From tprucha at wideopenwest.com  Sun Apr  1 22:41:18 2007
From: tprucha at wideopenwest.com (Tom)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:41:18 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Off topic - rear main seal packing
In-Reply-To: <67698D9589414625A184326D797FC6D6@DavePC>
References: <041f01c768df$3ff86e70$df7aa6a6@yancey.com>
	<67698D9589414625A184326D797FC6D6@DavePC>
Message-ID: <46107B5E.8050704@wideopenwest.com>

The rope seals do rob a lot of power as compared to Neoprene. The torque 
needed to turn the crank against that seal isn't quite so bad at full 
speed, once it is worn-in. However, I have heard stories of losing 15+ 
HP with a rope seal on bigger engines...

Dave Mumert wrote:
> Hi David
>
> I can't help you with the torque issue but here is a site that list 
> alternative seals for the 231
> http://rebuiltautoengines.com/pontiac-articles.html
>
> Check about half way down the page
>
> Here is a copy of the pertinent line
> Engine to       Detroit   Enginetech     FM            ROL 
> Victor            Actual
> Be repaired Application
>
> Buick 231     17200      S-1389       BS-40613     RS-29470    
> JV-742-V Jeep 225
>
> Good Luck
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Allen" <davida1 at hiwaay.net>
> To: "GM-ECM" <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 3:57 PM
> Subject: [Gmecm] Off topic - rear main seal packing
>
>
>>
>>
>>  Hey here's an off-topic post for ya!  I am assembling a Buick 231 V6 
>> which has the "rope type" rear main seal.  All the other engines I've 
>> assembled have been equipped with a lip-style oil seal.  This rope 
>> type seal puts a serious bind on the crankshaft.  It takes about 30 
>> lb-ft of torque to rotate the crankshaft with only the main bearings 
>> and rear main seal installed.
>>  With the seal packing not installed, and the mains torqued the crank 
>> will rotate freely.  It's the packing causing the drag.  Is this 
>> normal, or is there a problem with the amount of packing I have 
>> installed? The instructions say to push the packing in the groove 
>> with a socket and shave it flush with the cap and block.  I did it 
>> this way and everything looks good and went toghether smoothly.
>>  Most older engines had the rope-type seal you guys may be able to 
>> tell me if this is supposed to cause this much drag?
>>  Thanks in advance!
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>
>> -- 
>> If this email is spam, report it here:
>> http://www.OnlyMyEmail.com/reportSpam?Id=NTEzMzA6Mjc3MDUxOTU1OmRtdW1lcnRAdGVsdXNwbGFuZXQubmV0 
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
>


From davida1 at hiwaay.net  Mon Apr  2 06:51:20 2007
From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:51:20 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Off topic - rear main seal packing
References: <041f01c768df$3ff86e70$df7aa6a6@yancey.com><67698D9589414625A184326D797FC6D6@DavePC>
	<46107B5E.8050704@wideopenwest.com>
Message-ID: <046101c7751d$539f03e0$bbcaa5a6@yancey.com>

  The rubber seal fit great, however I haven't run the engine yet.
 On this engine (being Mom's car) I'm not worried about a few HP.   The 
friction and heat in the engine are a concern; as well as the potential for 
clamping fibers of packing between the rear main cap and block, thus 
disturbing the clearances on the rear main bearings.
  My job is seasonal, tied to the farming seasons.  This time right now is 
"in season" and I haven't been home in 2 weeks to work on it!!
  Pictures of install are here:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~davida1/temp/
  Later,
David

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom" <tprucha at wideopenwest.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Off topic - rear main seal packing


> The rope seals do rob a lot of power as compared to Neoprene. The torque 
> needed to turn the crank against that seal isn't quite so bad at full 
> speed, once it is worn-in. However, I have heard stories of losing 15+ HP 
> with a rope seal on bigger engines...
>
> 


From clair.davis at charter.net  Wed Apr  4 22:37:10 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:37:10 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730
References: <24551872.1170698517414.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <007601c77733$b1b1b780$03000004@davis>

I'm still sorting out the tuning of my slightly-hotter cam that I described
previously in the "Adjusting 7730/$8D for larger cam" thread, and I came
across an issue setting up the IAC / AIS motor that I thought I'd ask about.
This is from the user manual for an Accel DFI system, but it applies here, I
think.  They basically suggest setting up the IAC so that it contributes
very little, if anything, to the base idle speed.   Say you want a 750-rpm
idle, set the throttle plate opening to achieve 700-rpm or so at operating
temp, and let the IAC give you the last 50.  That's not how I remember the
GM procedure, which (as I recall) is to disable the IAC and shoot for the
lowest idle figure that can be sustained - maybe even 4-500 rpm.  That's
essentially how I have mine set up now, but it seems to make sense to set
the idle higher if possible and just let the IAC do the fine tuning.

Is one method preferable over the other?  I guess as long as the idle speed
is specified in the code, it doesn't really matter, except from the range of
motion the IAC sees.  Comments?

Thanks in advance,

Clair
69 Valiant '730
FTWTX




From captain_krill at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  5 14:19:09 2007
From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730 )
Message-ID: <882804.11428.qm@web34302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I know the IAC setting procedure varies, and I've seen
it described different ways for the same car (but from
different sources) too.  That said however, I've got a
7730 in my cobbled together system, and what you
describe is very different from what I've read.  In
fact, what you've described caused serious problems on
mine when I first got it going.

I'm using a throttle body from a 2.8l, and an an ECM
from a 3.1l, onto a 3.4l.  The point is, when I
initially started it, the throttle body was set to run
a 2.8l fine.  Now, for a given RPM, a 3.4l requires
more airflow than a 2.8l. (3.4-2.8)/2.8=21% more air
required.  Wow!  Although the IAC compensated, it
didn't run well.  It felt like it had no torque,
requiring high revs start the Jeep moving.  It had a
huge bog on acceleration.  The reason?  As my foot
advanced the throttle, the ECM was closing the IAC -
and the two efforts canceled each other out!  Simply
resetting the butterfly in the throttle body made an
incredible improvement!

Now, consider how you've set things up.  Your idle
should be about 700-750, but you're setting the
butterfly for about 400.  Best case scenario,
(700-400)/400=43% The IAC must provide 43% more air
than the butterfly to get the idle at 700!  If your
setup works anything like mine did, it's no wonder
things aren't working right!

Solution?  If I recall, this is the procedure to set
it with your 7730:

1. Jump the pins on the ALDL to trigger MIL flashes.
2. Key On, Engine Off.  These two steps force the IAC
pintle to extend fully, so IAC can have no effect on
idle.  You should hear the IAC running, trying to
extend the pintle forever!
3. Unplug IAC.
4. Key Off, remove ALDL jumper.
5. Start engine (may require a foot on the gas if
butterfly is really closed), and set butterfly to
provide 700RPM idle.
6. Reconnect IAC.

Good luck!  

Duncan

**********************END TRANSMISSION**********************


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html 


From gary at garyandliz.com  Thu Apr  5 14:33:30 2007
From: gary at garyandliz.com (Gary Evans)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:33:30 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730 )
In-Reply-To: <882804.11428.qm@web34302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <882804.11428.qm@web34302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <498E2D4A-B88A-4D84-9D42-7790D96FF66B@garyandliz.com>

I agree with Duncan - I had a similar expereince with my setup (dual  
3.1 ecms on jag V12). The car would sometimes stall during decel  
because IAC counts could drop too low while the car was moving.

Set the throttle plate to provide the minimum *desired* idle speed  
(e.g. 700 rpm), not the minimum possible idle speed. This will give  
the IAC the most room for adjusting the idle speed upward.

Bonus feature of this setting is that if you develop a vacuum leak  
you will be alerted to it by a too-high idle rather than allowing the  
IAC to compensate and cover up a potential problem.




On Apr 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Cowen wrote:

> I know the IAC setting procedure varies, and I've seen
> it described different ways for the same car (but from

> different sources) too.  That said however, I've got a
> 7730 in my cobbled together system, and what you
> describe is very different from what I've read.  In
> fact, what you've described caused serious problems on
> mine when I first got it going.
>
> I'm using a throttle body from a 2.8l, and an an ECM
> from a 3.1l, onto a 3.4l.  The point is, when I
> initially started it, the throttle body was set to run
> a 2.8l fine.  Now, for a given RPM, a 3.4l requires
> more airflow than a 2.8l. (3.4-2.8)/2.8=21% more air
> required.  Wow!  Although the IAC compensated, it
> didn't run well.  It felt like it had no torque,
> requiring high revs start the Jeep moving.  It had a
> huge bog on acceleration.  The reason?  As my foot
> advanced the throttle, the ECM was closing the IAC -
> and the two efforts canceled each other out!  Simply
> resetting the butterfly in the throttle body made an
> incredible improvement!
>
> Now, consider how you've set things up.  Your idle
> should be about 700-750, but you're setting the
> butterfly for about 400.  Best case scenario,
> (700-400)/400=43% The IAC must provide 43% more air
> than the butterfly to get the idle at 700!  If your
> setup works anything like mine did, it's no wonder
> things aren't working right!
>
> Solution?  If I recall, this is the procedure to set
> it with your 7730:
>
> 1. Jump the pins on the ALDL to trigger MIL flashes.
> 2. Key On, Engine Off.  These two steps force the IAC
> pintle to extend fully, so IAC can have no effect on
> idle.  You should hear the IAC running, trying to
> extend the pintle forever!
> 3. Unplug IAC.
> 4. Key Off, remove ALDL jumper.
> 5. Start engine (may require a foot on the gas if
> butterfly is really closed), and set butterfly to
> provide 700RPM idle.
> 6. Reconnect IAC.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Duncan
>
> **********************END TRANSMISSION**********************
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
> Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tsokorai at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 15:15:51 2007
From: tsokorai at gmail.com (Tomas Sokorai)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:15:51 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730 )
In-Reply-To: <498E2D4A-B88A-4D84-9D42-7790D96FF66B@garyandliz.com>
References: <882804.11428.qm@web34302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<498E2D4A-B88A-4D84-9D42-7790D96FF66B@garyandliz.com>
Message-ID: <8634c6d70704051315o756b005eoe87b75daf051eb40@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/5/07, Gary Evans <gary at garyandliz.com> wrote:
> I agree with Duncan - I had a similar expereince with my setup (dual
> 3.1 ecms on jag V12). The car would sometimes stall during decel
> because IAC counts could drop too low while the car was moving.

I had that problem in a BMW I6 with '7727 + $8D setup. It's because
you don't have proper VSS input.
I ended doing the IAC setup, so the idle was almost my desired idle
too because a VSS was too difficult to install.

The only problem I couldn't solve, is the sky-high idle when you stall
the engine and then try to restart right away.

-- 
Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.


From gary at garyandliz.com  Thu Apr  5 16:45:07 2007
From: gary at garyandliz.com (Gary Evans)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:45:07 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730 )
In-Reply-To: <8634c6d70704051315o756b005eoe87b75daf051eb40@mail.gmail.com>
References: <882804.11428.qm@web34302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<498E2D4A-B88A-4D84-9D42-7790D96FF66B@garyandliz.com>
	<8634c6d70704051315o756b005eoe87b75daf051eb40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3A1D6467-B131-4639-9E3A-EC0A487A14A5@garyandliz.com>

I do have VSS input - it happened anyway. Never had the problem with  
the sky high idle, but I am running $A1 code which might be the  
difference.



