now at the place it must be something else. All the sensors and the IAC are working properly. The BLM is still low at this point in Real time using a data logging program. I have extensive records of in car actual driving conditions, even through the Rocky Mountains. Back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION , what is "ASYNCHRONOUS BTW" and how does it affect the VE tables. Is it nessessary or should it just be disabled.? If your reading this Steve, do you have any comments? From: "dgilbert78 at juno.com" Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Message-ID: <20060908.105104.3679.893120 at webmail16.lax.untd.com> Content-Type: text/plain Hello: make absolutely sure that the MAP sensor is seeing proper vacuum. No kinked hose, no mushy hose, no partially carboned map port in the TBI body. Restricted (delayed) vacuum to the MAP will act like bad acclerator pump in a carb. Make sure that is absolutely perfect befort re programming. May have to remove TBI and rod out the MAP vacuum port, these become carboned and gummed. Good luck. Spent many hours finding that one. Darryl.. Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Date : Fri, Sep 08, 2006 10:04 AM I have been unable to remedy the stumble problem with my 305 using the 7747. I have readjusted the timing tables, the VE tables. Although the motor runs great it still stumbles on takeoff in open or closed loop. The system goes rich under partial throttle between 800 and 1100 RPM without going into WOT inrichment. My question is about the asynchronous BTW handles in three tables. One table is for Maximum and one is for Minimum and still one is for RPM. One blog that I ran across tells off fixing the stumble problem that I have by setting one of these table values to "0". Can someone shed some light on the asynchronous BTW modes? What is it, and does it overide the VE table, or work with them, or none of the above? Which setting would potentially remedy my problem. Any Thoughts? Matt Darryl.. _______________________________________________ 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 davesnothereman at netscape.net Sun Sep 10 07:06:37 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW In-Reply-To: <20060908.100500.19107.896496@webmail50.lax.untd.com> References: <20060908.100500.19107.896496@webmail50.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: <8C8A2E8B36391C0-880-291F@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 1:04 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW My question is about the asynchronous BTW handles in three tables. One table is for Maximum and one is for Minimum and still one is for RPM. I didn't catch this part of the question originally. "handles" = constants? Singular values as opposed to a table of values? There's two possibilities which I can think of. One is that these values work with an "asynchronous pulse accumulator" which can be read about in the turbo P4 document. The second is that these constants determine when synchronous fueling is abandoned for Asynch fueling due to physical limitations imposed by the injectors. Have you seen a change by adjusting these values? If they affect the asynch accumulator, you may not. If they change fueling mode then you'll hear the injector pulsing change as you set min and max value as well as rpm to fairly large numbers. Zaphod ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From davida1 at hiwaay.net Sun Sep 10 17:14:53 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Boost leakage Message-ID: <02ec01c6d527$03a825b0$8e01a8c0@yancey.com> How much boost leakage is too much? I'm inclined to say ANY is too much but in this real world, nothing is perfect. I capped the turbo air inlet and charged the pipework and intake manifold with air from a compressor to listen for leaks witout the engine running. So far I've repaired leaks at the intercooler (road debris must have hit it?), throttle body adapter, and IAC motor mount. Plus some vacuum fittings. The only one remaining is a slight leak around the throttle shaft. It is just audible with the intake system charged with 5 PSI of air. The throttle body is 21 years old and has .010" (guessing) of side play in the shaft. How much if any performance or response will I loose from this? It's a 3.1 V6 running 10 PSI boost with a MPFI injection system. I have had no luck finding any replacement TB's for this engine. I've only found 1 other matching TB and it was wallowed out worse than mine! I may send it off and get it re-bushed. David From matthew10_5 at netzero.net Sun Sep 10 18:40:41 2006 From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net (matthew10_5 at netzero.net) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:40:41 GMT Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Tweaking Asynchronous BPW Message-ID: <20060910.164134.29529.910012@webmail25.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.diy-efi.org/pipermail/gmecm/attachments/20060910/cccf8b56/attachment.pl From bpatten at centurytel.net Sun Sep 10 22:33:23 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:33:23 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine In-Reply-To: <8C8A2E3CC0ED6D1-880-2891@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000901c6d553$0c41d280$6400a8c0@p42000> Since we are on the subject of DIS ignition, how does the DIS on the 3.8L engine differ from that on say 3.1L v6? I purchased a 89 Bonneville this weekend, and it's crank sensor is mounted external to the engine, and reads teeth in the backside of the harmonic damper. (had to change it, rubber was gone) Anyways, this 3.8L engine uses a different DIS module and coil pack setup then I'm used to looking at. The coils are all one assembly, not 2 towers per coil-pack. Also, the crank sensor has two channels, a 3x, and a 12x I think it was, can't remember. Also, each slot in the 3x signal is a different length. Anyone know how this system differs? Or had any experience with it? Are these motors sequential? (Reason for 3 different length slots on 3x signal??) -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of davesnothereman at netscape.net Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:32 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine The generation of Delco DIS related to that timing diagram uses only crank information to synchronize the ignition coils. The coils, one for each cylinder pair, are sequenced by the ignition module in a repeating pattern initiated by the synch notch in the crank sensor. Both pistons of each coil pair are at TDC simultaneously, with one ending the exhaust stroke and one starting the power stroke. The coil provides spark to both cylinders. One cylinder uses this spark to combust fuel, the other does nothing with the energy. When the ecm isn't in the loop, the SA is 0 deg advanced. The reference pulse is 60 deg advanced. I would have to say that moving the fire notches for a 4 cylinder engine would likely advance timing, although there is probably a limit to how far they can be moved before the module flags a problem. If the synch notch is removed the module will stop providing spark and reference signals and will do it straight away. With only 2 notches on your crank, how do you determine which coil to fire first? What safety is incorporated to prevent a sequencing failure from ruining an engine? You'll need an additional signal of some type. When the Delco DIS system was released there were not many ecm's in production with the hardware or code to utilize a cam position signal. Functionally the DIS replaces a distributor as a complete unit. With 3 variable changes in software, the distributor and DIS are interchangeable. It seems like a cost effective design to me. With that in mind you might to wonder why, when the 2.0L OHC engine was converted from distributor to DIS, GM decided to forgo the entire US made DIS system. Instead they used the Euro / Bosch "extra tooth" crank sensor and coils and a completely new / separate Delco ecm dedicated specifically to an engine which would only be used for 2 years before disappearing. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine Been studying the DIS timing diagram. Apologies for my dumb questions (I've never really looked very closely at GM DIS before). 1) Is there still a rotor arm to distribute the spark to the correct plug? If not, how is this done? Is there still just one coil (I know some DIS systems have 2 and fire 2 cylinders at the same time - but that still requires cam phase knowledge, to know which 2 to fire.) 2) When the ECM isn't in the loop, with the DIS system, is the SA 60deg? 3) AIUI, a _dizzy_ (reluctor) trigger generates a pulse via the HEI module to the ECM when any cylinder is at the static advance position (e.g. 10deg BTDC), defined by the rotation of the dizzy mounting. So, when the ECM is out of the loop, the HEI module fires the coil straight away - which gives 10deg SA. I'm not sure whether the pulse from the HEI module to the ECM is high to low or vice versa. Assuming high to low, then it is equivalent to the 60deg BTDC trigger from the DIS. So, what if notches 1 & 4 on the DIS trigger wheel were moved to be 10deg before notch 5? Would this resync the DIS module? Why is the logic of the DIS module needed (i.e. can't the raw trigger go straight to an HEI module, like the dizzy one, so you'd just have 2 notches on the wheel)? Is the answer to this related to the answer to 1)? :-) Thanks, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 04 September 2006 12:51 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > On a 4 cylinder engine the "double notch" of the 7x crank wheel indicates synch. The module fires on the next signal from the crank wheel. Two pulses are counted and the module fires on the third. One pulse is counted, then the double notch to indicate synch, and the cycle begins again. > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 6:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > > > > On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: > > > > > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how > a > > > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the > > > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for > > > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm > missing? > > > > Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), the DIS > > module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static timing, > > typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has 60deg > > offset. > > Sorry if I'm being dim here; when the ECM is not controlling the timing, > does the DIS module fire at every pulse from the trigger wheel? How does a 6 > x 60deg trigger wheel work for a 4cyl engine? > > Thanks, > > Robin > _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Sep 10 22:57:39 2006 From: krawczuk at dodo.com.au (mark krawczuk) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:27:39 +0930 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine References: <000901c6d553$0c41d280$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <000701c6d556$6dc52c20$6baef0dc@markzu35x5eu9m> hi, the early model commdores vn/vp v6 3.8 here in australia came with the setup where all the coils are mounted in one block. the later model commodres vr - vt v6 3.8 came with the 3 coils , with two towers on each coil , like the ones your use to . both setups are 100 % interchangeable. i`ve even swapped one setup with teh other on my commodre. mark k ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brendan Patten" To: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > Since we are on the subject of DIS ignition, how does the DIS on the > 3.8L engine differ from that on say 3.1L v6? > > I purchased a 89 Bonneville this weekend, and it's crank sensor is > mounted external to the engine, and reads teeth in the backside of the > harmonic damper. (had to change it, rubber was gone) > > Anyways, this 3.8L engine uses a different DIS module and coil pack > setup then I'm used to looking at. The coils are all one assembly, not > 2 towers per coil-pack. Also, the crank sensor has two channels, a 3x, > and a 12x I think it was, can't remember. > > Also, each slot in the 3x signal is a different length. > > Anyone know how this system differs? Or had any experience with it? Are > these motors sequential? (Reason for 3 different length slots on 3x > signal??) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On > Behalf Of davesnothereman at netscape.net > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:32 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > > The generation of Delco DIS related to that timing diagram uses only > crank information to synchronize the ignition coils. The coils, one for > each cylinder pair, are sequenced by the ignition module in a repeating > pattern initiated by the synch notch in the crank sensor. Both pistons > of each coil pair are at TDC simultaneously, with one ending the exhaust > stroke and one starting the power stroke. The coil provides spark to > both cylinders. One cylinder uses this spark to combust fuel, the other > does nothing with the energy. > > When the ecm isn't in the loop, the SA is 0 deg advanced. The reference > pulse is 60 deg advanced. > > I would have to say that moving the fire notches for a 4 cylinder > engine would likely advance timing, although there is probably a limit > to how far they can be moved before the module flags a problem. If the > synch notch is removed the module will stop providing spark and > reference signals and will do it straight away. > > With only 2 notches on your crank, how do you determine which coil to > fire first? What safety is incorporated to prevent a sequencing failure > from ruining an engine? You'll need an additional signal of some type. > When the Delco DIS system was released there were not many ecm's in > production with the hardware or code to utilize a cam position signal. > Functionally the DIS replaces a distributor as a complete unit. With 3 > variable changes in software, the distributor and DIS are > interchangeable. It seems like a cost effective design to me. > > With that in mind you might to wonder why, when the 2.0L OHC engine was > converted from distributor to DIS, GM decided to forgo the entire US > made DIS system. Instead they used the Euro / Bosch "extra tooth" crank > sensor and coils and a completely new / separate Delco ecm dedicated > specifically to an engine which would only be used for 2 years before > disappearing. > > Zaphod > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 6:36 AM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > > Been studying the DIS timing diagram. > > > > Apologies for my dumb questions (I've never really looked very closely > at GM > > DIS before). > > > > 1) Is there still a rotor arm to distribute the spark to the correct > plug? > > If not, how is this done? Is there still just one coil (I know some DIS > > systems have 2 and fire 2 cylinders at the same time - but that still > > requires cam phase knowledge, to know which 2 to fire.) > > > > 2) When the ECM isn't in the loop, with the DIS system, is the SA 60deg? > > > > 3) AIUI, a _dizzy_ (reluctor) trigger generates a pulse via the HEI > module > > to the ECM when any cylinder is at the static advance position (e.g. > 10deg > > BTDC), defined by the rotation of the dizzy mounting. So, when the ECM > is > > out of the loop, the HEI module fires the coil straight away - which > gives > > 10deg SA. I'm not sure whether the pulse from the HEI module to the ECM > is > > high to low or vice versa. Assuming high to low, then it is equivalent > to > > the 60deg BTDC trigger from the DIS. So, what if notches 1 & 4 on the > DIS > > trigger wheel were moved to be 10deg before notch 5? Would this resync > the > > DIS module? Why is the logic of the DIS module needed (i.e. can't the > raw > > trigger go straight to an HEI module, like the dizzy one, so you'd just > have > > 2 notches on the wheel)? Is the answer to this related to the answer to > 1)? > > :-) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Robin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: 04 September 2006 12:51 > > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > > > > > >> On a 4 cylinder engine the "double notch" of the 7x crank wheel > indicates > > synch. The module fires on the next signal from the crank wheel. Two > > pulses are counted and the module fires on the third. One pulse is > counted, > > then the double notch to indicate synch, and the cycle begins again. > >> > >> Zaphod > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 6:46 AM >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine >> >> >> > On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: >> > > >> > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now > wondering > how >> a >> > > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start > (when > the >> > > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use > for >> > > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm >> missing? >> > >> > Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), > the > DIS >> > module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static > timing, >> > typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has > 60deg >> > offset. >> >> Sorry if I'm being dim here; when the ECM is not controlling the > timing, >> does the DIS module fire at every pulse from the trigger wheel? How > does a > 6 >> x 60deg trigger wheel work for a 4cyl engine? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Robin >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and > industry-leading spam and email virus protection. > _______________________________________________ > 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 davesnothereman at netscape.net Sun Sep 10 22:58:59 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:58:59 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Tweaking Asynchronous BPW In-Reply-To: <20060910.164134.29529.910012@webmail25.lax.untd.com> References: <20060910.164134.29529.910012@webmail25.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: <8C8A36DBF222970-15EC-59A@FWM-M11.sysops.aol.com> Asynch fueling is one of the primary fueling modes. It's discussed on the web and in factory service manuals. Go and Google until the answers you find. Once you understand why asynch fueling exists then you can decide whether or not the wizened "Few" has the right answer. Power Enrichment is not Acceleration Enrichment. AE (and DE) covers transient conditions. PE switches from 14.7 to a richer mixture for more power. No AE below 60% throttle would most likely make the vehicle undriveable. No PE below 60% throttle has nothing to do with the stumble. