[Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor

[William Lucke]

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 <jay at vessels-clan.com>
> 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" <bpatten at centurytel.net>
>> 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.