On Apr 5, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Tomas Sokorai wrote:

> On 4/5/07, Gary Evans <gary at garyandliz.com> wrote:
>> I agree with Duncan - I had a similar expereince with my setup (dual
>> 3.1 ecms on jag V12). The car would sometimes stall during decel
>> because IAC counts could drop too low while the car was moving.
>
> I had that problem in a BMW I6 with '7727 + $8D setup. It's because
> you don't have proper VSS input.
> I ended doing the IAC setup, so the idle was almost my desired idle
> too because a VSS was too difficult to install.
>
> The only problem I couldn't solve, is the sky-high idle when you stall
> the engine and then try to restart right away.
>
> -- 
> 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 clair.davis at charter.net  Thu Apr  5 22:26:54 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:26:54 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730 )
References: <882804.11428.qm@web34302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<498E2D4A-B88A-4D84-9D42-7790D96FF66B@garyandliz.com>
Message-ID: <001401c777fb$6cc07f80$03000004@davis>

Thanks for the input, guys.  That's pretty much exactly what I'd hoped to
hear.  I also like the "bonus feature" of not having the ECM cover for a
vacuum leak, although (knocking wood) I can't recall the last vacuum leak
problem I had.  This evening I reset the idle via the throttle plates to
800rpm, and I'll let the IAC handle the cold startups and A/C=ON situations
for me, as it should be.  Didn't get to re-test with the IAC hooked up
again, as I had to put Monkey Boy to bed, and his room faces the garage...
Tomorrow, I guess.  The only potential down side I can see is if idle speed
creeps up appreciably when hot.  I won't have to wait too long to test that
situation here in Texas.

I think another bonus will be that the IAC will be quieter, as in not
whistling from time to time.  It gets pretty annoying hearing the IAC
whistling over the engine, and I'm not sure what it must sound like to the
cars around me in traffic.  I'm using the old Mopar "unsilenced" air cleaner
housing, and it really doesn't muffle a screaming IAC very well at all.

FWIW, the pintle was still allowing a slight amount of air to pass, I could
feel the vacuum on my finger when I covered the port on the top of the TB.
It made maybe 20-40rpm difference, as best I could tell.  I'd need a more
accurate tach to know for sure.  My hand-held only reads in 10rpm
increments, and my dash tach has 100-rpm ticks on the face.  For that
matter, I need several more accurate gages, as my Autometer vacuum/boost
gage reads a solid 15" vacuum, but the large DIA vacuum gage I had been
tuning with says 12.5" at idle.  Maybe I just need to calibrate all my junk
one of these days.  I wish I knew which gage to trust, that's a SIGNIFICANT
difference, right where it's important.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Evans" <gary at garyandliz.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730 )


> I agree with Duncan - I had a similar expereince with my setup (dual
> 3.1 ecms on jag V12). The car would sometimes stall during decel
> because IAC counts could drop too low while the car was moving.
>
> Set the throttle plate to provide the minimum *desired* idle speed
> (e.g. 700 rpm), not the minimum possible idle speed. This will give
> the IAC the most room for adjusting the idle speed upward.
>
> Bonus feature of this setting is that if you develop a vacuum leak
> you will be alerted to it by a too-high idle rather than allowing the
> IAC to compensate and cover up a potential problem.
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Cowen wrote:
>
> > I know the IAC setting procedure varies, and I've seen
> > it described different ways for the same car (but from
>
> > different sources) too.  That said however, I've got a
> > 7730 in my cobbled together system, and what you
> > describe is very different from what I've read.  In
> > fact, what you've described caused serious problems on
> > mine when I first got it going.
> >
> > I'm using a throttle body from a 2.8l, and an an ECM
> > from a 3.1l, onto a 3.4l.  The point is, when I
> > initially started it, the throttle body was set to run
> > a 2.8l fine.  Now, for a given RPM, a 3.4l requires
> > more airflow than a 2.8l. (3.4-2.8)/2.8=21% more air
> > required.  Wow!  Although the IAC compensated, it
> > didn't run well.  It felt like it had no torque,
> > requiring high revs start the Jeep moving.  It had a
> > huge bog on acceleration.  The reason?  As my foot
> > advanced the throttle, the ECM was closing the IAC -
> > and the two efforts canceled each other out!  Simply
> > resetting the butterfly in the throttle body made an
> > incredible improvement!
> >
> > Now, consider how you've set things up.  Your idle
> > should be about 700-750, but you're setting the
> > butterfly for about 400.  Best case scenario,
> > (700-400)/400=43% The IAC must provide 43% more air
> > than the butterfly to get the idle at 700!  If your
> > setup works anything like mine did, it's no wonder
> > things aren't working right!
> >
> > Solution?  If I recall, this is the procedure to set
> > it with your 7730:
> >
> > 1. Jump the pins on the ALDL to trigger MIL flashes.
> > 2. Key On, Engine Off.  These two steps force the IAC
> > pintle to extend fully, so IAC can have no effect on
> > idle.  You should hear the IAC running, trying to
> > extend the pintle forever!
> > 3. Unplug IAC.
> > 4. Key Off, remove ALDL jumper.
> > 5. Start engine (may require a foot on the gas if
> > butterfly is really closed), and set butterfly to
> > provide 700RPM idle.
> > 6. Reconnect IAC.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> > Duncan
> >
> > **********************END TRANSMISSION**********************
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > ______________
> > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
> > Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 jay at vessels-clan.com  Fri Apr  6 08:44:48 2007
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:44:48 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730 )
In-Reply-To: <3A1D6467-B131-4639-9E3A-EC0A487A14A5@garyandliz.com>
References: <882804.11428.qm@web34302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<498E2D4A-B88A-4D84-9D42-7790D96FF66B@garyandliz.com>	<8634c6d70704051315o756b005eoe87b75daf051eb40@mail.gmail.com>
	<3A1D6467-B131-4639-9E3A-EC0A487A14A5@garyandliz.com>
Message-ID: <46164ED0.10003@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

If you're setting minimum air (throttle stop screw) so it idles at 700 
RPM, then that should be less than the minimum idle speed in the cal. 
One accepted way to set minimum air (once the idle speed is set properly 
in the cal) is to adjust minimum air so you get about 2-3 IAC counts at 
hot idle. The GM procedure usually gets you to about 30 IAC counts, but 
some think moving as much air through the throttle body as possible (in 
TBI apps, anyway) is the better choice. .

You want the IAC to have a bit of headroom, though, so if your cal's 
idle speed is under 700 RPM, and you're setting minimum air higher than 
that, the ECM is no longer controlling the idle speed.  Not good.

If you're getting stalls and you've got the VSS connected, then you may 
not have minimum air adjusted properly, or you've got some tuning to do. 
  Assuming the low RPM timing/fuel is right (i.e. the fueling at low RPM 
isn't going to just drive it to a stall), either the IAC doesn't have 
enough headroom (you need more IAC counts at idle) or you need to get 
more aggressive with the IAC tuning.  Unless you have a lumpy cam, I'd 
guess the IAC constants are fine.

The sky-high idle after a stall is apparent in the TBI code ('747, '429, 
etc.).  I don't remember if it's in $A1 or not, since it's been a while 
since I drove a 5-speed $A1 car.  The most annoying thing in $A1 for me 
was shift-assist which to me looked too much like a throttle hang.  I 
managed to tune most of it out, but I never got it 100% like I wanted it.

Jay Vessels
1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending)


Gary Evans wrote:
> I do have VSS input - it happened anyway. Never had the problem with the 
> sky high idle, but I am running $A1 code which might be the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 5, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Tomas Sokorai wrote:
> 
>> On 4/5/07, Gary Evans <gary at garyandliz.com> wrote:
>>> I agree with Duncan - I had a similar expereince with my setup (dual
>>> 3.1 ecms on jag V12). The car would sometimes stall during decel
>>> because IAC counts could drop too low while the car was moving.
>>
>> I had that problem in a BMW I6 with '7727 + $8D setup. It's because
>> you don't have proper VSS input.
>> I ended doing the IAC setup, so the idle was almost my desired idle
>> too because a VSS was too difficult to install.
>>
>> The only problem I couldn't solve, is the sky-high idle when you stall
>> the engine and then try to restart right away.
>>
>> --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 jay at vessels-clan.com  Fri Apr  6 08:48:27 2007
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:48:27 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730
In-Reply-To: <007601c77733$b1b1b780$03000004@davis>
References: <24551872.1170698517414.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<007601c77733$b1b1b780$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <46164FAB.90801@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

I just posted something about this, but basically GM's method gets you 
to about 30 IAC counts, or about 10-12% of it's full range, at hot idle. 
  On TBI systems, many want as much air going through the TBI as 
possible to get better atomization, and adjust minimum air to get to 
about 2-3 counts (about 1% of full range).  You want some headroom so 
the IAC can adjust the idle speed down in case the engine wants to idle 
up for some reason.  If you don't have enough headroom the IAC can't 
compensate for a too-high idle.

Jay Vessels
1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending)

Clair Davis wrote:
> I'm still sorting out the tuning of my slightly-hotter cam that I described
> previously in the "Adjusting 7730/$8D for larger cam" thread, and I came
> across an issue setting up the IAC / AIS motor that I thought I'd ask about.
> This is from the user manual for an Accel DFI system, but it applies here, I
> think.  They basically suggest setting up the IAC so that it contributes
> very little, if anything, to the base idle speed.   Say you want a 750-rpm
> idle, set the throttle plate opening to achieve 700-rpm or so at operating
> temp, and let the IAC give you the last 50.  That's not how I remember the
> GM procedure, which (as I recall) is to disable the IAC and shoot for the
> lowest idle figure that can be sustained - maybe even 4-500 rpm.  That's
> essentially how I have mine set up now, but it seems to make sense to set
> the idle higher if possible and just let the IAC do the fine tuning.
> 
> Is one method preferable over the other?  I guess as long as the idle speed
> is specified in the code, it doesn't really matter, except from the range of
> motion the IAC sees.  Comments?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Clair
> 69 Valiant '730
> FTWTX


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Fri Apr  6 13:19:35 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:19:35 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730
References: <24551872.1170698517414.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net><007601c77733$b1b1b780$03000004@davis>
	<46164FAB.90801@vessels-clan.com>
Message-ID: <099a01c77878$252a0d30$020101c0@gandalf>

FWIW I find that I don't miss not having an IAC to keep a stable idle. I've 
manipulated the ignition map so that there's a localised SA peak at my 
desired idle RPM (e.g. 1000), and the SA drops at RPMs below and above that. 
The idea is that increased SA lifts the engine speed up to 1000, and if it 
goes past 1000, then the reduction in SA causes it to drop back. Seems to 
work quite well, and doesn't compromise the driveability of the car. Not as 
sophisticated as IAC, but easier to set up!

http://www.furyworld.fsnet.co.uk/Images/XE_Ignition_Map_8Jul06.gif

Robin 



From clair.davis at charter.net  Fri Apr  6 20:47:23 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 20:47:23 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730
References: <24551872.1170698517414.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net><007601c77733$b1b1b780$03000004@davis><46164FAB.90801@vessels-clan.com>
	<099a01c77878$252a0d30$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <002a01c778b6$b0120360$03000004@davis>

My current ignition map is very similar with respect to the idle advance.
In the closed-throttle idle curve, I've got a fairly high advance for my
normal idle range and that corresponds to a localized flattened peak on the
Spark Main table.  From a stall-saver perspective, maybe I should draw it
out towards the higher vacuum end a bit more than the +/- 10kPa and +/-
200rpm around my target idle that I have now.  So far, I've just been
focusing on making the engine idle well with the cam I have.  I haven't
really driven it enough to find any stalling problems, but the VSS function
seems to be doing its thing.