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 7:40 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Tweaking Asynchronous BPW Boy I missed that, it was Base Pulse Width that I meant. I guess the next step is to continue to reduce the VE tables some more. I am still at a loss about the word asynchronous. To me it means "to be unrealated to time" and Syncronous is realated "directly to time". Why is it that we need asynchronous anyway. A few have suggested that it dosen't matter and to just disable it. Any more thoughts? As for power enrichment the setting for that particular rpm is not enabled until the TPS is past 60.15. The stumble is happening at an TPS of 3.6 so the PE shouldn't even be a factor. These are some of the actual readings during the stumble in closed loop: 1. RPM 900 2. MAP 84 3. BLM 108 4. TPS 3.6 One curiosity though is the Lean Rich column. In a 20 second period it steadily will climb starting at 78 and rising to 186 in that 20 second time frame. Does anyone really know what Asynchronous Base Pulse Width is for? Thanks for the help it's really appreciated...Fred Where have you found that term? BTW? Sounds like a type-O. Asynch BPW makes more sense (Base Pulse Width). Asynch pulses are used during AE among other conditions. Setting asynch BPW to zero would at a minimum reduce the AE shot, and likely decrease it to 0 ms of fuel added. I without a better understanding of this table, I would play it safe and "leave it alone." 27 Eproms? Consider that a good start. You might be into it for far more by the time you get done. Most of the fuel delivery calcs in the ecm are tied in with the injector constant. If the constant is adjusted, the fuel delivery calculations will also be adjusted. One function which is ignorant of injector size is the Acceleration Enrichment. AE is delivered as timed shots of fuel to help during transient conditions. AE is set up to prevent stumbles, bogs, and excess emissions by trial and error. If you alter engine airflow and response, as well as injector size, you'll need to re-adjust the AE to fit your engine and injectors. If you have a "low end" cam it will tend accelerate the engine faster at lower engine rpm. There will be less change in airflow at higher rpm. AE should follow, with greater fuel delivery at lower engine rpm. If you have a "top end" cam you'll get more effective cylinder filling at higher rpm. AE should tend to be higher at higher rpm. Larger injectors really affect AE the most. And larger injectors with increased fuel pressure are even worse. In the old days of Holley Carburetor madness it was tough to get too much AE. Not so today. Too much AE is very common now and the results are a squishy, saggy, hesitating engine which can run great under steady load, but will show rich O2 readings and can spew black smoke at the same load if it's after a rapid increase in MAP or TPS. If we're voting, I'm with Beau. Less AE may save the day. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 2:02 PM Subject: [Gmecm] RE Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Thanks Darryl.. Maybe a bit more info would be in order. I built this engine 2500 miles ago. I put every thing new inside and out. It has been overbored has a cam a little taller than stock. I thought that maybe one of the new sensors might be bad , so one by one they have all been replaced again. The wiring harness was replaced and the speed sensor. The TBI unit is from a 350 cid and therfore has larger injectors . This larger injector size facilitated an 8% lowering of the VE tables almost across the board (so far). The timing tables have been tweaked only slightly mostly to stop preignition. I had taken my van to a Chip maker to start with because at the timeI was unfamiliar with reprogaming the ECM. When the engine was first fired it would hardly run blowing clouds of unburned fuel from the tail pipe. When I picked up the van it was better and it would idle now but was still blowing black smoke under what I now know as WOT. After taking the van back 3 times for the same problem, and after an $800 bill, I deceided to try it myself even though it didn't have the Dyno. Everything the shop did has been undone except for the increased fuel pressure regulator. For some reason they thought this was part of the problem. Anyway I bought all of the equipment, (except the Dyno and Sniffer) and have burned 27 EPROMS so far. This is why I am now at the place it must be something else. All the sensors and the IAC are working properly. The BLM is still low at this point in Real time using a data logging program. I have extensive records of in car actual driving conditions, even through the Rocky Mountains. Back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION , what is "ASYNCHRONOUS BTW" and how does it affect the VE tables. Is it nessessary or should it just be disabled.? If your reading this Steve, do you have any comments? From: "dgilbert78 at juno.com" Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Message-ID: <20060908.105104.3679.893120 at webmail16.lax.untd.com> Content-Type: text/plain Hello: make absolutely sure that the MAP sensor is seeing proper vacuum. No kinked hose, no mushy hose, no partially carboned map port in the TBI body. Restricted (delayed) vacuum to the MAP will act like bad acclerator pump in a carb. Make sure that is absolutely perfect befort re programming. May have to remove TBI and rod out the MAP vacuum port, these become carboned and gummed. Good luck. Spent many hours finding that one. Darryl.. Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Date : Fri, Sep 08, 2006 10:04 AM I have been unable to remedy the stumble problem with my 305 using the 7747. I have readjusted the timing tables, the VE tables. Although the motor runs great it still stumbles on takeoff in open or closed loop. The system goes rich under partial throttle between 800 and 1100 RPM without going into WOT inrichment. My question is about the asynchronous BTW handles in three tables. One table is for Maximum and one is for Minimum and still one is for RPM. One blog that I ran across tells off fixing the stumble problem that I have by setting one of these table values to "0". Can someone shed some light on the asynchronous BTW modes? What is it, and does it overide the VE table, or work with them, or none of the above? Which setting would potentially remedy my problem. Any Thoughts? Matt Darryl.. _______________________________________________ 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. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:06:37 -0400 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Message-ID: <8C8A2E8B36391C0-880-291F at FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" -----Original Message----- From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 1:04 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW My question is about the asynchronous BTW handles in three tables. One table is for Maximum and one is for Minimum and still one is for RPM. I didn't catch this part of the question originally. "handles" = constants? Singular values as opposed to a table of values? There's two possibilities which I can think of. One is that these values work with an "asynchronous pulse accumulator" which can be read about in the turbo P4 document. The second is that these constants determine when synchronous fueling is abandoned for Asynch fueling due to physical limitations imposed by the injectors. Have you seen a change by adjusting these values? If they affect the asynch accumulator, you may not. If they change fueling mode then you'll hear the injector pulsing change as you set min and max value as well as rpm to fairly large numbers. Zaphod ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 efi at dyakron.com Sun Sep 10 23:18:46 2006 From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:18:46 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine In-Reply-To: <000901c6d553$0c41d280$6400a8c0@p42000> References: <8C8A2E3CC0ED6D1-880-2891@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060911001815.037e0220@dyakron.com> Yes 3.8s are SFI. mv At 10:33 PM 9/10/2006 -0500, you wrote: >Anyways, this 3.8L engine uses a different DIS module and coil pack >setup then I'm used to looking at. The coils are all one assembly, not >2 towers per coil-pack. Also, the crank sensor has two channels, a 3x, >and a 12x I think it was, can't remember. > >Also, each slot in the 3x signal is a different length. > >Anyone know how this system differs? Or had any experience with it? Are >these motors sequential? (Reason for 3 different length slots on 3x >signal??) From ne14roxcj at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 23:38:31 2006 From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:38:31 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Tweaking Asynchronous BPW In-Reply-To: <20060910.164134.29529.910012@webmail25.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: <4504e856.3373f2a8.72ba.6bfd@mx.gmail.com> I would definitely not continue to reduce the VE tables. Especially in the areas where you don't have problems. AE is pump-shot. Not power enrich. PE is towards WOT (like you said, >60% TPS.) Accell enrich is just that. Fuel enrichment upon acceleration. The amount of fuel added depends on the AE tables (delta TPS and delta MAP (delta being the amount of change). These enrichment pulses are Asynchronous. They are not synchronized with the ignition reference pulse. They are just pulses of a duration determined by how much the TPS and MAP values changed. If you are using TunerPro, look for tables with a description like Delta TPS Acelpump and Delta MAP Acelpump. The MAX and MIN Async BPW, I think, is to limit the amount of fuel the Acelpump tables can add or subtract. I wouldn't mess with the Max and min, I think they are just safety things. Also, they didn't look like real BPW numbers using the def file I have. IMO, you should scale your tables back to "normal" and use the injector constant. Usually labeled BPW constant. If you decrease the BPW Constant by a certain percentage, the rest of the tables would remain the same (on the same engines with different injector size/flow rate.) If you are happy with where your VE tables are now, use them, but if you start finding that everything is too rich or lean, change the BPW constant. Beau -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of matthew10_5 at netzero.net Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:41 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Tweaking Asynchronous BPW Boy I missed that, it was Base Pulse Width that I meant. I guess the next step is to continue to reduce the VE tables some more. I am still at a loss about the word asynchronous. To me it means "to be unrealated to time" and Syncronous is realated "directly to time". Why is it that we need asynchronous anyway. A few have suggested that it dosen't matter and to just disable it. Any more thoughts? As for power enrichment the setting for that particular rpm is not enabled until the TPS is past 60.15. The stumble is happening at an TPS of 3.6 so the PE shouldn't even be a factor. These are some of the actual readings during the stumble in closed loop: 1. RPM 900 2. MAP 84 3. BLM 108 4. TPS 3.6 One curiosity though is the Lean Rich column. In a 20 second period it steadily will climb starting at 78 and rising to 186 in that 20 second time frame. Does anyone really know what Asynchronous Base Pulse Width is for? Thanks for the help it's really appreciated...Fred Where have you found that term? BTW? Sounds like a type-O. Asynch BPW makes more sense (Base Pulse Width). Asynch pulses are used during AE among other conditions. Setting asynch BPW to zero would at a minimum reduce the AE shot, and likely decrease it to 0 ms of fuel added. I without a better understanding of this table, I would play it safe and "leave it alone." 27 Eproms? Consider that a good start. You might be into it for far more by the time you get done. Most of the fuel delivery calcs in the ecm are tied in with the injector constant. If the constant is adjusted, the fuel delivery calculations will also be adjusted. One function which is ignorant of injector size is the Acceleration Enrichment. AE is delivered as timed shots of fuel to help during transient conditions. AE is set up to prevent stumbles, bogs, and excess emissions by trial and error. If you alter engine airflow and response, as well as injector size, you'll need to re-adjust the AE to fit your engine and injectors. If you have a "low end" cam it will tend accelerate the engine faster at lower engine rpm. There will be less change in airflow at higher rpm. AE should follow, with greater fuel delivery at lower engine rpm. If you have a "top end" cam you'll get more effective cylinder filling at higher rpm. AE should tend to be higher at higher rpm. Larger injectors really affect AE the most. And larger injectors with increased fuel pressure are even worse. In the old days of Holley Carburetor madness it was tough to get too much AE. Not so today. Too much AE is very common now and the results are a squishy, saggy, hesitating engine which can run great under steady load, but will show rich O2 readings and can spew black smoke at the same load if it's after a rapid increase in MAP or TPS. If we're voting, I'm with Beau. Less AE may save the day. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 2:02 PM Subject: [Gmecm] RE Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Thanks Darryl.. Maybe a bit more info would be in order. I built this engine 2500 miles ago. I put every thing new inside and out. It has been overbored has a cam a little taller than stock. I thought that maybe one of the new sensors might be bad , so one by one they have all been replaced again. The wiring harness was replaced and the speed sensor. The TBI unit is from a 350 cid and therfore has larger injectors . This larger injector size facilitated an 8% lowering of the VE tables almost across the board (so far). The timing tables have been tweaked only slightly mostly to stop preignition. I had taken my van to a Chip maker to start with because at the timeI was unfamiliar with reprogaming the ECM. When the engine was first fired it would hardly run blowing clouds of unburned fuel from the tail pipe. When I picked up the van it was better and it would idle now but was still blowing black smoke under what I now know as WOT. After taking the van back 3 times for the same problem, and after an $800 bill, I deceided to try it myself even though it didn't have the Dyno. Everything the shop did has been undone except for the increased fuel pressure regulator. For some reason they thought this was part of the problem. Anyway I bought all of the equipment, (except the Dyno and Sniffer) and have burned 27 EPROMS so far. This is why I am now at the place it must be something else. All the sensors and the IAC are working properly. The BLM is still low at this point in Real time using a data logging program. I have extensive records of in car actual driving conditions, even through the Rocky Mountains. Back to my ORIGINAL QUESTION , what is "ASYNCHRONOUS BTW" and how does it affect the VE tables. Is it nessessary or should it just be disabled.? If your reading this Steve, do you have any comments? From: "dgilbert78 at juno.com" Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Message-ID: <20060908.105104.3679.893120 at webmail16.lax.untd.com> Content-Type: text/plain Hello: make absolutely sure that the MAP sensor is seeing proper vacuum. No kinked hose, no mushy hose, no partially carboned map port in the TBI body. Restricted (delayed) vacuum to the MAP will act like bad acclerator pump in a carb. Make sure that is absolutely perfect befort re programming. May have to remove TBI and rod out the MAP vacuum port, these become carboned and gummed. Good luck. Spent many hours finding that one. Darryl.. Tweaking Asynchronous BTW Date : Fri, Sep 08, 2006 10:04 AM I have been unable to remedy the stumble problem with my 305 using the 7747. I have readjusted the timing tables, the VE tables. Although the motor runs great it still stumbles on takeoff in open or closed loop. The system goes rich under partial throttle between 800 and 1100 RPM without going into WOT inrichment. My question is about the asynchronous BTW handles in three tables. One table is for Maximum and one is for Minimum and still one is for RPM. One blog that I ran across tells off fixing the stumble problem that I have by setting one of these table values to "0". Can someone shed some light on the asynchronous BTW modes? What is it, and does it overide the VE table, or work with them, or none of the above? Which setting would potentially remedy my problem. Any Thoughts? Matt Darryl.. _______________________________________________ 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. