[Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...)
William Lucke
william.lucke
Fri Sep 15 00:41:37 UTC 2006
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" <mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net>
> 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" <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> 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 $T31 code to work with?
>>
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
>>> From: William Lucke <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission
>>> with lockup convertor
>>>
>>> A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is all wheel drive and this
>>> particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 tires on the front (205's
>>> on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared to cheap 195's all
>>> around.
>>>
>>> If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change (24 is more likely), the
>>> best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for me is 28 mpg. I won't see
>>> that because the real world isn't theoretical ideal (the real world has
>>> hills that will cause me to get into PE and convertor unlock with a 2.39
>>> final drive).
>>>
>>> As I said before, I can do better than I am, but if sequential is worth
>>> anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will come with sequential
>>> sensors & wiring, actually running that way sounds as simple as picking
>>> the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit accomplish this?
>>>
>>> A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF?
>>>
>>> The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor used on the LT1's is
>>> quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that interprets that signal
>>> being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder operation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Jay Vessels <jay at vessels-clan.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic
>>>> transmission, with lockup convertor
>>>>
>>>> Hi there!
>>>>
>>>> Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282
>>>> 5-speed manual.
>>>>
>>>> Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost
>>>> impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24
>>>> convertible ($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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <rawardsr at ameritech.net>
> 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 <mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net> 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"
>> <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> 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 $T31 code to work with?
>>>
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: William Lucke
>> <william.lucke at highspeedlink.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6,
>> hydraulic transmission
>>>> with lockup convertor
>>>>
>>>> A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is
>> all wheel drive and this
>>>> particular one is running reasonably sticky 245
>> tires on the front (205's
>>>> on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared
>> to cheap 195's all
>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>> If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change
>> (24 is more likely), the
>>>> best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for
>> me is 28 mpg. I won't see
>>>> that because the real world isn't theoretical
>> ideal (the real world has
>>>> hills that will cause me to get into PE and
>> convertor unlock with a 2.39
>>>> final drive).
>>>>
>>>> As I said before, I can do better than I am, but
>> if sequential is worth
>>>> anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will
>> come with sequential
>>>> sensors & wiring, actually running that way
>> sounds as simple as picking
>>>> the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit
>> accomplish this?
>>>> A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF?
>>>>
>>>> The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor
>> used on the LT1's is
>>>> quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that
>> interprets that signal
>>>> being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder
>> operation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: Jay Vessels <jay at vessels-clan.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6,
>> hydraulic
>>>>> transmission, with lockup convertor
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>
>>>>> Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125
>> or the Getrag 282
>>>>> 5-speed manual.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and
>> drivers is almost
>>>>> impossible, but considering the mileage I got
>> from my '94 Z24
>>>>> convertible ($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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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" <ahuxtable at sola.com.au>
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] The forum lives...
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> 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 <email alias> "at" <domain.tld> 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" <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> 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" <mmansur at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] The forum lives...
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY122-DAV13651B416260229CD3407EB4290 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> From: "Andrew Huxtable" <ahuxtable at sola.com.au>
>> 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 <email alias> "at" <domain.tld>
>> 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" <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> 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 <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
> 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 <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
> 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
> *************************************
>
>
More information about the Gmecm
mailing list