Clair

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] IAC / AIS Setup - $8D/7730


> FWIW I find that I don't miss not having an IAC to keep a stable idle.
I've
> manipulated the ignition map so that there's a localised SA peak at my
> desired idle RPM (e.g. 1000), and the SA drops at RPMs below and above
that.
> The idea is that increased SA lifts the engine speed up to 1000, and if it
> goes past 1000, then the reduction in SA causes it to drop back. Seems to
> work quite well, and doesn't compromise the driveability of the car. Not
as
> sophisticated as IAC, but easier to set up!
>
> http://www.furyworld.fsnet.co.uk/Images/XE_Ignition_Map_8Jul06.gif
>
> 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 tech_auto at bellsouth.net  Sat Apr  7 20:45:08 2007
From: tech_auto at bellsouth.net (Dan Grostick)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:45:08 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
Message-ID: <46184924.1010406@bellsouth.net>


Are there any '165 experts left???? 

I've been having issues with the serial interface hanging, seems to be 
something a '165 is know for. I replaced my ECM with a newer factory 
rebuilt version, still getting serial interface hangs....
I'm using  a MAX232 interface. The hangs happen with different laptops. 
It will run from 3-15 minutes and then lock up....

Dan


From romans at starstream.net  Sun Apr  8 10:52:53 2007
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 08:52:53 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
References: <46184924.1010406@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <001001c779f5$f7ff98a0$6801a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

I have diacom and have used it on a lot of 165's and never had it hang.
I suspect it's an issue with your interface, not with the 165 ecm.
Mark
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Grostick" <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:45 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


> 
> Are there any '165 experts left???? 
> 
> I've been having issues with the serial interface hanging, seems to be 
> something a '165 is know for. I replaced my ECM with a newer factory 
> rebuilt version, still getting serial interface hangs....
> I'm using  a MAX232 interface. The hangs happen with different laptops. 
> It will run from 3-15 minutes and then lock up....
> 
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> 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 9jim30 at charter.net  Sun Apr  8 11:05:31 2007
From: 9jim30 at charter.net (James Panter)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:05:31 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
References: <46184924.1010406@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <008d01c779f7$bc6c0fb0$6401a8c0@COMPY>

I don't know about l65's in particular but I believe that all these ECM 
connections have serial connection problems to various degrees.   Also the 
devices which "tune" the ECMs like the  chip burners and various 
programmers.  My very limited expertise is that different laptops (I suppose 
based on the BIOS) connect much more easier than others.  For example, I 
tried connecting with a FAST ECM recently for two days with an IBM Thinkpad 
without success trying all the Comm ports settings and Serial port hook-ups, 
then hooked up a Dell and had success immediately.  It gets to be 
discouraging sometimes!.  Jim
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Grostick" <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 8:45 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


>
> Are there any '165 experts left????
> I've been having issues with the serial interface hanging, seems to be 
> something a '165 is know for. I replaced my ECM with a newer factory 
> rebuilt version, still getting serial interface hangs....
> I'm using  a MAX232 interface. The hangs happen with different laptops. It 
> will run from 3-15 minutes and then lock up....
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Sun Apr  8 12:50:06 2007
From: mmansur at hotmail.com (Mark Mansur)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 10:50:06 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
References: <46184924.1010406@bellsouth.net>
	<008d01c779f7$bc6c0fb0$6401a8c0@COMPY>
Message-ID: <BAY122-DAV48FA6857B911C851E2B60B45A0@phx.gbl>

In my opinion the issue is almost certainly the ECM. In the same vehicle, 
I've had two '165s give me this problem (lockups after anywhere from 10 
seconds to 10 minutes of otherwise perfect data logging where a full ECM 
power down is needed to reconnect), and the third so far has not (it's been 
well over 2 years now). I've been using the same interface (and software =) 
for years now. I can only conclude that the ECM is the issue. This also 
seems to be the experience of a lot of people that I've helped over the 
years.

It's a very frustrating problem, no doubt, since an otherwise perfectly 
healthy ECM may exhibit this issue, and there's no guarantee that a new ECM 
will fix the issue.

-M

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Panter" <9jim30 at charter.net>
To: <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>; <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???

I don't know about l65's in particular but I believe that all these ECM
connections have serial connection problems to various degrees.   Also the
devices which "tune" the ECMs like the  chip burners and various
programmers.  My very limited expertise is that different laptops (I suppose
based on the BIOS) connect much more easier than others.  For example, I
tried connecting with a FAST ECM recently for two days with an IBM Thinkpad
without success trying all the Comm ports settings and Serial port hook-ups,
then hooked up a Dell and had success immediately.  It gets to be
discouraging sometimes!.  Jim

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Grostick" <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 8:45 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


>
> Are there any '165 experts left????
> I've been having issues with the serial interface hanging, seems to be
> something a '165 is know for. I replaced my ECM with a newer factory
> rebuilt version, still getting serial interface hangs....
> I'm using  a MAX232 interface. The hangs happen with different laptops. It
> will run from 3-15 minutes and then lock up....
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Apr  8 14:15:04 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:15:04 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
References: <46184924.1010406@bellsouth.net><008d01c779f7$bc6c0fb0$6401a8c0@COMPY>
	<BAY122-DAV48FA6857B911C851E2B60B45A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <0ab701c77a12$39249fd0$020101c0@gandalf>

FWIW I've had problems at a rolling road with $58 locking up ALDLMON. A 
reboot of the lap-top made the problem go away, so I think it was a glitch 
that ALDLMON wasn't robust enough to cope with.

Robin 



From romans at starstream.net  Sun Apr  8 14:22:21 2007
From: romans at starstream.net (Mark Romans)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:22:21 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
References: <46184924.1010406@bellsouth.net><008d01c779f7$bc6c0fb0$6401a8c0@COMPY>
	<BAY122-DAV48FA6857B911C851E2B60B45A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <000601c77a13$3b2ed240$6801a8c0@fci9bo2ay5h5y8>

Diacom works perfectly, but I can't get my TunerproRT to link...  But I 
think it's me!
Maybe not setting up the comm port correctly or something...
The emulator works perfectly...
Mark
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Mansur" <mmansur at hotmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


> In my opinion the issue is almost certainly the ECM. In the same vehicle,
> I've had two '165s give me this problem (lockups after anywhere from 10
> seconds to 10 minutes of otherwise perfect data logging where a full ECM
> power down is needed to reconnect), and the third so far has not (it's 
> been
> well over 2 years now). I've been using the same interface (and software 
> =)
> for years now. I can only conclude that the ECM is the issue. This also
> seems to be the experience of a lot of people that I've helped over the
> years.
>
> It's a very frustrating problem, no doubt, since an otherwise perfectly
> healthy ECM may exhibit this issue, and there's no guarantee that a new 
> ECM
> will fix the issue.
>
> -M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Panter" <9jim30 at charter.net>
> To: <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>; <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>
> I don't know about l65's in particular but I believe that all these ECM
> connections have serial connection problems to various degrees.   Also the
> devices which "tune" the ECMs like the  chip burners and various
> programmers.  My very limited expertise is that different laptops (I 
> suppose
> based on the BIOS) connect much more easier than others.  For example, I
> tried connecting with a FAST ECM recently for two days with an IBM 
> Thinkpad
> without success trying all the Comm ports settings and Serial port 
> hook-ups,
> then hooked up a Dell and had success immediately.  It gets to be
> discouraging sometimes!.  Jim
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dan Grostick" <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 8:45 PM
> Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>
>
>>
>> Are there any '165 experts left????
>> I've been having issues with the serial interface hanging, seems to be
>> something a '165 is know for. I replaced my ECM with a newer factory
>> rebuilt version, still getting serial interface hangs....
>> I'm using  a MAX232 interface. The hangs happen with different laptops. 
>> It
>> will run from 3-15 minutes and then lock up....
>>
>> Dan
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 LaRose_Brian at emc.com  Tue Apr 10 13:26:48 2007
From: LaRose_Brian at emc.com (LaRose_Brian at emc.com)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:26:48 -0400
Subject: FW: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
Message-ID: <FC154DD8EF75794A872B06CB043897AF0594FA2B@CORPUSMX30A.corp.emc.com>

 

I am a newbie having the same problem.  The Laptop com ports are so
difficult to setup with regard to a USB connection..  I can't get it to
connect to the ECM so I can't really do anything with this yet.  I spent
3 hours on Sunday only to get frustrated and walk away from it.

I am using an ALDLcable.com cable with the 10ohm resistor tag between A
and B and an HP laptop with USB interface.  (actually, I've tried a dell
laptop too).

Does anybody have a how to guide for the WINDOWS / COM / USB / side of
this?

Brian in Atlanta
1987 Z/28 IROC 




-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
Behalf Of Mark Romans
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:22 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???

Diacom works perfectly, but I can't get my TunerproRT to link...  But I 
think it's me!
Maybe not setting up the comm port correctly or something...
The emulator works perfectly...
Mark
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Mansur" <mmansur at hotmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


> In my opinion the issue is almost certainly the ECM. In the same
vehicle,
> I've had two '165s give me this problem (lockups after anywhere from
10
> seconds to 10 minutes of otherwise perfect data logging where a full
ECM
> power down is needed to reconnect), and the third so far has not (it's

> been
> well over 2 years now). I've been using the same interface (and
software 
> =)
> for years now. I can only conclude that the ECM is the issue. This
also
> seems to be the experience of a lot of people that I've helped over
the
> years.
>
> It's a very frustrating problem, no doubt, since an otherwise
perfectly
> healthy ECM may exhibit this issue, and there's no guarantee that a
new 
> ECM
> will fix the issue.
>
> -M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Panter" <9jim30 at charter.net>
> To: <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>; <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>
> I don't know about l65's in particular but I believe that all these
ECM
> connections have serial connection problems to various degrees.   Also
the
> devices which "tune" the ECMs like the  chip burners and various
> programmers.  My very limited expertise is that different laptops (I 
> suppose
> based on the BIOS) connect much more easier than others.  For example,
I
> tried connecting with a FAST ECM recently for two days with an IBM 
> Thinkpad
> without success trying all the Comm ports settings and Serial port 
> hook-ups,
> then hooked up a Dell and had success immediately.  It gets to be
> discouraging sometimes!.  Jim
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dan Grostick" <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 8:45 PM
> Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>
>
>>
>> Are there any '165 experts left????
>> I've been having issues with the serial interface hanging, seems to
be
>> something a '165 is know for. I replaced my ECM with a newer factory
>> rebuilt version, still getting serial interface hangs....
>> I'm using  a MAX232 interface. The hangs happen with different
laptops. 
>> It
>> will run from 3-15 minutes and then lock up....
>>
>> Dan
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> 

_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm



From jryan at caminofx.org  Tue Apr 10 15:55:33 2007
From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:55:33 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
In-Reply-To: <FC154DD8EF75794A872B06CB043897AF0594FA2B@CORPUSMX30A.corp.emc.com>
References: <FC154DD8EF75794A872B06CB043897AF0594FA2B@CORPUSMX30A.corp.emc.com>
Message-ID: <1d14ee6f4315729c11a8f375697517cd@caminofx.org>

In my case, I installed a driver specific to the USB/serial adapter.  
After doing that, there was an extra COM port visible in the Windows 
settings.  This was the USB interface.