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:06:37 -0400 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Message-ID: <8C8A2E8B36391C0-880-291F at FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" -----Original Message----- From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 1:04 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Tweaking Asynchronous BTW My question is about the asynchronous BTW handles in three tables. One table is for Maximum and one is for Minimum and still one is for RPM. I didn't catch this part of the question originally. "handles" = constants? Singular values as opposed to a table of values? There's two possibilities which I can think of. One is that these values work with an "asynchronous pulse accumulator" which can be read about in the turbo P4 document. The second is that these constants determine when synchronous fueling is abandoned for Asynch fueling due to physical limitations imposed by the injectors. Have you seen a change by adjusting these values? If they affect the asynch accumulator, you may not. If they change fueling mode then you'll hear the injector pulsing change as you set min and max value as well as rpm to fairly large numbers. Zaphod ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 halftrak0414 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 11 00:06:45 2006 From: halftrak0414 at hotmail.com (Michael Hathaway) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:06:45 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Reprograming ECM from CPI to TBI Message-ID: I am replacing a 4.3 in a 1993 GMC Safari with a 5.7 LO5 TBI ,my question is can I reprogram the 16168625 to run TBI(I know that I will have to add another "twisted pair")or will I have to replace the whole system with a 7747??? From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 11 02:00:00 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] The Forum Lives!!! In-Reply-To: <20060909013717.99285.qmail@web35913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060911070001.12847.qmail@web80505.mail.yahoo.com> So far pretty good, but turn off a few more of the less desireable features like quotes, and either notify folks if you kill their account or preserve them, it's a pain to loose that and have to recreate none the less loose your 'handle' ----- Original Message ---- From: Ryan Hess To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Friday, September 8, 2006 8:37:17 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] The Forum Lives!!! I'm there. :) I'll spread the word. The gospel of the GMECM shall continue on, in a new and portable form. Andrew Huxtable wrote: Hi all, point your browsers to http://gmecm.mine.nu This is a 'proof of concept' design at this stage. The domain will likely change later if I can get a sub of diy-efi.org, we'll see. Feel free to create an account and make some posts etc but it's likely that there will be changes in the near future that *may* mean you lose your account and have to re-create it. The theme that I chose was one of the smallest total footprint - ALL the graphics and pages come to less than 1Mb so it should be pretty sleek. Let me know what you think..... Andrew _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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 di_dallas at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 02:02:57 2006 From: di_dallas at yahoo.com (Tom Butcher) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Reprograming ECM from CPI to TBI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060911070257.81946.qmail@web53706.mail.yahoo.com> You can "reprogram" the 16168625 to go from a 4.3 CPI to a 5.7 TBI just by getting a new Memcal for the 5.7 TBI and tranny and gears you are running. You may have to switch to a truck Memcal to get a good match. HTH Michael Hathaway wrote: I am replacing a 4.3 in a 1993 GMC Safari with a 5.7 LO5 TBI ,my question is can I reprogram the 16168625 to run TBI(I know that I will have to add another "twisted pair")or will I have to replace the whole system with a 7747??? _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 11 03:05:32 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:05:32 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000><1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com><039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> <200609010941.05924.tsokorai@minimania.org><041d01c6ce7d$15b14210$020101c0@gandalf> <8C89E2FA8449C45-1230-3A09@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com><089101c6d3fb$d4ccc740$020101c0@gandalf> <8C8A2E3CC0ED6D1-880-2891@FWM-M15.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <00df01c6d57a$1ff627f0$020101c0@gandalf> Thanks. Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 10 September 2006 12:31 Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > The generation of Delco DIS related to that timing diagram uses only > crank information to synchronize the ignition coils. The coils, one for > each cylinder pair, are sequenced by the ignition module in a repeating > pattern initiated by the synch notch in the crank sensor. Both pistons of > each coil pair are at TDC simultaneously, with one ending the exhaust > stroke and one starting the power stroke. The coil provides spark to both > cylinders. One cylinder uses this spark to combust fuel, the other does > nothing with the energy. > > When the ecm isn't in the loop, the SA is 0 deg advanced. The reference > pulse is 60 deg advanced. > > I would have to say that moving the fire notches for a 4 cylinder engine > would likely advance timing, although there is probably a limit to how far > they can be moved before the module flags a problem. If the synch notch is > removed the module will stop providing spark and reference signals and > will do it straight away. > > With only 2 notches on your crank, how do you determine which coil to fire > first? What safety is incorporated to prevent a sequencing failure from > ruining an engine? You'll need an additional signal of some type. When the > Delco DIS system was released there were not many ecm's in production with > the hardware or code to utilize a cam position signal. Functionally the > DIS replaces a distributor as a complete unit. With 3 variable changes in > software, the distributor and DIS are interchangeable. It seems like a > cost effective design to me. > > With that in mind you might to wonder why, when the 2.0L OHC engine was > converted from distributor to DIS, GM decided to forgo the entire US made > DIS system. Instead they used the Euro / Bosch "extra tooth" crank sensor > and coils and a completely new / separate Delco ecm dedicated specifically > to an engine which would only be used for 2 years before disappearing. > > Zaphod From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon Sep 11 12:27:09 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] The Forum Lives!!! Message-ID: <45059C6D.3090103@highspeedlink.net> I think quotes are one of the MOST desirable features of a forum... look at what I just did to your email, for instance... Forum quotes make layering and threading much easier that what's below. Will > From: Rick McLeod > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] The Forum Lives!!! > > So far pretty good, but turn off a few more of the less desireable features like quotes, and either notify folks if you kill their account or preserve them, it's a pain to loose that and have to recreate none the less loose your 'handle' > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ryan Hess > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2006 8:37:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] The Forum Lives!!! > > > I'm there. :) > > I'll spread the word. The gospel of the GMECM shall continue on, in a new and portable form. > > > > Andrew Huxtable wrote: Hi all, point your browsers to http://gmecm.mine.nu This is a 'proof of > concept' design at this stage. The domain will likely change later if I can > get a sub of diy-efi.org, we'll see. > > Feel free to create an account and make some posts etc but it's likely that > there will be changes in the near future that *may* mean you lose your > account and have to re-create it. > > The theme that I chose was one of the smallest total footprint - ALL the > graphics and pages come to less than 1Mb so it should be pretty sleek. > > Let me know what you think..... > > Andrew From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon Sep 11 18:13:56 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:13:56 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...) Message-ID: <4505EDB4.2050700@highspeedlink.net> Ok, from the Turbo Buick forum, I learned that the Turbo Buick ECM is the 1227148 and that the turbo version uses $T31 code which is available from Tunercat. How compatible are the signals of the early and late DIS between ignition module and ECM? What resources are there for timing diagrams and explanations of the early system? What kind of cam sensor does the 7148 expect? What kind of cam sensor does the 3100 have? How easy/hard is the $T31 code to work with? Will > From: William Lucke > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission > with lockup convertor > > A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is all wheel drive and > this particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 tires on the front > (205's on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared to cheap 195's > all around. > > If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change (24 is more likely), the > best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for me is 28 mpg. I won't > see that because the real world isn't theoretical ideal (the real world > has hills that will cause me to get into PE and convertor unlock with a > 2.39 final drive). > > As I said before, I can do better than I am, but if sequential is worth > anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will come with sequential > sensors & wiring, actually running that way sounds as simple as picking > the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit accomplish this? > > A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF? > > The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor used on the LT1's is > quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that interprets that signal > being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder operation. > > > > Will > > > >> From: Jay Vessels >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic >> transmission, with lockup convertor >> >> Hi there! >> >> Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282 >> 5-speed manual. >> >> Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost >> impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24 >> convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from his '93 Z24 convertible >> ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent fuel economy (30 MPG >> highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd recommend tuning with a >> wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to maximize the benefit of >> whatever system you choose. >> >> As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code for a non-V8? Is there a >> V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? >> >> Jay Vessels >> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI >> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) >> >> William Lucke wrote: >>> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have >>> functioning EGR? >>> I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. Gearing >>> changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, I want it. >>> I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine >>> than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's >>> certainly more responsive to boost. >>> >>> >>> Will >>> >>> >>> From: "Brendan Patten" >>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission >>> with lockup convertor >>> >>> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode >>> fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) >>> >>> I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM >>> cells. But no sequential. >>> >>> There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not >>> sure of how many blm cells there >>> >>> $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and >>> boost, still no sequential. From captain_krill at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 20:02:00 2006 From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] The forum lives... Message-ID: <20060912010200.72153.qmail@web34313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I've been lurking, with a few posts when I think I can contribute, for about 2 years. The Jeep is running so well in closed loop with it's hodge-podge mix of GM goodies, I haven't learned to reprogram - but I will (for open loop improvements mostly). I've become accustomed to reading every post on the digest, and I've slowly learned quite a bit. You guys have a lot of knowledge! I wasn't sure I'd like the forum Andrew put together, but I did enjoy looking it over. That said, the emoticons and LOL, OMG, ROTFL junk seems pretty infantile. AM I that old at 35?? If we could filter out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mmansur at hotmail.com Mon Sep 11 21:45:12 2006 From: mmansur at hotmail.com (Mark Mansur) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:45:12 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] The forum lives... References: <20060912010200.72153.qmail@web34313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ********************BEGIN TRANSMISSION******************** (In response to a previous email, quotation is important, be it in email or in a forum. For example...) >If we could filter out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! Can that be done in this email format? Let's see: =) lol. ROTFL. I guess not. Perhaps that means we don't have something now? It's really up to the poster (or sender of the email) to refrain from these kinds of things. For what it's worth (or "FWIW"), I think a forum format has solid merit. A forum that most closely follows the mailing list "feel" is one that has as few categories as possible (does an email list have categories?), is as simple as possible, and offers email subscription to threads. The forum in its current incarnation has far too many categories. I personally prefer a forum over a mailing list, so I'm very happy to see the experimentation that is currently happening around this. I'm a member here because there's no other way to get the (wonderful) information available via this list; the archive is laughable, IMO (IMO = "In my opinion" for the non-mavens of "MSN-speak" among us). That's just my $2.50. Oh, and, Steve - any chance we could have the archive asterisk-replace portions of our email addresses? The "at" format as it uses currently is pretty easily parsed by spam bots these days via the major search engines. I already have enough spam in my inbox, which, ironically, is another reason I prefer forums. -M PS - this is light-heartedly written ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cowen" To: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:02 PM Subject: [Gmecm] The forum lives... I've been lurking, with a few posts when I think I can contribute, for about 2 years. The Jeep is running so well in closed loop with it's hodge-podge mix of GM goodies, I haven't learned to reprogram - but I will (for open loop improvements mostly). I've become accustomed to reading every post on the digest, and I've slowly learned quite a bit. You guys have a lot of knowledge! I wasn't sure I'd like the forum Andrew put together, but I did enjoy looking it over. That said, the emoticons and LOL, OMG, ROTFL junk seems pretty infantile. AM I that old at 35?? If we could filter out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From davesnothereman at netscape.net Tue Sep 12 06:15:04 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:15:04 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...) In-Reply-To: <4505EDB4.2050700@highspeedlink.net> References: <4505EDB4.2050700@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <8C8A473D4A6152A-10BC-4338@FWM-M43.sysops.aol.com> The 7148 is a C3 ecm which uses a MAF sensor. The code is embedded on a ROM inside the ecm case. Rob Rauscher has developed a plug in board for the tbi C3 which, along with some other hardware, replaces the OEM ROM with his own code. He may be able to provide something similar for the 7148. I'm not sure what "early" and "late" DIS means considering that "late model" cars today date back to maybe 2003? The "late" DIS systems in current use are generally incompatible as coil sequencing and triggering are all handled within the pcm. IIRC the 3.8 uses a hall effect cam signal. Service information for a 96 Corsica w/ 3100 shows the same type of sensor in use. As with other OBDII vehicles, the ignition module's chores are handled by the pcm, so you'll need to install an ignition module from an earlier model engine. Is there an OBDII pcm used with the sequential 3100 / 3400 and supported by Tunercat which can be installed in a minimalist fashion? You might even be able to eke out more mileage through better fine tuning. Factory service manuals often have good descriptions of the systems they cover. A timing diagram may be available in GM training literature. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 7:13 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...) Ok, from the Turbo Buick forum, I learned that the Turbo Buick ECM is the 1227148 and that the turbo version uses $T31 code which is available from Tunercat. How compatible are the signals of the early and late DIS between ignition module and ECM? What resources are there for timing diagrams and explanations of the early system? What kind of cam sensor does the 7148 expect? What kind of cam sensor does the 3100 have? How easy/hard is the $T31 code to work with? Will > From: William Lucke > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission > with lockup convertor > > A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is all wheel drive and > this particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 tires on the front > (205's on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared to cheap 195's > all around. > > If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change (24 is more likely), the > best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for me is 28 mpg. I won't > see that because the real world isn't theoretical ideal (the real world > has hills that will cause me to get into PE and convertor unlock with a > 2.39 final drive). > > As I said before, I can do better than I am, but if sequential is worth > anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will come with sequential > sensors & wiring, actually running that way sounds as simple as picking > the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit accomplish this? > > A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF? > > The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor used on the LT1's is > quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that interprets that signal > being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder operation. > > > > Will > > > >> From: Jay Vessels >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic >> transmission, with lockup convertor >> >> Hi there! >> >> Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282 >> 5-speed manual. >> >> Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost >> impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24 >> convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from his '93 Z24 convertible >> ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent fuel economy (30 MPG >> highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd recommend tuning with a >> wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to maximize the benefit of >> whatever system you choose. >> >> As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code for a non-V8? Is there a >> V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? >> >> Jay Vessels >> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI >> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) >> >> William Lucke wrote: >>> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have >>> functioning EGR? >>> I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. Gearing >>> changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, I want it. >>> I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine >>> than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's >>> certainly more responsive to boost. >>> >>> >>> Will >>> >>> >>> From: "Brendan Patten" >>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission >>> with lockup convertor >>> >>> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode >>> fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) >>> >>> I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM >>> cells. But no sequential. >>> >>> There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not >>> sure of how many blm cells there >>> >>> $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and >>> boost, still no sequential. _______________________________________________ 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 rgmecm at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 11:05:44 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] [OT] Spam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060912160544.26644.qmail@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I don't know why, but in the past few weeks, spam has increased infinity-fold! (I've had none until now.) This email is used by nothing other than DIY-EFI. Yahoo is really good with catching spam, but for some reason all of this goes straight to my inbox. Not that this matters much anymore, because I'll be checking in here less frequently. So, FWIW... LOL! Insert smiley-> :-) Ryan Mark Mansur wrote: Oh, and, Steve - any chance we could have the archive asterisk-replace portions of our email addresses? The "at" format as it uses currently is pretty easily parsed by spam bots these days via the major search engines. I already have enough spam in my inbox, which, ironically, is another reason I prefer forums. -M --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com From burntkat at sc.rr.com Wed Sep 13 02:15:41 2006 From: burntkat at sc.rr.com (Burntkat@sc.rr.com) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 03:15:41 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] [OT] Spam In-Reply-To: <20060912160544.26644.qmail@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000601c6d704$6d446e00$079fa8c0@brigid> Being that you have a yahoo.com email address, that might have a lot to do with it. Yahoo's known for spam problems. Their software's just this side of malware, also. