[Gmecm] Re: Early and Late DIS compatibility (was: ECM Choice: Sequential V6...)

[William Lucke]

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.