  ---> Jared Ryan <---
jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org

On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:26 PM, LaRose_Brian at emc.com wrote:

>
>
> I am a newbie having the same problem.  The Laptop com ports are so
> difficult to setup with regard to a USB connection..  I can't get it to
> connect to the ECM so I can't really do anything with this yet.  I 
> spent
> 3 hours on Sunday only to get frustrated and walk away from it.
>
> I am using an ALDLcable.com cable with the 10ohm resistor tag between A
> and B and an HP laptop with USB interface.  (actually, I've tried a 
> dell
> laptop too).
>
> Does anybody have a how to guide for the WINDOWS / COM / USB / side of
> this?
>
> Brian in Atlanta
> 1987 Z/28 IROC
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Romans
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:22 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>
> Diacom works perfectly, but I can't get my TunerproRT to link...  But I
> think it's me!
> Maybe not setting up the comm port correctly or something...
> The emulator works perfectly...
> Mark
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Mansur" <mmansur at hotmail.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>
>
>> In my opinion the issue is almost certainly the ECM. In the same
> vehicle,
>> I've had two '165s give me this problem (lockups after anywhere from
> 10
>> seconds to 10 minutes of otherwise perfect data logging where a full
> ECM
>> power down is needed to reconnect), and the third so far has not (it's
>
>> been
>> well over 2 years now). I've been using the same interface (and
> software
>> =)
>> for years now. I can only conclude that the ECM is the issue. This
> also
>> seems to be the experience of a lot of people that I've helped over
> the
>> years.
>>
>> It's a very frustrating problem, no doubt, since an otherwise
> perfectly
>> healthy ECM may exhibit this issue, and there's no guarantee that a
> new
>> ECM
>> will fix the issue.
>>
>> -M
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "James Panter" <9jim30 at charter.net>
>> To: <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>; <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>>
>> I don't know about l65's in particular but I believe that all these
> ECM
>> connections have serial connection problems to various degrees.   Also
> the
>> devices which "tune" the ECMs like the  chip burners and various
>> programmers.  My very limited expertise is that different laptops (I
>> suppose
>> based on the BIOS) connect much more easier than others.  For example,
> I
>> tried connecting with a FAST ECM recently for two days with an IBM
>> Thinkpad
>> without success trying all the Comm ports settings and Serial port
>> hook-ups,
>> then hooked up a Dell and had success immediately.  It gets to be
>> discouraging sometimes!.  Jim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dan Grostick" <tech_auto at bellsouth.net>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 8:45 PM
>> Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Are there any '165 experts left????
>>> I've been having issues with the serial interface hanging, seems to
> be
>>> something a '165 is know for. I replaced my ECM with a newer factory
>>> rebuilt version, still getting serial interface hangs....
>>> I'm using  a MAX232 interface. The hangs happen with different
> laptops.
>>> It
>>> will run from 3-15 minutes and then lock up....
>>>
>>> Dan
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gmecm mailing list
>>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Apr 10 17:03:00 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:03:00 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
References: <FC154DD8EF75794A872B06CB043897AF0594FA2B@CORPUSMX30A.corp.emc.com>
Message-ID: <0bed01c77bbc$03374390$020101c0@gandalf>

>From what I've seen, using a USB<->RS232 adapter is the LAST thing you want 
to do. I've had enough problems with a dedicated RS232 port! Some of the 
GMECM code ($58 in particular) is VERY fussy about the timing of chatter 
responses. USB adapters just add variable delays IME... I use ancient 'throw 
away' lap-tops with dedicated RS232 ports that I don't worry about 
losing/breaking.

HTH

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <LaRose_Brian at emc.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 10 April 2007 19:26
Subject: FW: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???




I am a newbie having the same problem.  The Laptop com ports are so
difficult to setup with regard to a USB connection..  I can't get it to
connect to the ECM so I can't really do anything with this yet.  I spent
3 hours on Sunday only to get frustrated and walk away from it.

I am using an ALDLcable.com cable with the 10ohm resistor tag between A
and B and an HP laptop with USB interface.  (actually, I've tried a dell
laptop too).

Does anybody have a how to guide for the WINDOWS / COM / USB / side of
this?

Brian in Atlanta
1987 Z/28 IROC



From 9jim30 at charter.net  Tue Apr 10 17:16:14 2007
From: 9jim30 at charter.net (James Panter)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:16:14 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
References: <FC154DD8EF75794A872B06CB043897AF0594FA2B@CORPUSMX30A.corp.emc.com>
	<0bed01c77bbc$03374390$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <003001c77bbd$dbb24fc0$6401a8c0@COMPY>

Serial to USB  adapters are a study onto themselves as is getting serial 
ports to recognize that they have a hook-up trying to work.  Most everyone 
that sells the equipment (Moates as an example) have their own adapter they 
want you to use.  I bought it and it worked for me on an IBM Thinkpad.  A 
RadioShack adapter did not.  I'm certainly not a computer expert but I 
believe it has something to do with the particular BIOS of the computer that 
you are using.
Jim
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


> >From what I've seen, using a USB<->RS232 adapter is the LAST thing you 
> >want
> to do. I've had enough problems with a dedicated RS232 port! Some of the 
> GMECM code ($58 in particular) is VERY fussy about the timing of chatter 
> responses. USB adapters just add variable delays IME... I use ancient 
> 'throw away' lap-tops with dedicated RS232 ports that I don't worry about 
> losing/breaking.
>
> HTH
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <LaRose_Brian at emc.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 10 April 2007 19:26
> Subject: FW: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>
>
>
>
> I am a newbie having the same problem.  The Laptop com ports are so
> difficult to setup with regard to a USB connection..  I can't get it to
> connect to the ECM so I can't really do anything with this yet.  I spent
> 3 hours on Sunday only to get frustrated and walk away from it.
>
> I am using an ALDLcable.com cable with the 10ohm resistor tag between A
> and B and an HP laptop with USB interface.  (actually, I've tried a dell
> laptop too).
>
> Does anybody have a how to guide for the WINDOWS / COM / USB / side of
> this?
>
> Brian in Atlanta
> 1987 Z/28 IROC
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 gs455tpi at comcast.net  Tue Apr 10 21:14:04 2007
From: gs455tpi at comcast.net (Don Brown)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:14:04 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
References: <FC154DD8EF75794A872B06CB043897AF0594FA2B@CORPUSMX30A.corp.emc.com><0bed01c77bbc$03374390$020101c0@gandalf>
	<003001c77bbd$dbb24fc0$6401a8c0@COMPY>
Message-ID: <000301c77bdf$1475b3d0$6401a8c0@db>

I can't be a lot of help here because I use diacom with our 7165, and it's 
flawless with the parallel port.  At work though our equipment uses rs-232 
ports for communication. So for the new laptops without the serial ports we 
need to use the usb/serial adapters.  Our timing is critical and as long as 
the serial port communication is set up we don't have problems.  All 
adapters that we've seen are packaged with their own set of drivers and we 
install them rather than trusting the drivers supplied with windows.  I'll 
try some software and hardware to talk to the 7165 through a serial port 
with a usb/serial adapter to see if I have the same issues and report back.

don

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Panter" <9jim30 at charter.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


Serial to USB  adapters are a study onto themselves as is getting serial
ports to recognize that they have a hook-up trying to work.  Most everyone
that sells the equipment (Moates as an example) have their own adapter they
want you to use.  I bought it and it worked for me on an IBM Thinkpad.  A
RadioShack adapter did not.  I'm certainly not a computer expert but I
believe it has something to do with the particular BIOS of the computer that
you are using.
Jim
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


> >From what I've seen, using a USB<->RS232 adapter is the LAST thing you
> >want
> to do. I've had enough problems with a dedicated RS232 port! Some of the
> GMECM code ($58 in particular) is VERY fussy about the timing of chatter
> responses. USB adapters just add variable delays IME... I use ancient
> 'throw away' lap-tops with dedicated RS232 ports that I don't worry about
> losing/breaking.
>
> HTH
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <LaRose_Brian at emc.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 10 April 2007 19:26
> Subject: FW: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>
>
>
>
> I am a newbie having the same problem.  The Laptop com ports are so
> difficult to setup with regard to a USB connection..  I can't get it to
> connect to the ECM so I can't really do anything with this yet.  I spent
> 3 hours on Sunday only to get frustrated and walk away from it.
>
> I am using an ALDLcable.com cable with the 10ohm resistor tag between A
> and B and an HP laptop with USB interface.  (actually, I've tried a dell
> laptop too).
>
> Does anybody have a how to guide for the WINDOWS / COM / USB / side of
> this?
>
> Brian in Atlanta
> 1987 Z/28 IROC
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 gs455tpi at comcast.net  Tue Apr 10 23:18:02 2007
From: gs455tpi at comcast.net (Don Brown)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:18:02 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
References: <FC154DD8EF75794A872B06CB043897AF0594FA2B@CORPUSMX30A.corp.emc.com><0bed01c77bbc$03374390$020101c0@gandalf><003001c77bbd$dbb24fc0$6401a8c0@COMPY>
	<000301c77bdf$1475b3d0$6401a8c0@db>
Message-ID: <000b01c77bf0$67471e30$6401a8c0@db>

Back again --

I was surprised by what I saw.  The equipment is

ibm thinkpad 380z - two comports one native(com1), and one usb/serial 
adapter(com2)
akm cable
win aldl software

Both comports were set up the same in the control panel, and the 
configuration of winaldl was the same for each com port.

usb/serial adapter - when plugged in some data was present, but not all in 
the raw data page.  All other pages were blank.  When the "dash" page was 
displayed, no data was present.

com port1 - no issues, all data was present in the proper places

I didn't notice any drop outs with either comports -- just incomplete data 
for the usb/serial adapter.

I'll play a bit more with the usb/serial adapter ---

don

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Brown" <gs455tpi at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


I can't be a lot of help here because I use diacom with our 7165, and it's
flawless with the parallel port.  At work though our equipment uses rs-232
ports for communication. So for the new laptops without the serial ports we
need to use the usb/serial adapters.  Our timing is critical and as long as
the serial port communication is set up we don't have problems.  All
adapters that we've seen are packaged with their own set of drivers and we
install them rather than trusting the drivers supplied with windows.  I'll
try some software and hardware to talk to the 7165 through a serial port
with a usb/serial adapter to see if I have the same issues and report back.

don

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Panter" <9jim30 at charter.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


Serial to USB  adapters are a study onto themselves as is getting serial
ports to recognize that they have a hook-up trying to work.  Most everyone
that sells the equipment (Moates as an example) have their own adapter they
want you to use.  I bought it and it worked for me on an IBM Thinkpad.  A
RadioShack adapter did not.  I'm certainly not a computer expert but I
believe it has something to do with the particular BIOS of the computer that
you are using.
Jim
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???