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hess Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 12:06 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] [OT] Spam I don't know why, but in the past few weeks, spam has increased infinity-fold! (I've had none until now.) This email is used by nothing other than DIY-EFI. Yahoo is really good with catching spam, but for some reason all of this goes straight to my inbox. Not that this matters much anymore, because I'll be checking in here less frequently. So, FWIW... LOL! Insert smiley-> :-) Ryan Mark Mansur wrote: Oh, and, Steve - any chance we could have the archive asterisk-replace portions of our email addresses? The "at" format as it uses currently is pretty easily parsed by spam bots these days via the major search engines. I already have enough spam in my inbox, which, ironically, is another reason I prefer forums. -M --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3 - Release Date: 9/11/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3 - Release Date: 9/11/2006 From mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net Wed Sep 13 12:58:58 2006 From: mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net (Scott Pearson) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:58:58 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...) References: <4505EDB4.2050700@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <0f4b01c6d75e$4ce4f990$6401a8c0@DELL3G> The later DIS on the 3800 (88-up) has 3x and 18x crank sensors. You'd have to upgrade the crank sensor to use the later (aka 'quick start') DIS module. Bruce Plecan has this on his GN. Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:13 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...) > Ok, from the Turbo Buick forum, I learned that the Turbo Buick ECM is the > 1227148 and that the turbo version uses $T31 code which is available from > Tunercat. > > How compatible are the signals of the early and late DIS between ignition > module and ECM? What resources are there for timing diagrams and > explanations of the early system? > What kind of cam sensor does the 7148 expect? What kind of cam sensor does > the 3100 have? > > How easy/hard is the $T31 code to work with? > > > Will > > >> From: William Lucke >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission >> with lockup convertor >> >> A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is all wheel drive and this >> particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 tires on the front (205's >> on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared to cheap 195's all >> around. >> >> If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change (24 is more likely), the >> best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for me is 28 mpg. I won't see >> that because the real world isn't theoretical ideal (the real world has >> hills that will cause me to get into PE and convertor unlock with a 2.39 >> final drive). >> >> As I said before, I can do better than I am, but if sequential is worth >> anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will come with sequential >> sensors & wiring, actually running that way sounds as simple as picking >> the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit accomplish this? >> >> A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF? >> >> The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor used on the LT1's is >> quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that interprets that signal >> being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder operation. >> >> >> >> Will >> >> >> >>> From: Jay Vessels >>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic >>> transmission, with lockup convertor >>> >>> Hi there! >>> >>> Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282 >>> 5-speed manual. >>> >>> Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost >>> impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24 >>> convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from his '93 Z24 convertible >>> ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent fuel economy (30 MPG >>> highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd recommend tuning with a >>> wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to maximize the benefit of >>> whatever system you choose. >>> >>> As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code for a non-V8? Is there a >>> V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? >>> >>> Jay Vessels >>> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI >>> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) >>> >>> William Lucke wrote: >>>> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have >>>> functioning EGR? >>>> I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. >>>> Gearing changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, >>>> I want it. >>>> I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine >>>> than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's >>>> certainly more responsive to boost. >>>> >>>> >>>> Will >>>> >>>> >>>> From: "Brendan Patten" >>>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic >>>> transmission >>>> with lockup convertor >>>> >>>> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode >>>> fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) >>>> >>>> I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM >>>> cells. But no sequential. >>>> >>>> There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not >>>> sure of how many blm cells there >>>> >>>> $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and >>>> boost, still no sequential. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rawardsr at ameritech.net Wed Sep 13 14:54:55 2006 From: rawardsr at ameritech.net (rawardsr at ameritech.net) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...) In-Reply-To: <0f4b01c6d75e$4ce4f990$6401a8c0@DELL3G> Message-ID: <20060913195455.26226.qmail@web35401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.t6p.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3482 Bruce did a write up.. Bob --- Scott Pearson wrote: > The later DIS on the 3800 (88-up) has 3x and 18x > crank sensors. You'd have > to upgrade the crank sensor to use the later (aka > 'quick start') DIS module. > > Bruce Plecan has this on his GN. > > Scott > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Lucke" > > To: > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:13 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS > compatibility (was: ECM Choice: > Sequential V6...) > > > > Ok, from the Turbo Buick forum, I learned that the > Turbo Buick ECM is the > > 1227148 and that the turbo version uses $T31 code > which is available from > > Tunercat. > > > > How compatible are the signals of the early and > late DIS between ignition > > module and ECM? What resources are there for > timing diagrams and > > explanations of the early system? > > What kind of cam sensor does the 7148 expect? What > kind of cam sensor does > > the 3100 have? > > > > How easy/hard is the $T31 code to work with? > > > > > > Will > > > > > >> From: William Lucke > > >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, > hydraulic transmission > >> with lockup convertor > >> > >> A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is > all wheel drive and this > >> particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 > tires on the front (205's > >> on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared > to cheap 195's all > >> around. > >> > >> If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change > (24 is more likely), the > >> best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for > me is 28 mpg. I won't see > >> that because the real world isn't theoretical > ideal (the real world has > >> hills that will cause me to get into PE and > convertor unlock with a 2.39 > >> final drive). > >> > >> As I said before, I can do better than I am, but > if sequential is worth > >> anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will > come with sequential > >> sensors & wiring, actually running that way > sounds as simple as picking > >> the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit > accomplish this? > >> > >> A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF? > >> > >> The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor > used on the LT1's is > >> quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that > interprets that signal > >> being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder > operation. > >> > >> > >> > >> Will > >> > >> > >> > >>> From: Jay Vessels > >>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, > hydraulic > >>> transmission, with lockup convertor > >>> > >>> Hi there! > >>> > >>> Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 > or the Getrag 282 > >>> 5-speed manual. > >>> > >>> Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and > drivers is almost > >>> impossible, but considering the mileage I got > from my '94 Z24 > >>> convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from > his '93 Z24 convertible > >>> ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent > fuel economy (30 MPG > >>> highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd > recommend tuning with a > >>> wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to > maximize the benefit of > >>> whatever system you choose. > >>> > >>> As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code > for a non-V8? Is there a > >>> V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? > >>> > >>> Jay Vessels > >>> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI > >>> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI > pending) > >>> > >>> William Lucke wrote: > >>>> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed > transmission? Do you have > >>>> functioning EGR? > >>>> I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently > gets 22 hwy/19 city. > >>>> Gearing changes might push me to 24-25. If > sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, > >>>> I want it. > >>>> I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally > better/more efficient engine > >>>> than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better > heads/intake, it's > >>>> certainly more responsive to boost. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Will > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: "Brendan Patten" > >>>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, > hydraulic > >>>> transmission > >>>> with lockup convertor > >>>> > >>>> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 > Cavalier. Highway mode > >>>> fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. > (still no knock) > >>>> > >>>> I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L > right now for more BLM > >>>> cells. But no sequential. > >>>> > >>>> There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with > a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not > >>>> sure of how many blm cells there > >>>> > >>>> $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, > you'll get 16 cells and > >>>> boost, still no sequential. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ahuxtable at sola.com.au Wed Sep 13 18:19:59 2006 From: ahuxtable at sola.com.au (Andrew Huxtable) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:49:59 +0930 Subject: [Gmecm] The forum lives... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6d78b$22666640$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Mark, I find it interesting that you think that there are too many categories for the new forum. I mean, I agree to a point, yes, there are a few but I think that in general 90% of the posts will either be in 'General GMECM discussion', 'Tuning', or 'Getting started' I'm going to start some polls on the site soon to try and get some idea of what people think of the current layout and will make changes accordingly. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Mark Mansur Sent: Tuesday, 12 September 2006 12:15 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] The forum lives... ********************BEGIN TRANSMISSION******************** (In response to a previous email, quotation is important, be it in email or in a forum. For example...) >If we could filter out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! Can that be done in this email format? Let's see: =) lol. ROTFL. I guess not. Perhaps that means we don't have something now? It's really up to the poster (or sender of the email) to refrain from these kinds of things. For what it's worth (or "FWIW"), I think a forum format has solid merit. A forum that most closely follows the mailing list "feel" is one that has as few categories as possible (does an email list have categories?), is as simple as possible, and offers email subscription to threads. The forum in its current incarnation has far too many categories. I personally prefer a forum over a mailing list, so I'm very happy to see the experimentation that is currently happening around this. I'm a member here because there's no other way to get the (wonderful) information available via this list; the archive is laughable, IMO (IMO = "In my opinion" for the non-mavens of "MSN-speak" among us). That's just my $2.50. Oh, and, Steve - any chance we could have the archive asterisk-replace portions of our email addresses? The "at" format as it uses currently is pretty easily parsed by spam bots these days via the major search engines. I already have enough spam in my inbox, which, ironically, is another reason I prefer forums. -M PS - this is light-heartedly written ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cowen" To: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:02 PM Subject: [Gmecm] The forum lives... I've been lurking, with a few posts when I think I can contribute, for about 2 years. The Jeep is running so well in closed loop with it's hodge-podge mix of GM goodies, I haven't learned to reprogram - but I will (for open loop improvements mostly). I've become accustomed to reading every post on the digest, and I've slowly learned quite a bit. You guys have a lot of knowledge! I wasn't sure I'd like the forum Andrew put together, but I did enjoy looking it over. That said, the emoticons and LOL, OMG, ROTFL junk seems pretty infantile. AM I that old at 35?? If we could filter out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org 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 mmansur at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 23:21:24 2006 From: mmansur at hotmail.com (Mark Mansur) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:21:24 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] The forum lives... References: <000001c6d78b$22666640$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Message-ID: From: "Andrew Huxtable" > I find it interesting that you think that there are too many > categories for the new forum. Actually, this was my statement: "A forum that most closely follows the mailing list 'feel' is one that has as few categories as possible." It wasn't taht I think there are too many categories for the new forum. Just clarifying. =) -M > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On > Behalf > Of Mark Mansur > Sent: Tuesday, 12 September 2006 12:15 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] The forum lives... > > ********************BEGIN TRANSMISSION******************** > > (In response to a previous email, quotation is important, be it in email > or > in a forum. For example...) > >>If we could filter out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! > > Can that be done in this email format? Let's see: > > =) lol. ROTFL. > > I guess not. Perhaps that means we don't have something now? It's really > up > to the poster (or sender of the email) to refrain from these kinds of > things. > > For what it's worth (or "FWIW"), I think a forum format has solid merit. A > forum that most closely follows the mailing list "feel" is one that has as > few categories as possible (does an email list have categories?), is as > simple as possible, and offers email subscription to threads. The forum in > its current incarnation has far too many categories. I personally prefer a > forum over a mailing list, so I'm very happy to see the experimentation > that > > is currently happening around this. I'm a member here because there's no > other way to get the (wonderful) information available via this list; the > archive is laughable, IMO (IMO = "In my opinion" for the non-mavens of > "MSN-speak" among us). > > That's just my $2.50. > > Oh, and, Steve - any chance we could have the archive asterisk-replace > portions of our email addresses? The "at" > format > as it uses currently is pretty easily parsed by spam bots these days via > the > > major search engines. I already have enough spam in my inbox, which, > ironically, is another reason I prefer forums. > > -M > > PS - this is light-heartedly written > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cowen" > To: > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:02 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] The forum lives... > > > I've been lurking, with a few posts when I think I can > contribute, for about 2 years. The Jeep is running so > well in closed loop with it's hodge-podge mix of GM > goodies, I haven't learned to reprogram - but I will > (for open loop improvements mostly). I've become > accustomed to reading every post on the digest, and > I've slowly learned quite a bit. You guys have a lot > of knowledge! > I wasn't sure I'd like the forum Andrew put together, > but I did enjoy looking it over. That said, the > emoticons and LOL, OMG, ROTFL junk seems pretty > infantile. AM I that old at 35?? If we could filter > out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! > > > **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > 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 andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 23:51:20 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Jeep 4.0 ve table Message-ID: <20060914045120.40509.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> I am in need and do realize this is the gm section. Does anyone have a VE table for a jeep 4.0L engine? I'm finally trying to work out all the bugs in my GM 4.1L 1bbl TBI system and the VE table is killing me. Since the Jeep motor has roughly the same size throttle body and dispalcement it should be darn close. Thanks in advance! --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 10:33:31 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] What is the "Idle Spark Multiplier"s function? Message-ID: <20060914153331.8525.qmail@web60814.mail.yahoo.com> I tlooks as though the table is designed to alter the spark for engine load at idle (eg: a/c on, trans in drive, letting the clutch out w/o throttle, etc) And it makes sense that the timing would retard with load. That is always done to reduce detonation and destruction. --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. From red83brick at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 16:24:56 2006 From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Jeep 4.0 ve table In-Reply-To: <20060914045120.40509.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060914212456.43268.qmail@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> I have a .BIN for a Jeep 258 I6, but it is with a 4.3 dual bore TBI unit on it. It is for the 1227747 ECM Andrew Gibson wrote: I am in need and do realize this is the gm section. Does anyone have a VE table for a jeep 4.0L engine? I'm finally trying to work out all the bugs in my GM 4.1L 1bbl TBI system and the VE table is killing me. Since the Jeep motor has roughly the same size throttle body and dispalcement it should be darn close. Thanks in advance! --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out. From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Thu Sep 14 19:41:37 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...) Message-ID: <4509F6C1.5020508@highspeedlink.net> What I'd like to do is use the 3100 and it's native DIS module with the 7148 ECM. I understand that this is, if not easy, at least possible? I'm still trying to track down info on the differences or similarities between the 3100 and 3800 cam sensors. Will > From: "Scott Pearson" > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM > Choice: Sequential V6...) > > The later DIS on the 3800 (88-up) has 3x and 18x crank sensors. You'd have > to upgrade the crank sensor to use the later (aka 'quick start') DIS module. > > Bruce Plecan has this on his GN. > > Scott > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Lucke" > To: > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:13 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: > Sequential V6...) > > >> Ok, from the Turbo Buick forum, I learned that the Turbo Buick ECM is the >> 1227148 and that the turbo version uses $T31 code which is available from >> Tunercat. >> >> How compatible are the signals of the early and late DIS between ignition >> module and ECM? What resources are there for timing diagrams and >> explanations of the early system? >> What kind of cam sensor does the 7148 expect? What kind of cam sensor does >> the 3100 have? >> >> How easy/hard is the $T31 code to work with? >> >> >> Will >> >> >>> From: William Lucke >>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission >>> with lockup convertor >>> >>> A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is all wheel drive and this >>> particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 tires on the front (205's >>> on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared to cheap 195's all >>> around. >>> >>> If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change (24 is more likely), the >>> best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for me is 28 mpg. I won't see >>> that because the real world isn't theoretical ideal (the real world has >>> hills that will cause me to get into PE and convertor unlock with a 2.39 >>> final drive). >>> >>> As I said before, I can do better than I am, but if sequential is worth >>> anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will come with sequential >>> sensors & wiring, actually running that way sounds as simple as picking >>> the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit accomplish this? >>> >>> A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF? >>> >>> The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor used on the LT1's is >>> quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that interprets that signal >>> being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder operation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Will >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Jay Vessels >>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic >>>> transmission, with lockup convertor >>>> >>>> Hi there! >>>> >>>> Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282 >>>> 5-speed manual. >>>> >>>> Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost >>>> impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24 >>>> convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from his '93 Z24 convertible >>>> ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent fuel economy (30 MPG >>>> highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd recommend tuning with a >>>> wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to maximize the benefit of >>>> whatever system you choose. >>>> >>>> As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code for a non-V8? Is there a >>>> V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? >>>> >>>> Jay Vessels >>>> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI >>>> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) >>>> >>>> William Lucke wrote: >>>>> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have >>>>> functioning EGR? >>>>> I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. >>>>> Gearing changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, >>>>> I want it. >>>>> I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine >>>>> than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's >>>>> certainly more responsive to boost. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Will >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: "Brendan Patten" >>>>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic >>>>> transmission >>>>> with lockup convertor >>>>> >>>>> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode >>>>> fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) >>>>> >>>>> I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM >>>>> cells. But no sequential. >>>>> >>>>> There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not >>>>> sure of how many blm cells there >>>>> >>>>> $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and >>>>> boost, still no sequential. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT) > From: > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM > Choice: Sequential V6...) > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Message-ID: <20060913195455.26226.qmail at web35401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > http://www.t6p.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3482 > > Bruce did a write up.. Bob > > --- Scott Pearson wrote: > >> The later DIS on the 3800 (88-up) has 3x and 18x >> crank sensors. You'd have >> to upgrade the crank sensor to use the later (aka >> 'quick start') DIS module. >> >> Bruce Plecan has this on his GN. >> >> Scott >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "William Lucke" >> >> To: >> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:13 PM >> Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS >> compatibility (was: ECM Choice: >> Sequential V6...) >> >> >>> Ok, from the Turbo Buick forum, I learned that the >> Turbo Buick ECM is the >>> 1227148 and that the turbo version uses $T31 code >> which is available from >>> Tunercat. >>> >>> How compatible are the signals of the early and >> late DIS between ignition >>> module and ECM? What resources are there for >> timing diagrams and >>> explanations of the early system? >>> What kind of cam sensor does the 7148 expect? What >> kind of cam sensor does >>> the 3100 have? >>> >>> How easy/hard is the $T31 code to work with? >>> >>> >>> Will >>> >>> >>>> From: William Lucke >> >>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, >> hydraulic transmission >>>> with lockup convertor >>>> >>>> A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is >> all wheel drive and this >>>> particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 >> tires on the front (205's >>>> on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared >> to cheap 195's all >>>> around. >>>> >>>> If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change >> (24 is more likely), the >>>> best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for >> me is 28 mpg. I won't see >>>> that because the real world isn't theoretical >> ideal (the real world has >>>> hills that will cause me to get into PE and >> convertor unlock with a 2.39 >>>> final drive). >>>> >>>> As I said before, I can do better than I am, but >> if sequential is worth >>>> anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will >> come with sequential >>>> sensors & wiring, actually running that way >> sounds as simple as picking >>>> the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit >> accomplish this? >>>> A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF? >>>> >>>> The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor >> used on the LT1's is >>>> quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that >> interprets that signal >>>> being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder >> operation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Will >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Jay Vessels >>>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, >> hydraulic >>>>> transmission, with lockup convertor >>>>> >>>>> Hi there! >>>>> >>>>> Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 >> or the Getrag 282 >>>>> 5-speed manual. >>>>> >>>>> Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and >> drivers is almost >>>>> impossible, but considering the mileage I got >> from my '94 Z24 >>>>> convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from >> his '93 Z24 convertible >>>>> ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent >> fuel economy (30 MPG >>>>> highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd >> recommend tuning with a >>>>> wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to >> maximize the benefit of >>>>> whatever system you choose. >>>>> >>>>> As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code >> for a non-V8? Is there a >>>>> V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? >>>>> >>>>> Jay Vessels >>>>> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI >>>>> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI >> pending) >>>>> William Lucke wrote: >>>>>> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed >> transmission? Do you have >>>>>> functioning EGR? >>>>>> I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently >> gets 22 hwy/19 city. >>>>>> Gearing changes might push me to 24-25. If >> sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, >>>>>> I want it. >>>>>> I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally >> better/more efficient engine >>>>>> than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better >> heads/intake, it's >>>>>> certainly more responsive to boost. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Will >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Brendan Patten" >>>>>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, >> hydraulic >>>>>> transmission >>>>>> with lockup convertor >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 >> Cavalier. Highway mode >>>>>> fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. >> (still no knock) >>>>>> I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L >> right now for more BLM >>>>>> cells. But no sequential. >>>>>> >>>>>> There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with >> a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not >>>>>> sure of how many blm cells there >>>>>> >>>>>> $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, >> you'll get 16 cells and >>>>>> boost, still no sequential. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:49:59 +0930 > From: "Andrew Huxtable" > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] The forum lives... > To: > Message-ID: <000001c6d78b$22666640$ca00a00a at ap.sola.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Mark, > I find it interesting that you think that there are too many > categories for the new forum. I mean, I agree to a point, yes, there are a > few but I think that in general 90% of the posts will either be in 'General > GMECM discussion', 'Tuning', or 'Getting started' > > I'm going to start some polls on the site soon to try and get some idea of > what people think of the current layout and will make changes accordingly. > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf > Of Mark Mansur > Sent: Tuesday, 12 September 2006 12:15 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] The forum lives... > > ********************BEGIN TRANSMISSION******************** > > (In response to a previous email, quotation is important, be it in email or > in a forum. For example...) > >> If we could filter out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! > > Can that be done in this email format? Let's see: > > =) lol. ROTFL. > > I guess not. Perhaps that means we don't have something now? It's really up > to the poster (or sender of the email) to refrain from these kinds of > things. > > For what it's worth (or "FWIW"), I think a forum format has solid merit. A > forum that most closely follows the mailing list "feel" is one that has as > few categories as possible (does an email list have categories?), is as > simple as possible, and offers email subscription to threads. The forum in > its current incarnation has far too many categories. I personally prefer a > forum over a mailing list, so I'm very happy to see the experimentation that > > is currently happening around this. I'm a member here because there's no > other way to get the (wonderful) information available via this list; the > archive is laughable, IMO (IMO = "In my opinion" for the non-mavens of > "MSN-speak" among us). > > That's just my $2.50. > > Oh, and, Steve - any chance we could have the archive asterisk-replace > portions of our email addresses? The "at" format > as it uses currently is pretty easily parsed by spam bots these days via the > > major search engines. I already have enough spam in my inbox, which, > ironically, is another reason I prefer forums. > > -M > > PS - this is light-heartedly written > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cowen" > To: > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:02 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] The forum lives... > > > I've been lurking, with a few posts when I think I can > contribute, for about 2 years. The Jeep is running so > well in closed loop with it's hodge-podge mix of GM > goodies, I haven't learned to reprogram - but I will > (for open loop improvements mostly). I've become > accustomed to reading every post on the digest, and > I've slowly learned quite a bit. You guys have a lot > of knowledge! > I wasn't sure I'd like the forum Andrew put together, > but I did enjoy looking it over. That said, the > emoticons and LOL, OMG, ROTFL junk seems pretty > infantile. AM I that old at 35?? If we could filter > out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! > > > **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:21:24 -0700 > From: "Mark Mansur" > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] The forum lives... > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > From: "Andrew Huxtable" >> I find it interesting that you think that there are too many >> categories for the new forum. > > > Actually, this was my statement: > > "A forum that most closely follows the mailing list 'feel' is one that has > as few categories as possible." > > It wasn't taht I think there are too many categories for the new forum. Just > clarifying. =) > > -M > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On >> Behalf >> Of Mark Mansur >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 September 2006 12:15 PM >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] The forum lives... >> >> ********************BEGIN TRANSMISSION******************** >> >> (In response to a previous email, quotation is important, be it in email >> or >> in a forum. For example...) >> >>> If we could filter out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! >> Can that be done in this email format? Let's see: >> >> =) lol. ROTFL. >> >> I guess not. Perhaps that means we don't have something now? It's really >> up >> to the poster (or sender of the email) to refrain from these kinds of >> things. >> >> For what it's worth (or "FWIW"), I think a forum format has solid merit. A >> forum that most closely follows the mailing list "feel" is one that has as >> few categories as possible (does an email list have categories?), is as >> simple as possible, and offers email subscription to threads. The forum in >> its current incarnation has far too many categories. I personally prefer a >> forum over a mailing list, so I'm very happy to see the experimentation >> that >> >> is currently happening around this. I'm a member here because there's no >> other way to get the (wonderful) information available via this list; the >> archive is laughable, IMO (IMO = "In my opinion" for the non-mavens of >> "MSN-speak" among us). >> >> That's just my $2.50. >> >> Oh, and, Steve - any chance we could have the archive asterisk-replace >> portions of our email addresses? The "at" >> format >> as it uses currently is pretty easily parsed by spam bots these days via >> the >> >> major search engines. I already have enough spam in my inbox, which, >> ironically, is another reason I prefer forums. >> >> -M >> >> PS - this is light-heartedly written >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Cowen" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:02 PM >> Subject: [Gmecm] The forum lives... >> >> >> I've been lurking, with a few posts when I think I can >> contribute, for about 2 years. The Jeep is running so >> well in closed loop with it's hodge-podge mix of GM >> goodies, I haven't learned to reprogram - but I will >> (for open loop improvements mostly). I've become >> accustomed to reading every post on the digest, and >> I've slowly learned quite a bit. You guys have a lot >> of knowledge! >> I wasn't sure I'd like the forum Andrew put together, >> but I did enjoy looking it over. That said, the >> emoticons and LOL, OMG, ROTFL junk seems pretty >> infantile. AM I that old at 35?? If we could filter >> out the MSN-speak chaff, we'd really have something! >> >> >> **********************END TRANSMISSION********************** >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Gmecm mailing list >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org >> 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 >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:51:20 -0700 (PDT) > From: Andrew Gibson > Subject: [Gmecm] Jeep 4.0 ve table > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Message-ID: <20060914045120.40509.qmail at web60812.