> >From what I've seen, using a USB<->RS232 adapter is the LAST thing you
> >want
> to do. I've had enough problems with a dedicated RS232 port! Some of the
> GMECM code ($58 in particular) is VERY fussy about the timing of chatter
> responses. USB adapters just add variable delays IME... I use ancient
> 'throw away' lap-tops with dedicated RS232 ports that I don't worry about
> losing/breaking.
>
> HTH
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <LaRose_Brian at emc.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 10 April 2007 19:26
> Subject: FW: [Gmecm] '165 expertise???
>
>
>
>
> I am a newbie having the same problem.  The Laptop com ports are so
> difficult to setup with regard to a USB connection..  I can't get it to
> connect to the ECM so I can't really do anything with this yet.  I spent
> 3 hours on Sunday only to get frustrated and walk away from it.
>
> I am using an ALDLcable.com cable with the 10ohm resistor tag between A
> and B and an HP laptop with USB interface.  (actually, I've tried a dell
> laptop too).
>
> Does anybody have a how to guide for the WINDOWS / COM / USB / side of
> this?
>
> Brian in Atlanta
> 1987 Z/28 IROC
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Wed Apr 11 04:32:46 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:32:46 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] '727 mounting
References: <FC154DD8EF75794A872B06CB043897AF0594FA2B@CORPUSMX30A.corp.emc.com>
	<1d14ee6f4315729c11a8f375697517cd@caminofx.org>
Message-ID: <0c4301c77c1c$5eda93e0$020101c0@gandalf>

Hello,

I have to move my '727 to make space for something else. It's currently 
mounted horizontally with the MEMCAL door on the top. (See: 
http://www.furyworld.fsnet.co.uk/Images/GMECM.jpg - apologies for the poor 
quality of this picture.)

Given the constraint of not modifying the loom, I have limited options about 
where and at what orientation I can remount it.

Could somebody with experience of '727s in their original installations 
advise of whether vertical mounting is likely to cause any problems?

BR,

Robin 



From jktucker at usamedia.tv  Wed Apr 11 07:57:54 2007
From: jktucker at usamedia.tv (Jake Tucker)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:57:54 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] '727 mounting
In-Reply-To: <0c4301c77c1c$5eda93e0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <000a01c77c39$06548150$0200a8c0@tuckeroffice>

Robin,
	I can't speak for the '727 in particular, but I've pulled a few ECMS
that are mounted vertically.  I think the only orientation I would avoid is
where the connector is up.  My only hessitation there is that more dust will
find its way inside if the connector is up.

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Robin Handley
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:33 AM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: [Gmecm] '727 mounting


Hello,

I have to move my '727 to make space for something else. It's currently 
mounted horizontally with the MEMCAL door on the top. (See: 
http://www.furyworld.fsnet.co.uk/Images/GMECM.jpg - apologies for the poor 
quality of this picture.)

Given the constraint of not modifying the loom, I have limited options about

where and at what orientation I can remount it.

Could somebody with experience of '727s in their original installations 
advise of whether vertical mounting is likely to cause any problems?

BR,

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 mwilson at bwarch.com  Wed Apr 11 10:13:07 2007
From: mwilson at bwarch.com (Mike Wilson)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:13:07 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] '727 mounting
In-Reply-To: <0c4301c77c1c$5eda93e0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <000001c77c4b$e9026c30$1500010a@bwarch.com>

Robin, my 91 Z/28 runs the 730 in the vertical position from the factory and
it is internally the same as the 727 with different connectors.

I don't believe there are any restrictions as to the position you can mount
the ECM as long as you can reach the connectors to unplug it from the
harness as I have seen GM mount the ECM's in many different orientations. 

The factory doesn't care about access to the cover but any way you can mount
the ECM with cover access should work without any problems. If dirt
collection on the connectors is a problem you could always turn the ECM in a
way that required you to take it loose from its mounting to access the cover
or figure out some way of sealing the connector cover panel from the
elements.

Hope this helps.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Robin Handley
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:33 AM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: [Gmecm] '727 mounting

Hello,

I have to move my '727 to make space for something else. It's currently 
mounted horizontally with the MEMCAL door on the top. (See: 
http://www.furyworld.fsnet.co.uk/Images/GMECM.jpg - apologies for the poor 
quality of this picture.)

Given the constraint of not modifying the loom, I have limited options about

where and at what orientation I can remount it.

Could somebody with experience of '727s in their original installations 
advise of whether vertical mounting is likely to cause any problems?

BR,

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 dozierhc at aol.com  Wed Apr 11 12:34:21 2007
From: dozierhc at aol.com (dozierhc at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:34:21 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
Message-ID: <8C94A76C65910D2-17B0-7CAD@FWM-M30.sysops.aol.com>

Robin....
 
I would try and mount this in a verticle position with the connector in the DOWN location, if at all possible.
My reasoning comes from experience in the automotive industry with underhood modules that the condenstaion and water collection will run down the wires and away from the connectors in this way.
The connctors may be water-tight, but only up to a point.  Water pressure can slowly intrude, as well as the seal around the periphery of the connector can detriorate, and this helps prevent water from migrating in under these conditions.
 
Additionally, I would use a little silicone dielectric grease on the connector rubber insulators to keep them soft and pliable.
 
BR,
 
Hank
 
*************************************
 
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:13:07 -0700
From: "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com>
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] '727 mounting
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Message-ID: <000001c77c4b$e9026c30$1500010a at bwarch.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="US-ASCII"

Robin, my 91 Z/28 runs the 730 in the vertical position from the factory and
it is internally the same as the 727 with different connectors.

I don't believe there are any restrictions as to the position you can mount
the ECM as long as you can reach the connectors to unplug it from the
harness as I have seen GM mount the ECM's in many different orientations. 

The factory doesn't care about access to the cover but any way you can mount
the ECM with cover access should work without any problems. If dirt
collection on the connectors is a problem you could always turn the ECM in a
way that required you to take it loose from its mounting to access the cover
or figure out some way of sealing the connector cover panel from the
elements.

Hope this helps.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Robin Handley
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:33 AM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: [Gmecm] '727 mounting

Hello,

I have to move my '727 to make space for something else. It's currently 
mounted horizontally with the MEMCAL door on the top. (See: 
http://www.furyworld.fsnet.co.uk/Images/GMECM.jpg - apologies for the poor 
quality of this picture.)

Given the constraint of not modifying the loom, I have limited options about

where and at what orientation I can remount it.

Could somebody with experience of '727s in their original installations 
advise of whether vertical mounting is likely to cause any problems?

BR,

Robin 
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Wed Apr 11 15:03:27 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:03:27 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
References: <8C94A76C65910D2-17B0-7CAD@FWM-M30.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <0cb901c77c74$798e7be0$020101c0@gandalf>

Thanks to everyone for their replies.

Having stared at the problem and explored the movement range of the loom for 
a long time today, I'd come to the conclusion that a vertical mount is the 
only solution. From a loom, ease of mounting, and access to the MEMCAL door 
pov, it works best with the connectors facing upwards, though.

I'm not sure how much protection the plastic connector cover provides, but, 
given Hank's wise words, I'll think longer and harder...

Thanks,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dozierhc at aol.com>
To: <Gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 11 April 2007 18:34
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting


> Robin....
>
> I would try and mount this in a verticle position with the connector in 
> the DOWN location, if at all possible.
> My reasoning comes from experience in the automotive industry with 
> underhood modules that the condenstaion and water collection will run down 
> the wires and away from the connectors in this way.
> The connctors may be water-tight, but only up to a point.  Water pressure 
> can slowly intrude, as well as the seal around the periphery of the 
> connector can detriorate, and this helps prevent water from migrating in 
> under these conditions.
>
> Additionally, I would use a little silicone dielectric grease on the 
> connector rubber insulators to keep them soft and pliable.
>
> BR,
>
> Hank



From clair.davis at charter.net  Wed Apr 11 22:18:01 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:18:01 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
References: <8C94A76C65910D2-17B0-7CAD@FWM-M30.sysops.aol.com>
	<0cb901c77c74$798e7be0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <005a01c77cb1$2dccca80$03000004@davis>

The pair of '727's I have both came from Chevy Lumina's (I think, one's an
eBay special), and IIRC they mount with wires up.  They're fairly concealed
behind a bunch of plastic junk, but still more or less in the environment of
the engine compartment.  The ECM on my Dad's 94 Corvette is up high in the
engine bay, generally below the windshield.  A lot more exposed than I
thought it would have been.  All that said, I don't see a lot of splash
shielding between the ECM and the ground on your application.  Is it
possible to fab a shield to protect it a bit more, and then use a combo of
dielectric grease and maybe silicone spray lube to help the wires shed
water?

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting


> Thanks to everyone for their replies.
>
> Having stared at the problem and explored the movement range of the loom
for
> a long time today, I'd come to the conclusion that a vertical mount is the
> only solution. From a loom, ease of mounting, and access to the MEMCAL
door
> pov, it works best with the connectors facing upwards, though.
>
> I'm not sure how much protection the plastic connector cover provides,
but,
> given Hank's wise words, I'll think longer and harder...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <dozierhc at aol.com>
> To: <Gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 11 April 2007 18:34
> Subject: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
>
>
> > Robin....
> >
> > I would try and mount this in a verticle position with the connector in
> > the DOWN location, if at all possible.
> > My reasoning comes from experience in the automotive industry with
> > underhood modules that the condenstaion and water collection will run
down
> > the wires and away from the connectors in this way.
> > The connctors may be water-tight, but only up to a point.  Water
pressure
> > can slowly intrude, as well as the seal around the periphery of the
> > connector can detriorate, and this helps prevent water from migrating in
> > under these conditions.
> >
> > Additionally, I would use a little silicone dielectric grease on the
> > connector rubber insulators to keep them soft and pliable.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Hank
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Thu Apr 12 02:20:31 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:20:31 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
References: <8C94A76C65910D2-17B0-7CAD@FWM-M30.sysops.aol.com><0cb901c77c74$798e7be0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<005a01c77cb1$2dccca80$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <0cc701c77cd3$100f72a0$020101c0@gandalf>

Hello Clair,

In the original position that I mounted it, the ECM sat on 'stilts' which 
are about 20cm high. This lifts it high off the sill into the wing, and it 
sits behind the inner wheel arch - so it is well protected from wheel 
splash. I have had no problems in the few years that it's been there - but 
I've never driven it through deep standing water. The car is very low to the 
ground, and there is no room on the firewall, unfortunately.

As part of my current sill work, I was planning on fitting a water shield to 
the leading edge of the sill (covering the gap that the inner wheel arch 
leaves).

As a rule, this is my dry weather car, but obviously it needs to be prepared 
for unexpected bad weather.

Thanks for your help,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 12 April 2007 04:18
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting


> The pair of '727's I have both came from Chevy Lumina's (I think, one's an
> eBay special), and IIRC they mount with wires up.  They're fairly 
> concealed
> behind a bunch of plastic junk, but still more or less in the environment 
> of
> the engine compartment.  The ECM on my Dad's 94 Corvette is up high in the
> engine bay, generally below the windshield.  A lot more exposed than I
> thought it would have been.  All that said, I don't see a lot of splash
> shielding between the ECM and the ground on your application.  Is it
> possible to fab a shield to protect it a bit more, and then use a combo of
> dielectric grease and maybe silicone spray lube to help the wires shed
> water?
>
> Clair



From dozierhc at aol.com  Thu Apr 12 12:35:01 2007
From: dozierhc at aol.com (dozierhc at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:35:01 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] (no subject)
Message-ID: <8C94B400859B3D5-1694-9A9F@WEBMAIL-DF05.sysops.aol.com>

Robin...If the Connector is mounted in a way that all wiring goes DOWNWARDS from the connectors and that plastic cover, you should be OK.  I just wanted to give advice in that I see installations all the time that have a water path to the connector shells, which is always a bad idea.
Same with mounting O2 sensors with the probe upwards in the exhaust!
 
If you do feel the area you wi mount the ECM is prone to water spalsh, thewn you might consider placing the ECM into a platic box (Tupperware?) of appropriate size and then using the old "Racer's Tape - Silver duct tape to make a final seal.
 
BR,
 
Hank
*************************
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:20:31 +0100
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Message-ID: <0cc701c77cd3$100f72a0$020101c0 at gandalf>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
    reply-type=original

Hello Clair,

In the original position that I mounted it, the ECM sat on 'stilts' which 
are about 20cm high. This lifts it high off the sill into the wing, and it 
sits behind the inner wheel arch - so it is well protected from wheel 
splash. I have had no problems in the few years that it's been there - but 
I've never driven it through deep standing water. The car is very low to the 
ground, and there is no room on the firewall, unfortunately.

As part of my current sill work, I was planning on fitting a water shield to 
the leading edge of the sill (covering the gap that the inner wheel arch 
leaves).

As a rule, this is my dry weather car, but obviously it needs to be prepared 
for unexpected bad weather.

Thanks for your help,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 12 April 2007 04:18
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting


> The pair of '727's I have both came from Chevy Lumina's (I think, one's an
> eBay special), and IIRC they mount with wires up.  They're fairly 
> concealed
> behind a bunch of plastic junk, but still more or less in the environment 
> of
> the engine compartment.  The ECM on my Dad's 94 Corvette is up high in the
> engine bay, generally below the windshield.  A lot more exposed than I
> thought it would have been.  All that said, I don't see a lot of splash
> shielding between the ECM and the ground on your application.  Is it
> possible to fab a shield to protect it a bit more, and then use a combo of
> dielectric grease and maybe silicone spray lube to help the wires shed
> water?
>
> Clair



------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


From frankmccracken at shaw.ca  Thu Apr 12 13:40:27 2007
From: frankmccracken at shaw.ca (Frank McCracken)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:40:27 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] (no subject)
References: <8C94B400859B3D5-1694-9A9F@WEBMAIL-DF05.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <005701c77d33$7cc5cb50$6601a8c0@flamingo>

I have considered the "Tupper ware" housing in the past. What about heat
dissapation in that enclosed area? Is that an issue?
Frank.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dozierhc at aol.com>
To: <Gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: [Gmecm] (no subject)


> Robin...If the Connector is mounted in a way that all wiring goes
DOWNWARDS from the connectors and that plastic cover, you should be OK.  I
just wanted to give advice in that I see installations all the time that
have a water path to the connector shells, which is always a bad idea.
> Same with mounting O2 sensors with the probe upwards in the exhaust!
>
> If you do feel the area you wi mount the ECM is prone to water spalsh,
thewn you might consider placing the ECM into a platic box (Tupperware?) of
appropriate size and then using the old "Racer's Tape - Silver duct tape to
make a final seal.
>
> BR,
>
> Hank
> *************************
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:20:31 +0100
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Message-ID: <0cc701c77cd3$100f72a0$020101c0 at gandalf>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>     reply-type=original
>
> Hello Clair,
>
> In the original position that I mounted it, the ECM sat on 'stilts' which
> are about 20cm high. This lifts it high off the sill into the wing, and it
> sits behind the inner wheel arch - so it is well protected from wheel
> splash. I have had no problems in the few years that it's been there - but
> I've never driven it through deep standing water. The car is very low to
the
> ground, and there is no room on the firewall, unfortunately.
>
> As part of my current sill work, I was planning on fitting a water shield
to
> the leading edge of the sill (covering the gap that the inner wheel arch
> leaves).
>
> As a rule, this is my dry weather car, but obviously it needs to be
prepared
> for unexpected bad weather.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 12 April 2007 04:18
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
>
>
> > The pair of '727's I have both came from Chevy Lumina's (I think, one's
an
> > eBay special), and IIRC they mount with wires up.  They're fairly
> > concealed
> > behind a bunch of plastic junk, but still more or less in the
environment
> > of
> > the engine compartment.  The ECM on my Dad's 94 Corvette is up high in
the
> > engine bay, generally below the windshield.  A lot more exposed than I
> > thought it would have been.  All that said, I don't see a lot of splash
> > shielding between the ECM and the ground on your application.  Is it
> > possible to fab a shield to protect it a bit more, and then use a combo
of
> > dielectric grease and maybe silicone spray lube to help the wires shed
> > water?
> >
> > Clair
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.3.0/758 - Release Date: 4/12/2007
11:52 AM
>
>



From dozierhc at aol.com  Fri Apr 13 12:24:23 2007
From: dozierhc at aol.com (dozierhc at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:24:23 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: Tupperware enclosure for water=protection
Message-ID: <8C94C07B6D1FB6A-1220-605B@webmail-md09.sysops.aol.com>

 
Frank...
 
I have used this on several occasions in my career in Automotive Controls Systems.
I have never found the Tupperware to be a serious issue in overheating the electronics.
 
If you do think you may have an issue, then my suggestion is to mount the ECM housing to an aluminum plate inside the Tupperware that you can RTV seal in its mounting to the body panel.
 
Hank
------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:40:27 -0700
From: Frank McCracken <frankmccracken at shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] (no subject)
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Message-ID: <005701c77d33$7cc5cb50$6601a8c0 at flamingo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

I have considered the "Tupper ware" housing in the past. What about heat
dissapation in that enclosed area? Is that an issue?
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


From frankmccracken at shaw.ca  Fri Apr 13 13:38:47 2007
From: frankmccracken at shaw.ca (Frank McCracken)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:38:47 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: Tupperware enclosure for water=protection
References: <8C94C07B6D1FB6A-1220-605B@webmail-md09.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c77dfa$f9161b20$6601a8c0@flamingo>

Thanks Hank, Good to know you've done it. My issue would not so much be the
damage of the container but more the performance of the ecm.
Frank.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dozierhc at aol.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: Tupperware enclosure for water=protection


>
> Frank...
>
> I have used this on several occasions in my career in Automotive Controls
Systems.
> I have never found the Tupperware to be a serious issue in overheating the
electronics.
>
> If you do think you may have an issue, then my suggestion is to mount the
ECM housing to an aluminum plate inside the Tupperware that you can RTV seal
in its mounting to the body panel.
>
> Hank
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:40:27 -0700
> From: Frank McCracken <frankmccracken at shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] (no subject)
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Message-ID: <005701c77d33$7cc5cb50$6601a8c0 at flamingo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> I have considered the "Tupper ware" housing in the past. What about heat
> dissapation in that enclosed area? Is that an issue?
> Frank.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/759 - Release Date: 4/12/2007
7:58 PM
>



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Apr 15 14:42:14 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:42:14 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
References: <8C94A76C65910D2-17B0-7CAD@FWM-M30.sysops.aol.com><0cb901c77c74$798e7be0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<005a01c77cb1$2dccca80$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <000b01c77f96$2c08e1b0$020101c0@gandalf>

Well, I completed my sill modifications, and mounted the '727 vertically. 
Light the blue touchpaper and 200 yards down the road the fan comes on. 
Cause: one side of the MEMCAL has fallen out so the ECM has gone into fail 
safe mode. This happened more than once. I guess the MEMCAL retaining clips 
just aren't up to my rock hard suspension and the poor road surfaces around 
here. Maybe they would have been, when new.

So, if I'm going to keep the ECM in its current position, I think I'll have 
to cable tie the MEMCAL in place somehow! Unless there's a better way...?

BR,

Robin 



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Apr 15 15:34:57 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:34:57 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
References: <8C94A76C65910D2-17B0-7CAD@FWM-M30.sysops.aol.com><0cb901c77c74$798e7be0$020101c0@gandalf><005a01c77cb1$2dccca80$03000004@davis>
	<000b01c77f96$2c08e1b0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <001101c77f9d$893a2270$020101c0@gandalf>

Having looked more closely, I spotted the cork block that's stuck to the 
underside of the MEMCAL trap door. I'm going to try and glue a bit of cork 
mat onto this, as the block isn't currently reaching the MEMCAL board...

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 15 April 2007 20:42
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting


> Well, I completed my sill modifications, and mounted the '727 vertically. 
> Light the blue touchpaper and 200 yards down the road the fan comes on. 
> Cause: one side of the MEMCAL has fallen out so the ECM has gone into fail 
> safe mode. This happened more than once. I guess the MEMCAL retaining 
> clips just aren't up to my rock hard suspension and the poor road surfaces 
> around here. Maybe they would have been, when new.
>
> So, if I'm going to keep the ECM in its current position, I think I'll 
> have to cable tie the MEMCAL in place somehow! Unless there's a better 
> way...?
>
> BR,
>
> 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 clair.davis at charter.net  Sun Apr 15 20:28:05 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:28:05 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
References: <8C94A76C65910D2-17B0-7CAD@FWM-M30.sysops.aol.com><0cb901c77c74$798e7be0$020101c0@gandalf><005a01c77cb1$2dccca80$03000004@davis><000b01c77f96$2c08e1b0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<001101c77f9d$893a2270$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <00b601c77fc6$7be4e8c0$03000004@davis>

Sounds like the obvious answer, and good to know about the firm suspension
effects.  My 7730 is mounted vertically, and my Valiant is set up for an
occasional autocross (parking lot racing around cones), as well as generally
"spirited" driving.  Roads here are average to poor, and some are made of
bricks.  Combined with 45-series tires, a bit of harshness occasionally
makes it in to the passenger compartment.  My ECM is mounted to the vent box
under the dash, which is somewhat insulated from the chassis by a foam ring
that seals the box to the cowl for fresh air.  I hope that helps, but so far
it hasn't been a problem while trying to tune/datalog over the last few
days.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting


> Having looked more closely, I spotted the cork block that's stuck to the
> underside of the MEMCAL trap door. I'm going to try and glue a bit of cork
> mat onto this, as the block isn't currently reaching the MEMCAL board...
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 15 April 2007 20:42
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] RE: '727 mounting
>
>
> > Well, I completed my sill modifications, and mounted the '727
vertically.
> > Light the blue touchpaper and 200 yards down the road the fan comes on.
> > Cause: one side of the MEMCAL has fallen out so the ECM has gone into
fail
> > safe mode. This happened more than once. I guess the MEMCAL retaining
> > clips just aren't up to my rock hard suspension and the poor road
surfaces
> > around here. Maybe they would have been, when new.
> >
> > So, if I'm going to keep the ECM in its current position, I think I'll
> > have to cable tie the MEMCAL in place somehow! Unless there's a better
> > way...?
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tzicatl at gmail.com  Mon Apr 16 09:59:27 2007
From: tzicatl at gmail.com (Noe Nieto)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:59:27 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Geo Storm ECU
Message-ID: <a6165f2a0704160759q7dbcd6co957cec05f6a801fe@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys.

I am very curious If you know something about this kind of ECUs?

Do you know if someone has done something with this ECU?

Thanks for any info you might share!!


From clair.davis at charter.net  Mon Apr 16 22:38:20 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:38:20 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
Message-ID: <003f01c780a1$d8647260$03000004@davis>

So, the calibration I got stinks.  Actually, if I had a stone-stock
AL-headed 5.7L Vette engine in my Plymouth instead of an iron-headed 5.6L
with an aftermarket cam, intake, and headers, it might be perfect, but as my
sis-in-law is prone to say, "it is what it is".

Note*: I'm tuning/emulating with TunerProRT, and monitoring with a wideband
O2.