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > I am in need and do realize this is the gm section. Does anyone have a VE table for a jeep 4.0L engine? I'm finally trying to work out all the bugs in my GM 4.1L 1bbl TBI system and the VE table is killing me. Since the Jeep motor has roughly the same size throttle body and dispalcement it should be darn close. Thanks in advance! > > > --------------------------------- > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:33:31 -0700 (PDT) > From: Andrew Gibson > Subject: [Gmecm] What is the "Idle Spark Multiplier"s function? > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Message-ID: <20060914153331.8525.qmail at web60814.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > I tlooks as though the table is designed to alter the spark for engine load at idle (eg: a/c on, trans in drive, letting the clutch out w/o throttle, etc) And it makes sense that the timing would retard with load. That is always done to reduce detonation and destruction. > > --------------------------------- > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > > > End of Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 22 > ************************************* > > From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Thu Sep 14 19:41:51 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:41:51 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...) Message-ID: <4509F6CF.3050400@highspeedlink.net> What I'd like to do is use the 3100 and it's native DIS module with the 7148 ECM. I understand that this is, if not easy, at least possible? I'm still trying to track down info on the differences or similarities between the 3100 and 3800 cam sensors. Will > From: "Scott Pearson" > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM > Choice: Sequential V6...) > > The later DIS on the 3800 (88-up) has 3x and 18x crank sensors. You'd have > to upgrade the crank sensor to use the later (aka 'quick start') DIS module. > > Bruce Plecan has this on his GN. > > Scott > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Lucke" > To: > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:13 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: > Sequential V6...) > > >> Ok, from the Turbo Buick forum, I learned that the Turbo Buick ECM is the >> 1227148 and that the turbo version uses $T31 code which is available from >> Tunercat. >> >> How compatible are the signals of the early and late DIS between ignition >> module and ECM? What resources are there for timing diagrams and >> explanations of the early system? >> What kind of cam sensor does the 7148 expect? What kind of cam sensor does >> the 3100 have? >> >> How easy/hard is the $T31 code to work with? >> >> >> Will >> >> >>> From: William Lucke >>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission >>> with lockup convertor >>> >>> A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is all wheel drive and this >>> particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 tires on the front (205's >>> on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared to cheap 195's all >>> around. >>> >>> If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change (24 is more likely), the >>> best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for me is 28 mpg. I won't see >>> that because the real world isn't theoretical ideal (the real world has >>> hills that will cause me to get into PE and convertor unlock with a 2.39 >>> final drive). >>> >>> As I said before, I can do better than I am, but if sequential is worth >>> anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will come with sequential >>> sensors & wiring, actually running that way sounds as simple as picking >>> the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit accomplish this? >>> >>> A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF? >>> >>> The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor used on the LT1's is >>> quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that interprets that signal >>> being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder operation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Will >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Jay Vessels >>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic >>>> transmission, with lockup convertor >>>> >>>> Hi there! >>>> >>>> Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282 >>>> 5-speed manual. >>>> >>>> Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost >>>> impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24 >>>> convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from his '93 Z24 convertible >>>> ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent fuel economy (30 MPG >>>> highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd recommend tuning with a >>>> wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to maximize the benefit of >>>> whatever system you choose. >>>> >>>> As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code for a non-V8? Is there a >>>> V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? >>>> >>>> Jay Vessels >>>> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI >>>> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) >>>> >>>> William Lucke wrote: >>>>> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have >>>>> functioning EGR? >>>>> I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. >>>>> Gearing changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, >>>>> I want it. >>>>> I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine >>>>> than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's >>>>> certainly more responsive to boost. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Will >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: "Brendan Patten" >>>>> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic >>>>> transmission >>>>> with lockup convertor >>>>> >>>>> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode >>>>> fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) >>>>> >>>>> I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM >>>>> cells. But no sequential. >>>>> >>>>> There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not >>>>> sure of how many blm cells there >>>>> >>>>> $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and >>>>> boost, still no sequential. From dingebre at 3dphysics.net Thu Sep 14 20:52:36 2006 From: dingebre at 3dphysics.net (David M. Ingebretsen) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:52:36 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Jeep 4.0 ve table In-Reply-To: <20060914045120.40509.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I don't have one for the 4.0 liter. I thought the 4.0's were all factory MPI units? I do have a bin for my 4.2 liter which works very nicely for me. There are also some 4.2 liter bins on the DIY ftp site. If you want mine, I'm happy to email you several which may be good starting points. Send me private email and I will send them to you. _______________________________________ David M. Ingebretsen, M.S., M.E. Collision Forensics & Engineering, Inc. 2469 East Fort Union Boulevard, Ste 114 Salt Lake City, UT 84121 801 733-5458 dingebre at 3dphysics.net __ -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gibson Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:51 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] Jeep 4.0 ve table I am in need and do realize this is the gm section. Does anyone have a VE table for a jeep 4.0L engine? I'm finally trying to work out all the bugs in my GM 4.1L 1bbl TBI system and the VE table is killing me. Since the Jeep motor has roughly the same size throttle body and dispalcement it should be darn close. Thanks in advance! --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 23:58:52 2006 From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Jeep 4.0 ve table Message-ID: <20060915045852.25331.qmail@web60812.mail.yahoo.com> I'm running a single bore 44mm TB so a dual bore would be way off. Thanks for offering Chris. --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com From b.shaw at comcast.net Fri Sep 22 10:37:37 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:37:37 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 749 twiki Message-ID: <45140341.8020206@comcast.net> I've updated the '749 twiki to add a link to Ludis's schematics and a bit more info about driver configurations. http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl/Gmecm/1227749 I had an inquiry this morning that caused me to put this together, and it's so easy to add to the tiwki I put it there also. Thanks again Steve! Best, Bill From rjdrew at adelphia.net Tue Sep 26 03:49:53 2006 From: rjdrew at adelphia.net (Ron Drew) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 04:49:53 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Just a test References: <1553946.1155422230922.JavaMail.root@elwamui-sweet.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <000601c6be7b$163d0370$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj><44DF3F46.9020808@cox.net> <44DF473F.4040209@cox.net> Message-ID: <000901c6e148$bc328440$6801a8c0@RonHome> Not receiving any emails of recent posts, just checking to see if this post makes it out ok. From gs455tpi at comcast.net Tue Sep 26 06:33:24 2006 From: gs455tpi at comcast.net (Don Brown) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:33:24 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] Just a test References: <1553946.1155422230922.JavaMail.root@elwamui-sweet.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <000601c6be7b$163d0370$1c02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj><44DF3F46.9020808@cox.net><44DF473F.4040209@cox.net> <000901c6e148$bc328440$6801a8c0@RonHome> Message-ID: <000701c6e15f$945837f0$46f9ac43@db> Hi Ron, It works. I think that a lot of the traffic is going the way of the bulletin board these days - don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Drew" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:49 AM Subject: [Gmecm] Just a test Not receiving any emails of recent posts, just checking to see if this post makes it out ok. _______________________________________________ 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 Pat.Ford at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca Tue Sep 26 06:35:19 2006 From: Pat.Ford at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Ford, Pat) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:35:19 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Just a test In-Reply-To: <000701c6e15f$945837f0$46f9ac43@db> Message-ID: <626E1206D3466344A57EB7A268D4587F02D4181A@nrccenexb4.nrc.ca> Whats the addy of the bullitin board? Pat -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Don Brown Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:33 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Just a test Hi Ron, It works. I think that a lot of the traffic is going the way of the bulletin board these days - don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Drew" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:49 AM Subject: [Gmecm] Just a test Not receiving any emails of recent posts, just checking to see if this post makes it out ok. _______________________________________________ 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 rgmecm at yahoo.com Tue Sep 26 13:17:29 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Just a test In-Reply-To: <626E1206D3466344A57EB7A268D4587F02D4181A@nrccenexb4.nrc.ca> Message-ID: <20060926181729.31847.qmail@web35913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://gmecm.mine.nu Started up a couple weeks ago, I think. "Ford, Pat" wrote: Whats the addy of the bullitin board? Pat -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Don Brown Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:33 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Just a test Hi Ron, It works. I think that a lot of the traffic is going the way of the bulletin board these days - don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Drew" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:49 AM Subject: [Gmecm] Just a test Not receiving any emails of recent posts, just checking to see if this post makes it out ok. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out. From tsokorai at minimania.org Tue Sep 26 13:41:55 2006 From: tsokorai at minimania.org (Tomas Sokorai) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:41:55 -0300 Subject: [Gmecm] $8D code "issue"? Message-ID: <20060926183528.M34744@minimania.org> Hi Guys, I'm happy driving my 1227727 converted 323i for the last month, but I found the following issue: When I crank the engine very short and the engine doesen't start, but rotates, then if I try to restart it right away, the engine starts OK, but the commanded IAC position stays sky-high and gets me a 2500RPM idle .... and doesen't want to come down until I shut the engine off and restart it again. Is this some funny side-effect of my combination of non-standard values I used to adapt this mask to my engine? (the engine is a I6 + DIS) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From jlg-sep at comcast.net Tue Sep 26 15:14:51 2006 From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:14:51 +0000 Subject: [Gmecm] $8D code "issue"? Message-ID: <092620062014.13244.45198A3B00006ADD000033BC22007348309F0A9CD3090406@comcast.net> > I'm happy driving my 1227727 converted 323i for the last month, but I > found the following issue: > When I crank the engine very short and the engine doesen't start, but > rotates, then if I try to restart it right away, the engine starts OK, but > the commanded IAC position stays sky-high and gets me a 2500RPM idle .... > and doesen't want to come down until I shut the engine off and restart > it again. > > Is this some funny side-effect of my combination of non-standard values > I used to adapt this mask to my engine? (the engine is a I6 + DIS) My '730 ECM running $8d to operate a 454 exhibits the exact same behavior. I suspect its an inherent feature/flaw in $8d. -Scott From bpatten at centurytel.net Tue Sep 26 17:54:49 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:54:49 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] $8D code "issue"? In-Reply-To: <092620062014.13244.45198A3B00006ADD000033BC22007348309F0A9CD3090406@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001001c6e1be$c8b72740$6400a8c0@p42000> I'd like to see a datalog and watch the commanded idle. Does it try to start and sputter then die, or what is the chain of events? I'm looking at doing a $8D big block 489 inch motor. thanks -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Scott Peitzsch Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:15 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $8D code "issue"? > I'm happy driving my 1227727 converted 323i for the last month, but I > found the following issue: > When I crank the engine very short and the engine doesen't start, but > rotates, then if I try to restart it right away, the engine starts OK, but > the commanded IAC position stays sky-high and gets me a 2500RPM idle .... > and doesen't want to come down until I shut the engine off and restart > it again. > > Is this some funny side-effect of my combination of non-standard values > I used to adapt this mask to my engine? (the engine is a I6 + DIS) My '730 ECM running $8d to operate a 454 exhibits the exact same behavior. I suspect its an inherent feature/flaw in $8d. -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 jlg-sep at comcast.net Tue Sep 26 19:24:33 2006 From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:24:33 +0000 Subject: [Gmecm] $8D code "issue"? Message-ID: <092720060024.6419.4519C4C10002702A0000191322069984999F0A9CD3090406@comcast.net> I don't have a datalog, and have since corrected the cause. I actually stumbled upon it by accident. I had installed a remote starter in the car with the '730 ECM/454 combo. I was still working on getting the cranking PW tables dialed in at all temps, and remote started the car on a particularly cold