On my first long test drive Saturday, I found the car to be fairly drivable
at steady state most anywhere from 50-80mph (2500-3500rpm), and the ECM
appears to be able to correct to 14.7:1 pretty well.  With that said, BLM's
are under 100, and virtually any attempt to accelerate slowly or quickly is
met with bucking, snorting, backfiring, etc.  Enough so that the laptop shut
down towards the end of my 20-minute drive and I lost my dang datalog.  In a
fit of frustration, I did find that my WOT A/F ratios were in the mid-high
12's, so at least THAT'S safe from a melt-down standpoint.  The tires made
no attempt at hooking up, so it wasn't safe from a traffic standpoint,
however.

With the rant over now, I've got a couple general tuning strategy questions.

Note**: I've blended parts of the VE table with the known BLM points I was
able to scratch down on my tablet while driving, and I radically reduced the
ignition timing across the board to approx 24* max (plus 6* initial for 30*)
and keeping approx. 25* total at idle.  I haven't driven this combo yet.

1) is there a substantial benefit from tuning with INT/BLM if using a WB02?
My gut feeling is yes, from a safety standpoint, but my calibration seems to
be horribly rich except where I've tweaked the idle spark/VE range, and it
would be useful to see HOW rich it was without the back-calculate operation.

2) Is there a benefit/penalty to using an auto trans calibration with a
stick shift car?

3) Is there a benefit to using a different base cal, such as ANHT vs. AUJP
or whatever, as long as they're for essentially the same family of engines?

Thanks in advance as usual, and I really am glad to be able to drive this
old girl again, as frustrating as it is at the moment.

Clair
69 Plymouth Valiant, 340+730
Fort Worth, TX




From ne14roxcj at gmail.com  Tue Apr 17 00:52:58 2007
From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:52:58 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems
In-Reply-To: <003f01c780a1$d8647260$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <462460d0.36911dc2.5878.ffff9576@mx.google.com>

Sorry for the OT post, but I know you guys have seen more of these 3.8l v6's
than I have. A friend called me today with a 1998 Olds EightyEight in his
shop. He rebuilt the engine after the lifters started ticking bad. Found
some torn-up cam bearings and such. I assume the engine build was done right
since the guy owns a machine shop. Engine ran great for a few miles then
developed another ticking lifter. Then another. So now, it's back in the
shop. He determined that he has a restriction somewhere in the oil passages,
but wants to narrow down where to look before he gets back into the engine.
He called me asking if I had seen an oiling diagram for the engine or knew
where to locate one. I knew that some of you guys had some experience with
these engines. Is there a common problem with these things, or has anyone
seen an oiling diagram? I appreciate any help.

Beau Blankenship

Feel free to e-mail me off-list about this one.



From mwilson at bwarch.com  Tue Apr 17 11:29:23 2007
From: mwilson at bwarch.com (Mike Wilson)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:29:23 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
In-Reply-To: <003f01c780a1$d8647260$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <000301c7810d$8eecf3c0$1500010a@bwarch.com>

Clair, with a manual transmission & iron heads the best way for you to get
started is to use the 1992 5.0 liter 5-speed Camaro bin AXXC and copy the
VE, PE, AE & cold start up info from the 350 auto AUJP bin into the 305 bin
plus change the cylinder volume & injector flow rate and disable VATS.

You may want to pull more timing out because of your data logging on your
specific engine but this should get you a lot closer to a drivable engine to
start with. With a good manual transmission iron head base program you can
then tune for your cam and headers and modify the rest of the program to fit
your application.

I did this when I put a T-56 into my 91 5.7 TPI Z/28 and it worked very well
but my engine was otherwise stock so I only had to deal with the manual
transmission issue.

Hope this helps,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Clair Davis
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:38 PM
To: For discussion of GM EFI hardware and software
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...

... 3) Is there a benefit to using a different base cal, such as ANHT vs.
AUJP or whatever, as long as they're for essentially the same family of
engines?

Thanks in advance as usual, and I really am glad to be able to drive this
old girl again, as frustrating as it is at the moment.

Clair
69 Plymouth Valiant, 340+730
Fort Worth, TX




From lwester at lincsat.com  Tue Apr 17 12:34:41 2007
From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:34:41 -0600
Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems
References: <462460d0.36911dc2.5878.ffff9576@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <002401c78116$b38d6440$0200a8c0@WESTER2>

I'd say it's not a restriction...possibly a missing plug from the end of a 
gallery...what's the oil pressure like ?

Lyndon.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Beau Blankenship" <ne14roxcj at gmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 11:52 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems


> Sorry for the OT post, but I know you guys have seen more of these 3.8l 
> v6's
> than I have. A friend called me today with a 1998 Olds EightyEight in his
> shop. He rebuilt the engine after the lifters started ticking bad. Found
> some torn-up cam bearings and such. I assume the engine build was done 
> right
> since the guy owns a machine shop. Engine ran great for a few miles then
> developed another ticking lifter. Then another. So now, it's back in the
> shop. He determined that he has a restriction somewhere in the oil 
> passages,
> but wants to narrow down where to look before he gets back into the 
> engine.
> He called me asking if I had seen an oiling diagram for the engine or knew
> where to locate one. I knew that some of you guys had some experience with
> these engines. Is there a common problem with these things, or has anyone
> seen an oiling diagram? I appreciate any help.
>
> Beau Blankenship
>
> Feel free to e-mail me off-list about this one.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm 



From dennysweet at charter.net  Tue Apr 17 18:33:11 2007
From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:33:11 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems
References: <462460d0.36911dc2.5878.ffff9576@mx.google.com>
	<002401c78116$b38d6440$0200a8c0@WESTER2>
Message-ID: <002d01c78148$c3932fa0$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj>

I would say that when they replaced the cam bearings they didnt align the 
oil holes! 



From clair.davis at charter.net  Tue Apr 17 21:28:11 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:28:11 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000301c7810d$8eecf3c0$1500010a@bwarch.com>
Message-ID: <00b001c78161$3625b480$03000004@davis>

Thanks for that suggestion, Mike, that's an interesting looking bin.  The VE
curves have a very similar character to what mine could/should be on the WOT
end, but it still floors me that VE can be so high in the idle range - over
60 at 800rpm!  My lean-best-idle appeared to be in the low-mid 40's, but
that may make sense with my low 8.5:1 CR.

I'm tempted to just tweak the injector & cylinder specs, tone down the spark
advance table, and give it a spin.  If I'm thinking about this right, having
the VE's too high just means I'll tend rich with the INT/BLM's again.  If it
runs like crap, at least I have some confidence that it hasn't been monkeyed
with too much before I got it.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Clair, with a manual transmission & iron heads the best way for you to get
> started is to use the 1992 5.0 liter 5-speed Camaro bin AXXC and copy the
> VE, PE, AE & cold start up info from the 350 auto AUJP bin into the 305
bin
> plus change the cylinder volume & injector flow rate and disable VATS.
>
> You may want to pull more timing out because of your data logging on your
> specific engine but this should get you a lot closer to a drivable engine
to
> start with. With a good manual transmission iron head base program you can
> then tune for your cam and headers and modify the rest of the program to
fit
> your application.
>
> I did this when I put a T-56 into my 91 5.7 TPI Z/28 and it worked very
well
> but my engine was otherwise stock so I only had to deal with the manual
> transmission issue.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
Behalf
> Of Clair Davis
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:38 PM
> To: For discussion of GM EFI hardware and software
> Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
> ... 3) Is there a benefit to using a different base cal, such as ANHT vs.
> AUJP or whatever, as long as they're for essentially the same family of
> engines?
>
> Thanks in advance as usual, and I really am glad to be able to drive this
> old girl again, as frustrating as it is at the moment.
>
> Clair
> 69 Plymouth Valiant, 340+730
> Fort Worth, TX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mwilson at bwarch.com  Wed Apr 18 10:26:55 2007
From: mwilson at bwarch.com (Mike Wilson)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:26:55 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
In-Reply-To: <00b001c78161$3625b480$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com>

Clair, it sounds like you are on the right track with what you are thinking.
A fairly stock program for a TPI F-body is probably a good starting point
for a lot of older muscle cars to use as a base program. The Vette programs
are too aggressive and fine tuned for their application to make them easy to
retrofit into another application.

The TPI intakes have a lot to do with the high VE numbers. The velocity they
generate gives amazing amounts of low end torque. They run out of steam
really fast but low end is fantastic. This is great for a street car but not
for racing. Most TPI powered cars end up highly modified if the owner gets
into drag racing, like mine. I eventually ended up running a Victor Jr.
intake that I converted to fuel injection. My big valve 409 inch small block
was just too much even for the best of the aftermarket TPI intake parts that
I tried.

Good luck with the tuning,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Clair Davis
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:28 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...

Thanks for that suggestion, Mike, that's an interesting looking bin.  The VE
curves have a very similar character to what mine could/should be on the WOT
end, but it still floors me that VE can be so high in the idle range - over
60 at 800rpm!  My lean-best-idle appeared to be in the low-mid 40's, but
that may make sense with my low 8.5:1 CR.

I'm tempted to just tweak the injector & cylinder specs, tone down the spark
advance table, and give it a spin.  If I'm thinking about this right, having
the VE's too high just means I'll tend rich with the INT/BLM's again.  If it
runs like crap, at least I have some confidence that it hasn't been monkeyed
with too much before I got it.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Clair, with a manual transmission & iron heads the best way for you to get
> started is to use the 1992 5.0 liter 5-speed Camaro bin AXXC and copy the
> VE, PE, AE & cold start up info from the 350 auto AUJP bin into the 305
bin
> plus change the cylinder volume & injector flow rate and disable VATS.
>
> You may want to pull more timing out because of your data logging on your
> specific engine but this should get you a lot closer to a drivable engine
to
> start with. With a good manual transmission iron head base program you can
> then tune for your cam and headers and modify the rest of the program to
fit
> your application.
>
> I did this when I put a T-56 into my 91 5.7 TPI Z/28 and it worked very
well
> but my engine was otherwise stock so I only had to deal with the manual
> transmission issue.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
Behalf
> Of Clair Davis
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:38 PM
> To: For discussion of GM EFI hardware and software
> Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
> ... 3) Is there a benefit to using a different base cal, such as ANHT vs.
> AUJP or whatever, as long as they're for essentially the same family of
> engines?
>
> Thanks in advance as usual, and I really am glad to be able to drive this
> old girl again, as frustrating as it is at the moment.
>
> Clair
> 69 Plymouth Valiant, 340+730
> Fort Worth, TX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 BNRVL at aol.com  Wed Apr 18 12:59:31 2007
From: BNRVL at aol.com (BNRVL at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:59:31 EDT
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
Message-ID: <c79.10e9cdfd.3357b683@aol.com>



  Hello Mike , my Son-in Law has a 69 drag car for sale . Do you know of 
anyone interested ?

  Thank You

 Bob Norville


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


From clair.davis at charter.net  Wed Apr 18 20:24:54 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:24:54 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com>
Message-ID: <001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis>

I've got some more comparing to do tonight.  I uploaded the lightly-tweaked
AXXC when I got home from work, and it almost instantly turned on the
CEL/SES/whachamacallit light, so I couldn't get an idea of how it would even
idle.  Swapping in the untouched AXXC did the same thing, but it cleaned
right up when I reloaded the bin I was driving with last weekend.  I
couldn't even get the ALDL to synch up until the last bin was loaded.