night. When I came out, it had a notably high idle (around 1600RPM in my case) that would not not come down until I shut off the car long enough for a full ECM reset to occur. I finally figured out that it had remote started, stumbled/stalled, and restarted again without cycling the ignition power off - which is a normal response for this remote starter upon detecting a stall. I was able to repeatably replicate the issue manually with the key on a cold start. I've since fixed the Cranking PW so that startup is crisp and quick under all temps and haven't seen the issue since. Other than that, setting up and tuning this 454 hasn't been much different than any other '730/V8 application. -Scott -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Brendan Patten" > I'd like to see a datalog and watch the commanded idle. Does it try to > start and sputter then die, or what is the chain of events? > > I'm looking at doing a $8D big block 489 inch motor. > > thanks > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On > Behalf Of Scott Peitzsch > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:15 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $8D code "issue"? > > > I'm happy driving my 1227727 converted 323i for the last month, but I > > found the following issue: > > When I crank the engine very short and the engine doesen't start, but > > rotates, then if I try to restart it right away, the engine starts OK, > but > > the commanded IAC position stays sky-high and gets me a 2500RPM idle > .... > > and doesen't want to come down until I shut the engine off and restart > > it again. > > > > Is this some funny side-effect of my combination of non-standard > values > > I used to adapt this mask to my engine? (the engine is a I6 + DIS) > > My '730 ECM running $8d to operate a 454 exhibits the exact same > behavior. > I suspect its an inherent feature/flaw in $8d. From clair.davis at charter.net Wed Sep 27 21:42:03 2006 From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:42:03 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Key-On Power for 7730 Message-ID: <002001c6e2a7$aed8d6e0$6501a8c0@davis> Background... I've got a 69 Plymouth Valiant I'm multipoint-injecting with a 7730 box. I've got two wires left to run, and one of them is killin' me: Key On Power. On my old Plymouth, the ignition switch has 5 wires: BATT, START, ACC, IGN-1, and IGN-2. IGN-1 is the "run" power to the coil, dropped down with a ballast resistor to keep the coil happy. IGN-2 is 12V straight to the coil for hotter sparks while cranking. The IGN-1 circuit is DEFINITELY dead while cranking, and IGN-2 is ONLY hot while cranking. Once the engine fires, you let up on the key, the switch rolls back to IGN-1 and you go on about your way. Problem is, I can't tell how long the dead skip is in the transition between the two circuits. Is this a problem? Seems like it might be, as the "key on" signal seems to be the trigger for the whole start-up routine with the ECM. Is a GM ignition switch one where there is no break in the power from "run" to "start" and back, or am I overthinking things? Mopar guys that run MSD ignitions splice IGN-1 and IGN-2 together for the MSD to work, but that's hardly the same animal. Thanks in advance! Clair From tl34ru at yahoo.com Thu Sep 28 07:52:21 2006 From: tl34ru at yahoo.com (terry) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Key-On Power for 7730 In-Reply-To: <002001c6e2a7$aed8d6e0$6501a8c0@davis> Message-ID: <20060928125221.59027.qmail@web32502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You could spice those together it will work,the ecm has to have at least 10 volts during cranking. We just did a dodge dart and we ended up using those ign+ circuits to power a relay and it works well. Terry rosesandwrenches.com --- Clair Davis wrote: > Background... I've got a 69 Plymouth Valiant I'm > multipoint-injecting with a > 7730 box. I've got two wires left to run, and one > of them is killin' me: > Key On Power. > > On my old Plymouth, the ignition switch has 5 wires: > BATT, START, ACC, > IGN-1, and IGN-2. IGN-1 is the "run" power to the > coil, dropped down with a > ballast resistor to keep the coil happy. IGN-2 is > 12V straight to the coil > for hotter sparks while cranking. > > The IGN-1 circuit is DEFINITELY dead while cranking, > and IGN-2 is ONLY hot > while cranking. Once the engine fires, you let up > on the key, the switch > rolls back to IGN-1 and you go on about your way. > Problem is, I can't tell > how long the dead skip is in the transition between > the two circuits. > > Is this a problem? Seems like it might be, as the > "key on" signal seems to > be the trigger for the whole start-up routine with > the ECM. Is a GM > ignition switch one where there is no break in the > power from "run" to > "start" and back, or am I overthinking things? > Mopar guys that run MSD > ignitions splice IGN-1 and IGN-2 together for the > MSD to work, but that's > hardly the same animal. > > Thanks in advance! > > Clair > > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 28 08:37:00 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Key-On Power for 7730 In-Reply-To: <002001c6e2a7$aed8d6e0$6501a8c0@davis> Message-ID: <20060928133700.1347.qmail@web80506.mail.yahoo.com> Ign1 ------|>|------| |-------------- to 'Key-On' circuits Ign2 ------|>|------| Use 5Amp 100PIV diodes for the above, it will privide +12V (sans .7V for forward diode, which is insignificant) to the circuits that require power when cranking and running. I've done this many times, KISS is your friend! Hit your local RadioShack: 6A, 50V Rectifier Diodes (4-Pack) Model: 276-1661 | Catalog #: 276-1661 $2.49 for the package ----- Original Message ---- From: Clair Davis To: For discussion of GM EFI hardware and software Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:42:03 PM Subject: [Gmecm] Key-On Power for 7730 Background... I've got a 69 Plymouth Valiant I'm multipoint-injecting with a 7730 box. I've got two wires left to run, and one of them is killin' me: Key On Power. On my old Plymouth, the ignition switch has 5 wires: BATT, START, ACC, IGN-1, and IGN-2. IGN-1 is the "run" power to the coil, dropped down with a ballast resistor to keep the coil happy. IGN-2 is 12V straight to the coil for hotter sparks while cranking. The IGN-1 circuit is DEFINITELY dead while cranking, and IGN-2 is ONLY hot while cranking. Once the engine fires, you let up on the key, the switch rolls back to IGN-1 and you go on about your way. Problem is, I can't tell how long the dead skip is in the transition between the two circuits. Is this a problem? Seems like it might be, as the "key on" signal seems to be the trigger for the whole start-up routine with the ECM. Is a GM ignition switch one where there is no break in the power from "run" to "start" and back, or am I overthinking things? Mopar guys that run MSD ignitions splice IGN-1 and IGN-2 together for the MSD to work, but that's hardly the same animal. Thanks in advance! Clair _______________________________________________ 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 cadillac531 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 28 20:09:51 2006 From: cadillac531 at yahoo.com (constantine pappas) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Fwd: [ZR1NETREGISTRY] NONTECH Fw: " GOLD STAR MOTHERS " Message-ID: <20060929010952.83679.qmail@web39712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Note: forwarded message attached. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. From clair.davis at charter.net Thu Sep 28 22:40:28 2006 From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:40:28 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Key-On Power for 7730 References: <20060928133700.1347.qmail@web80506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004f01c6e379$025969c0$6501a8c0@davis> Cutting and pasting from DIYEFI... I don't think Rick will mind: This, folks, appears to be true here, too. I basically made a little test light circuit to see if there was an obvious break in the circuit between IGN-1 and IGN-2. Using an 1187 dash light, I wired I1 and I2 (and ACC just for fun) together with a 9V battery. I could not see any dimming of the bulb between run and start, regardless of how fast or slow I turned the key. Turning the key was the big problem, as I had to disassemble the dang lock tumbler to make the motion consistent. Kind of hated to do that, as 1969 ignition cylinders are unique (last year for dash-mounting for Mopar) but I've got NO idea where the key for that sucker is. Not much of a theft-deterrent at this point. Thanks, Rick, Tom, Tim, Terry, Will, and Lee for all the guidance. Maybe I'll finally get these last two wires done this weekend! Clair ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick McLeod" To: Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] Key-On Power for 7730 > Good advise, but every ignition I've ever seen though has been MBB, not BBM. (Make Before Break vs. Break Before Make) > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick McLeod" To: Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Key-On Power for 7730 > Ign1 ------|>|------| > |-------------- to 'Key-On' circuits > Ign2 ------|>|------| > > Use 5Amp 100PIV diodes for the above, it will privide +12V (sans .7V for forward diode, which is insignificant) to the circuits that require power when cranking and running. I've done this many times, KISS is your friend! > > Hit your local RadioShack: > > > > 6A, 50V Rectifier Diodes (4-Pack) > > Model: 276-1661 | Catalog #: 276-1661 > > $2.49 for the package > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Clair Davis > To: For discussion of GM EFI hardware and software > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:42:03 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] Key-On Power for 7730 > > > Background... I've got a 69 Plymouth Valiant I'm multipoint-injecting with a > 7730 box. I've got two wires left to run, and one of them is killin' me: > Key On Power. > > On my old Plymouth, the ignition switch has 5 wires: BATT, START, ACC, > IGN-1, and IGN-2. IGN-1 is the "run" power to the coil, dropped down with a > ballast resistor to keep the coil happy. IGN-2 is 12V straight to the coil > for hotter sparks while cranking. > > The IGN-1 circuit is DEFINITELY dead while cranking, and IGN-2 is ONLY hot > while cranking. Once the engine fires, you let up on the key, the switch > rolls back to IGN-1 and you go on about your way. Problem is, I can't tell > how long the dead skip is in the transition between the two circuits. > > Is this a problem? Seems like it might be, as the "key on" signal seems to > be the trigger for the whole start-up routine with the ECM. Is a GM > ignition switch one where there is no break in the power from "run" to > "start" and back, or am I overthinking things? Mopar guys that run MSD > ignitions splice IGN-1 and IGN-2 together for the MSD to work, but that's > hardly the same animal. > > Thanks in advance! > > Clair > > _______________________________________________ > 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 dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 29 02:57:27 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem Message-ID: <20060929075727.87092.qmail@web80501.mail.yahoo.com> IIRC: running $32b on '165 in '86 L98 vette, it's setting the 'obligatory' code 36 MAF sensor burn-off voltage missing. I've been down the road of all the classic 'fixes' such as replacing the relay, cleaning the contacts, etc., and now tearing into wiring to try to find the problem. Part of the problem is that this signal only occurs after a warm engine shutdown, and IIRC the engine has to have been running for some period of time prior to trigger this diagnostic/service circuit into action at engine shutdown. Makes for difficult diagnostics at best, but I've got to find the headache. Plan of action is to 'tap' the wires to the MAF for monitoring signals. Once that is done, I'll be able to monitor the activity since the 'tap' is going to be a 4-wire trailer light socket so I can plug a 4-wire 'extender' into it and temporarily monitor it in the cabin until I get the problem fixed. Then I'll weather seal the stub connector and tuck tidily away into the loom in case I need it again (suspect I may, this is a chronic problem w/ this version of MAF). Now, my question is: What does the ECM/code look for at shutdown to determine that the MAF burn-off cycle completed. IIRC the ECM has a line that enables the burn-off relay a few seconds after shutdown (which is what I'll be monitoring at the MAF diag dongle above) but since there is NO air flow, does it look for some delta in the signal from the MAF (and, isn't the BOSCH MAF a frequency based signal vs. the voltage based on the DELCO MAF variant?). Once I confirm that the MAF is receiveing burn-off voltage correctly at shutdown, then my next step is obviously to diag the signal at the ECM, but what am I looking for, is it just the presense of signal due to the MAF being energized post shutdown, or is it a change in the signal from the ECM due to the burn-off causing a very hot heated wire, then cooling, hence that should cause a delta in the MAF signal seen by the computer. My hunch is that I'm actually fighting a poor current path, like maybe a high resistance fusible link or a corroded ground connection to the MAF which would cause it to work correctly but the high current demand by the burn-off cycle causes excessive drop in the supply/return path and not enough current passes to actually burn-off the element correctly. At any rate, knowledge is key, I can get lots of data, but what is it going to tell me? What is normal opperating condition, so I know what to 'fix' on this pesky critter. BTW, it works wonderfully from a drivability standpoint if I reset the codes on the ECM and then drive, it warms up fine, and performance is normal but after that the next restart will have a check engine light and the code will be set for this, and performance sucks big time, since it is not using MAF data I presume is using static or even worse I suspect LIMP mode? Sorry for wordy post, but info is key to getting quality responses and this group has that quality. Cheers, thanks in advance From rmtonazzi at charter.net Fri Sep 29 08:27:52 2006 From: rmtonazzi at charter.net (Mark Tonazzi) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:27:52 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem In-Reply-To: <20060929075727.87092.qmail@web80501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000b01c6e3cb$10a73e60$6401a8c0@Desktop> I got MAF error codes when my ECM was crapping out. It would run fine until warmed up then intermittently it would throw a MAF voltage high or voltage low code and go into limp home mode. If you can get your hands on another known good ECM may want to try that. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:57 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem IIRC: running $32b on '165 in '86 L98 vette, it's setting the 'obligatory' code 36 MAF sensor burn-off voltage missing. I've been down the road of all the classic 'fixes' such as replacing the relay, cleaning the contacts, etc., and now tearing into wiring to try to find the problem. Part of the problem is that this signal only occurs after a warm engine shutdown, and IIRC the engine has to have been running for some period of time prior to trigger this diagnostic/service circuit into action at engine shutdown. Makes for difficult diagnostics at best, but I've got to find the headache. Plan of action is to 'tap' the wires to the MAF for monitoring signals. Once that is done, I'll be able to monitor the activity since the 'tap' is going to be a 4-wire trailer light socket so I can plug a 4-wire 'extender' into it and temporarily monitor it in the cabin until I get the problem fixed. Then I'll weather seal the stub connector and tuck tidily away into the loom in case I need it again (suspect I may, this is a chronic problem w/ this version of MAF). Now, my question is: What does the ECM/code look for at shutdown to determine that the MAF burn-off cycle completed. IIRC the ECM has a line that enables the burn-off relay a few seconds after shutdown (which is what I'll be monitoring at the MAF diag dongle above) but since there is NO air flow, does it look for some delta in the signal from the MAF (and, isn't the BOSCH MAF a frequency based signal vs. the voltage based on the DELCO MAF variant?). Once I confirm that the MAF is receiveing burn-off voltage correctly at shutdown, then my next step is obviously to diag the signal at the ECM, but what am I looking for, is it just the presense of signal due to the MAF being energized post shutdown, or is it a change in the signal from the ECM due to the burn-off causing a very hot heated wire, then cooling, hence that should cause a delta in the MAF signal seen by the computer. My hunch is that I'm actually fighting a poor current path, like maybe a high resistance fusible link or a corroded ground connection to the MAF which would cause it to work correctly but the high current demand by the burn-off cycle causes excessive drop in the supply/return path and not enough current passes to actually burn-off the element correctly. At any rate, knowledge is key, I can get lots of data, but what is it going to tell me? What is normal opperating condition, so I know what to 'fix' on this pesky critter. BTW, it works wonderfully from a drivability standpoint if I reset the codes on the ECM and then drive, it warms up fine, and performance is normal but after that the next restart will have a check engine light and the code will be set for this, and performance sucks big time, since it is not using MAF data I presume is using static or even worse I suspect LIMP mode? Sorry for wordy post, but info is key to getting quality responses and this group has that quality. Cheers, thanks in advance _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 29 13:22:46 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:22:46 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] GMLAN and Class 2 Message-ID: <451D6476.8070502@comcast.net> Anyone have any info on the GMLAN and Class 2 data busses in the C5 and C6 Corvette? I'm specifically looking for communications protocols, data packet descriptions, command descriptions, interface chips, software or hardware tools for talking on the busses or monitoring data flow, that kind of stuff. Any info or pointers would be appreciated. Bill From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 29 13:29:19 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem In-Reply-To: <000b01c6e3cb$10a73e60$6401a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <20060929182919.35067.qmail@web80503.mail.yahoo.com> Been there, done that, even swapped the MAF for known good unit, I've got a Z/28 of same vintage and all and makes a decent comparo, except I'm trying not to have to disturb the wiring on it also, it's isn't throwing codes, which makes me suspect corroded grounds or connectors, the vette is parked longer periods between it's exercise runs. ----- Original Message ---- From: Mark Tonazzi To: Rick McLeod ; gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:27:52 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem I got MAF error codes when my ECM was crapping out. It would run fine until warmed up then intermittently it would throw a MAF voltage high or voltage low code and go into limp home mode. If you can get your hands on another known good ECM may want to try that. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:57 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem IIRC: running $32b on '165 in '86 L98 vette, it's setting the 'obligatory' code 36 MAF sensor burn-off voltage missing. I've been down the road of all the classic 'fixes' such as replacing the relay, cleaning the contacts, etc., and now tearing into wiring to try to find the problem. Part of the problem is that this signal only occurs after a warm engine shutdown, and IIRC the engine has to have been running for some period of time prior to trigger this diagnostic/service circuit into action at engine shutdown. Makes for difficult diagnostics at best, but I've got to find the headache. Plan of action is to 'tap' the wires to the MAF for monitoring signals. Once that is done, I'll be able to monitor the activity since the 'tap' is going to be a 4-wire trailer light socket so I can plug a 4-wire 'extender' into it and temporarily monitor it in the cabin until I get the problem fixed. Then I'll weather seal the stub connector and tuck tidily away into the loom in case I need it again (suspect I may, this is a chronic problem w/ this version of MAF). Now, my question is: What does the ECM/code look for at shutdown to determine that the MAF burn-off cycle completed. IIRC the ECM has a line that enables the burn-off relay a few seconds after shutdown (which is what I'll be monitoring at the MAF diag dongle above) but since there is NO air flow, does it look for some delta in the signal from the MAF (and, isn't the BOSCH MAF a frequency based signal vs. the voltage based on the DELCO MAF variant?). Once I confirm that the MAF is receiveing burn-off voltage correctly at shutdown, then my next step is obviously to diag the signal at the ECM, but what am I looking for, is it just the presense of signal due to the MAF being energized post shutdown, or is it a change in the signal from the ECM due to the burn-off causing a very hot heated wire, then cooling, hence that should cause a delta in the MAF signal seen by the computer. My hunch is that I'm actually fighting a poor current path, like maybe a high resistance fusible link or a corroded ground connection to the MAF which would cause it to work correctly but the high current demand by the burn-off cycle causes excessive drop in the supply/return path and not enough current passes to actually burn-off the element correctly. At any rate, knowledge is key, I can get lots of data, but what is it going to tell me? What is normal opperating condition, so I know what to 'fix' on this pesky critter. BTW, it works wonderfully from a drivability standpoint if I reset the codes on the ECM and then drive, it warms up fine, and performance is normal but after that the next restart will have a check engine light and the code will be set for this, and performance sucks big time, since it is not using MAF data I presume is using static or even worse I suspect LIMP mode? Sorry for wordy post, but info is key to getting quality responses and this group has that quality. Cheers, thanks in advance _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 29 13:40:19 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:40:19 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] GMLAN and Class 2 Message-ID: Bill, take a look at the OBD2 info on the gmecm page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/ecm_info/obd2/ The definitive references are the SAE documents. I used to have them online but had to remove them when I got a certified letter from SAE. I found them originally via google so you might be able to find them also. Or try a library. J1850 is the electrical specification and you can find out all you need to know about it from the whitepapers and app notes on that page. The other 2 documents have higher level information. For you or anyone else who is interested I am working on a board that will connect a GM OBD2 system to a computer via USB. It has 2 chips and a BOM of about $30. I've created the initial PCB which had some problems so I'm still debugging. I'm hoping that if I provide the hardware and some basic software that others will run with it to create scan tools, editors, reflashers, etc. What are you contemplating? --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Bill Shaw > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:23 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] GMLAN and Class 2 > > Anyone have any info on the GMLAN and Class 2 data busses in > the C5 and > C6 Corvette? I'm specifically looking for communications > protocols, data packet descriptions, command descriptions, > interface chips, software or hardware tools for talking on > the busses or monitoring data flow, that kind of stuff. > > Any info or pointers would be appreciated. > > 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 > -- The 2006 ARM Developers' Conference, October 3-5, Santa Clara, US Join ARM and its technology and tools Partners from around the world at the only industry event for developers of ARM Powered(R) solutions. http://www.arm.com/developersconference/ IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. From rdanzy at cox-internet.com Fri Sep 29 22:11:43 2006 From: rdanzy at cox-internet.com (Roger Danzy) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:43 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem References: <20060929182919.35067.qmail@web80503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003101c6e43e$27ca9150$6501a8c0@danzyhome> Rick, For CODE 365, per my 1986 Camaro/Firebird manual for the maf burnoff the ecm grounds circuit CKT 900 (the ground to the burnoff relay, terminal B) which cause the relay to close and supply battery voltage to MAF terminal D and also terminal E. The suggested test sequences check for: 1) 12 volt supply to the maf burnoff relay 2) grounding CKT 900 closing the relay and checking for voltage at MAF terminals D and E. If you don't get voltage at the maf terminal D, check the circuit from terminal A of the relay to terminal D of the maf. If you don't get voltage at the maf terminal E, check the circuit from terminal A of the relay to terminal A of the maf power relay. If there is no voltage at terminal A of the maf power relay, check the voltage at terminal D of the maf power relay. If there is voltage at terminal D the maf power relay is bad. Terminals A and D of the maf power relay are normally closed. Terminals A and E are normally open and are close when the relay is grounded at terminal B. The ecm is connect to terminals A, B and C of the maf. I would assume that the ecm is monitoring the effect of the voltage of terminal E from the burnoff relay from terminal C of the maf which is the maf signal to the ecm. Terminal A is the system ground and B is the analog ground. If you need more information, I can supply you the details of the Code 36 test charts. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick McLeod" To: Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem > Been there, done that, even swapped the MAF for known good unit, I've got > a Z/28 of same vintage and all and makes a decent comparo, except I'm > trying not to have to disturb the wiring on it also, it's isn't throwing > codes, which makes me suspect corroded grounds or connectors, the vette is > parked longer periods between it's exercise runs. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mark Tonazzi > To: Rick McLeod ; gmecm at diy-efi.org > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:27:52 AM > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem > > > I got MAF error codes when my ECM was crapping out. It would run fine > until > warmed up then intermittently it would throw a MAF voltage high or > voltage > low code and go into limp home mode. If you can get your hands on another > known good ECM may want to try that. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On > Behalf > Of Rick McLeod > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:57 AM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] HELP: MAF Burn-Off problem > > IIRC: running $32b on '165 in '86 L98 vette, it's setting the 'obligatory' > code 36 MAF sensor burn-off voltage missing. I've been down the road of > all > the classic 'fixes' such as replacing the relay, cleaning the contacts, > etc., and now tearing into wiring to try to find the problem. > > Part of the problem is that this signal only occurs after a warm engine > shutdown, and IIRC the engine has to have been running for some period of > time prior to trigger this diagnostic/service circuit into action at > engine > shutdown. Makes for difficult diagnostics at best, but I've got to find > the > headache. > > Plan of action is to 'tap' the wires to the MAF for monitoring signals. > Once > that is done, I'll be able to monitor the activity since the 'tap' is > going > to be a 4-wire trailer light socket so I can plug a 4-wire 'extender' into > it and temporarily monitor it in the cabin until I get the problem fixed. > Then I'll weather seal the stub connector and tuck tidily away into the > loom > in case I need it again (suspect I may, this is a chronic problem w/ this > version of MAF). > > Now, my question is: What does the ECM/code look for at shutdown to > determine that the MAF burn-off cycle completed. IIRC the ECM has a line > that enables the burn-off relay a few seconds after shutdown (which is > what > I'll be monitoring at the MAF diag dongle above) but since there is NO air > flow, does it look for some delta in the signal from the MAF (and, isn't > the > BOSCH MAF a frequency based signal vs. the voltage based on the DELCO MAF > variant?). Once I confirm that the MAF is receiveing burn-off voltage > correctly at shutdown, then my next step is obviously to diag the signal > at > the ECM, but what am I looking for, is it just the presense of signal due > to > the MAF being energized post shutdown, or is it a change in the signal > from > the ECM due to the burn-off causing a very hot heated wire, then cooling, > hence that should cause a delta in the MAF signal seen by the computer. > > My hunch is that I'm actually fighting a poor current path, like maybe a > high resistance fusible link or a corroded ground connection to the MAF > which would cause it to work correctly but the high current demand by the > burn-off cycle causes excessive drop in the supply/return path and not > enough current passes to actually burn-off the element correctly. > > At any rate, knowledge is key, I can get lots of data, but what is it > going > to tell me? What is normal opperating condition, so I know what to 'fix' > on > this pesky critter. > > BTW, it works wonderfully from a drivability standpoint if I reset the > codes > on the ECM and then drive, it warms up fine, and performance is normal but > after that the next restart will have a check engine light and the code > will > be set for this, and performance sucks big time, since it is not using MAF > data I presume is using static or even worse I suspect LIMP mode? > > Sorry for wordy post, but info is key to getting quality responses and > this > group has that quality. > > Cheers, thanks in advance > _______________________________________________ > 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 donsauman at cythera.net Sat Sep 30 18:46:52 2006 From: donsauman at cythera.net (Don Sauman) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:46:52 +0800 Subject: [Gmecm] GMLAN and Class 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451F01EC.7050504@cythera.net> Hi Steve Is there any possibility that your circuit will allow scan analysis on a 1999 Jeep Cherokee with VM 2.5lt diesel (appears to be OBD II) Don Steve Ravet wrote: >Bill, take a look at the OBD2 info on the gmecm page: > >http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/ecm_info/obd2/ > >The definitive references are the SAE documents. I used to have them >online but had to remove them when I got a certified letter from SAE. I >found them originally via google so you might be able to find them also. >Or try a library. J1850 is the electrical specification and you can >find out all you need to know about it from the whitepapers and app >notes on that page. The other 2 documents have higher level >information. > >For you or anyone else who is interested I am working on a board that >will connect a GM OBD2 system to a computer via USB. It has 2 chips and >a BOM of about $30. I've created the initial PCB which had some >problems so I'm still debugging. I'm hoping that if I provide the >hardware and some basic software that others will run with it to create >scan tools, editors, reflashers, etc. > >What are you contemplating? > >--steve > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org >>[mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Bill Shaw >>Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:23 PM >>To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >>Subject: [Gmecm] GMLAN and Class 2 >> >>Anyone have any info on the GMLAN and Class 2 data busses in >>the C5 and >>C6 Corvette? I'm specifically looking for communications >>protocols, data packet descriptions, command descriptions, >>interface chips, software or hardware tools for talking on >>the busses or monitoring data flow, that kind of stuff. >> >>Any info or pointers would be appreciated. >> >>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 >> >> >> > > >-- >The 2006 ARM Developers' Conference, October 3-5, Santa Clara, US >Join ARM and its technology and tools Partners from around the world at the only industry event for developers of ARM Powered(R) solutions. >http://www.arm.com/developersconference/ > > >IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. > > >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > -- Don Sauman Cythera Communication 35 Asteroid Way Carlisle 6101 Western Australia P: 08 9361 0337 F: 08 9361 0581 M: 0427 389 547 From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Sat Sep 30 23:27:20 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:27:20 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] GMLAN and Class 2 Message-ID: Not likely. OBD2 was supposed to unify the electrical interface and protocols, but failed on the electrical portion. There are 3 different OBD2 electrical interfaces, and my circuit uses the Freescale XC68hc58 chip which only does the GM flavor. Research your computer and if you see J1850 or VPW then it may work, otherwise probably not. --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Don Sauman > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 6:47 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] GMLAN and Class 2 > > Hi Steve > > Is there any possibility that your circuit will allow scan > analysis on a > 1999 Jeep Cherokee with VM 2.5lt diesel (appears to be OBD II) > > Don > > Steve Ravet wrote: > > >Bill, take a look at the OBD2 info on the gmecm page: > > > >http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/ecm_info/obd2/ > > > >The definitive references are the SAE documents. I used to > have them > >online but had to remove them when I got a certified letter > from SAE. > >I found them originally via google so you might be able to > find them also. > >Or try a library. J1850 is the electrical specification and you can > >find out all you need to know about it from the whitepapers and app > >notes on that page. The other 2 documents have higher level > >information. > > > >For you or anyone else who is interested I am working on a > board that > >will connect a GM OBD2 system to a computer via USB. It has 2 chips > >and a BOM of about $30. I've created the initial PCB which had some > >problems so I'm still debugging. I'm hoping that if I provide the > >hardware and some basic software that others will run with > it to create > >scan tools, editors, reflashers, etc. > > > >What are you contemplating? > > > >--steve > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > >>[mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Bill Shaw > >>Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:23 PM > >>To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > >>Subject: [Gmecm] GMLAN and Class 2 > >> > >>Anyone have any info on the GMLAN and Class 2 data busses in the C5 > >>and > >>C6 Corvette? I'm specifically looking for communications protocols, > >>data packet descriptions, command descriptions, interface chips, > >>software or hardware tools for talking on the busses or monitoring > >>data flow, that kind of stuff. > >> > >>Any info or pointers would be appreciated. > >> > >>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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >The 2006 ARM Developers' Conference, October 3-5, Santa > Clara, US Join > >ARM and its technology and tools Partners from around the > world at the only industry event for developers of ARM > Powered(R) solutions. > >http://www.arm.com/developersconference/ > > > > > >IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any > attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If > you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender > immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other > person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > information in any medium. Thank you. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Gmecm mailing list > >Gmecm at diy-efi.org > >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > > > > > > -- > Don Sauman > Cythera Communication > 35 Asteroid Way > Carlisle 6101 > Western Australia > > P: 08 9361 0337 > F: 08 9361 0581 > M: 0427 389 547 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- The 2006 ARM Developers' Conference, October 3-5, Santa Clara, US Join ARM and its technology and tools Partners from around the world at the only industry event for developers of ARM Powered(R) solutions. http://www.arm.com/developersconference/ IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.