Once I get a bit more sorted out, I'll need to pick your brain on the finer
points of tuning with a large volume short runner intake.  That's
essentially what I have on my 340, one of the Mopar Performance M1 series.
I've also got a large direct-linkage 4V throttle body that I'm going to have
to work with, too.  PE and SA ought to clean those up, though.  And good
point on the TPI intake, I forget how well it worked.  The early Chrysler
long-ram and short-ram engines would generate over 100% VE even back in the
day, but I don't think they were as much of a treat off idle.  I'll keep
that in mind.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Clair, it sounds like you are on the right track with what you are
thinking.
> A fairly stock program for a TPI F-body is probably a good starting point
> for a lot of older muscle cars to use as a base program. The Vette
programs
> are too aggressive and fine tuned for their application to make them easy
to
> retrofit into another application.
>
> The TPI intakes have a lot to do with the high VE numbers. The velocity
they
> generate gives amazing amounts of low end torque. They run out of steam
> really fast but low end is fantastic. This is great for a street car but
not
> for racing. Most TPI powered cars end up highly modified if the owner gets
> into drag racing, like mine. I eventually ended up running a Victor Jr.
> intake that I converted to fuel injection. My big valve 409 inch small
block
> was just too much even for the best of the aftermarket TPI intake parts
that
> I tried.
>
> Good luck with the tuning,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
Behalf
> Of Clair Davis
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:28 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
> Thanks for that suggestion, Mike, that's an interesting looking bin.  The
VE
> curves have a very similar character to what mine could/should be on the
WOT
> end, but it still floors me that VE can be so high in the idle range -
over
> 60 at 800rpm!  My lean-best-idle appeared to be in the low-mid 40's, but
> that may make sense with my low 8.5:1 CR.
>
> I'm tempted to just tweak the injector & cylinder specs, tone down the
spark
> advance table, and give it a spin.  If I'm thinking about this right,
having
> the VE's too high just means I'll tend rich with the INT/BLM's again.  If
it
> runs like crap, at least I have some confidence that it hasn't been
monkeyed
> with too much before I got it.
>
> Clair
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
> > Clair, with a manual transmission & iron heads the best way for you to
get
> > started is to use the 1992 5.0 liter 5-speed Camaro bin AXXC and copy
the
> > VE, PE, AE & cold start up info from the 350 auto AUJP bin into the 305
> bin
> > plus change the cylinder volume & injector flow rate and disable VATS.
> >
> > You may want to pull more timing out because of your data logging on
your
> > specific engine but this should get you a lot closer to a drivable
engine
> to
> > start with. With a good manual transmission iron head base program you
can
> > then tune for your cam and headers and modify the rest of the program to
> fit
> > your application.
> >
> > I did this when I put a T-56 into my 91 5.7 TPI Z/28 and it worked very
> well
> > but my engine was otherwise stock so I only had to deal with the manual
> > transmission issue.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of Clair Davis
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:38 PM
> > To: For discussion of GM EFI hardware and software
> > Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
> >
> > ... 3) Is there a benefit to using a different base cal, such as ANHT
vs.
> > AUJP or whatever, as long as they're for essentially the same family of
> > engines?
> >
> > Thanks in advance as usual, and I really am glad to be able to drive
this
> > old girl again, as frustrating as it is at the moment.
> >
> > Clair
> > 69 Plymouth Valiant, 340+730
> > Fort Worth, TX
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 ne14roxcj at gmail.com  Thu Apr 19 00:17:37 2007
From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:17:37 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems
In-Reply-To: <002401c78116$b38d6440$0200a8c0@WESTER2>
Message-ID: <4626fb89.1b33b7bf.35c2.ffffd61f@mx.google.com>

Oil pressure is high. He said 60-75psi. The odd thing is that the car came
in with this problem and, after a complete rebuild, the new engine is
developing a ticking lifter problem. Surely bearing failure is imminent.

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Programmer
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:35 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems

I'd say it's not a restriction...possibly a missing plug from the end of a 
gallery...what's the oil pressure like ?

Lyndon.




From ne14roxcj at gmail.com  Thu Apr 19 00:26:32 2007
From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:26:32 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems
In-Reply-To: <002d01c78148$c3932fa0$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj>
Message-ID: <4626fd9f.44cbc799.31cd.ffffddb3@mx.google.com>

Possibly, but every time I've built my engines at his shop, he would never
let me forget that point. A little background, this friend used to run a
full engine rebuild/machine shop with ~8 employees rebuilding anything
automotive, marine, and others. He decided to get a real job with benefits,
but kept the fully equipped shop and does engines when he wants to or gets
time to. Pretty much a handful (or 3)of us use him when we build an engine.
I guess he still sees some things new to him or specific to a particular
engine.

Thanks for the reply
Beau

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Denny
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:33 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems

I would say that when they replaced the cam bearings they didnt align the 
oil holes! 

_______________________________________________
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  Thu Apr 19 01:45:38 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:45:38 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com>
	<001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <01eb01c7824e$5845d520$020101c0@gandalf>

> right up when I reloaded the bin I was driving with last weekend.  I
> couldn't even get the ALDL to synch up until the last bin was loaded.

I'm surprised by this. Aren't the two .BINs you're using both $8D? If so, 
AIUI, the only difference should be the lookup values, so why would the ALDL 
be affected?

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 19 April 2007 02:24
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...




From dennysweet at charter.net  Thu Apr 19 07:18:31 2007
From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:18:31 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems
References: <4626fb89.1b33b7bf.35c2.ffffd61f@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <003f01c7827c$d813f290$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj>

I to own a machine shop and I would have to say that in the machining 
process at the factory that maybe a drill broke when drilling the oil lines 
in the block. or maybe not quite deep enough which is causing a restriction. 
Gotta be something simple and easy to overlook. 



From jg_lawson at optusnet.com.au  Thu Apr 19 06:33:10 2007
From: jg_lawson at optusnet.com.au (John Lawson)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:33:10 +1000
Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems
References: <462460d0.36911dc2.5878.ffff9576@mx.google.com>
	<002401c78116$b38d6440$0200a8c0@WESTER2>
Message-ID: <004301c78276$83795ff0$413c1ed3@D3BJ7N1S>

A friend of mine who has rebuilt lots of the Holden Commodore versions of 
these says they can turn both the camshaft bearings and the balance shaft 
bearings.  Best to glue them in with one of the metal "weld" products.

HTH,

John

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Programmer" <lwester at lincsat.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems


> I'd say it's not a restriction...possibly a missing plug from the end of a 
> gallery...what's the oil pressure like ?
>
> Lyndon.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Beau Blankenship" <ne14roxcj at gmail.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 11:52 PM
> Subject: [Gmecm] OT: Buick 3800 oiling problems
>
>
>> Sorry for the OT post, but I know you guys have seen more of these 3.8l 
>> v6's
>> than I have. A friend called me today with a 1998 Olds EightyEight in his
>> shop. He rebuilt the engine after the lifters started ticking bad. Found
>> some torn-up cam bearings and such. I assume the engine build was done 
>> right
>> since the guy owns a machine shop. Engine ran great for a few miles then
>> developed another ticking lifter. Then another. So now, it's back in the
>> shop. He determined that he has a restriction somewhere in the oil 
>> passages,
>> but wants to narrow down where to look before he gets back into the 
>> engine.
>> He called me asking if I had seen an oiling diagram for the engine or 
>> knew
>> where to locate one. I knew that some of you guys had some experience 
>> with
>> these engines. Is there a common problem with these things, or has anyone
>> seen an oiling diagram? I appreciate any help.
>>
>> Beau Blankenship
>>
>> Feel free to e-mail me off-list about this one.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 clair.davis at charter.net  Thu Apr 19 06:57:54 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:57:54 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis>
	<01eb01c7824e$5845d520$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <003201c78279$f6eb06c0$03000004@davis>

Yes, they are both $8D, and I was surprised, too.  With the emulator (Moates
APU-1) in place, it's not a problem of a chip not burning right, and the
bin's can be swapped around easily.  I think I need to do a bit more
research on other 5-speed calibrations and see which ones will load up and
idle without a hitch.  The only error code I could retrieve was "12", so
that's not very revealing, either.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> > right up when I reloaded the bin I was driving with last weekend.  I
> > couldn't even get the ALDL to synch up until the last bin was loaded.
>
> I'm surprised by this. Aren't the two .BINs you're using both $8D? If so,
> AIUI, the only difference should be the lookup values, so why would the
ALDL
> be affected?
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 19 April 2007 02:24
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 dozierhc at aol.com  Thu Apr 19 13:18:34 2007
From: dozierhc at aol.com (dozierhc at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:18:34 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
Message-ID: <8C950C646A2A946-1624-AB11@webmail-da18.sysops.aol.com>

Claire...
 
Are you checksumming the EPROMs or at least disabling the checksum algorithm by placing an "AA" at the Program ID location ($8008?)  This could certainly cause this type of action.
 
I would burn an EPROM with the $8D set to "$AA" at location, or checksum what you have again and manually update the locations $8006-7 with the resultant checksum and try that.
 
Hank
------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:57:54 -0500
From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Message-ID: <003201c78279$f6eb06c0$03000004 at davis>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"

Yes, they are both $8D, and I was surprised, too.  With the emulator (Moates
APU-1) in place, it's not a problem of a chip not burning right, and the
bin's can be swapped around easily.  I think I need to do a bit more
research on other 5-speed calibrations and see which ones will load up and
idle without a hitch.  The only error code I could retrieve was "12", so
that's not very revealing, either.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> > right up when I reloaded the bin I was driving with last weekend.  I
> > couldn't even get the ALDL to synch up until the last bin was loaded.
>
> I'm surprised by this. Aren't the two .BINs you're using both $8D? If so,
> AIUI, the only difference should be the lookup values, so why would the
ALDL
> be affected?
>
> Robin
>
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Thu Apr 19 13:57:45 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:57:45 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis><01eb01c7824e$5845d520$020101c0@gandalf>
	<003201c78279$f6eb06c0$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <022601c782b4$9f3e4190$020101c0@gandalf>

It would be interesting to compare the two bins, byte for byte. I have 
written a proggie to do this and would be happy to use it to find out where 
the differences are, if you could e-mail me the bins...

HTH

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 19 April 2007 12:57
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Yes, they are both $8D, and I was surprised, too.  With the emulator 
> (Moates
> APU-1) in place, it's not a problem of a chip not burning right, and the
> bin's can be swapped around easily.  I think I need to do a bit more
> research on other 5-speed calibrations and see which ones will load up and
> idle without a hitch.  The only error code I could retrieve was "12", so
> that's not very revealing, either.
>
> Clair
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
>> > right up when I reloaded the bin I was driving with last weekend.  I
>> > couldn't even get the ALDL to synch up until the last bin was loaded.
>>
>> I'm surprised by this. Aren't the two .BINs you're using both $8D? If so,
>> AIUI, the only difference should be the lookup values, so why would the
> ALDL
>> be affected?



From clair.davis at charter.net  Thu Apr 19 21:09:50 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:09:50 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <8C950C646A2A946-1624-AB11@webmail-da18.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <000801c782f0$fabcfd40$03000004@davis>

Hank,
I have already put "AA" in the chip code mask line to disable the checksum.
Tunerpro has a provision in the software to do that automatically when
uploading the .bin to the emulator, but I did it manually so I'd remember.
Before I figured out the issue with the checksum, I couldn't get it to start
at all, and it hasn't been a problem since.  The checksum value itself is
not the same among the .bin's I'm looking at, but I ASSume that's normal?

Robin, I'll send you the AXXC I have and the last attempt I made at cleaning
up the bin I started with off list.  TP has a compare function that's pretty
nice, but you have to go item by item rather than one fell swoop.  I'd
appreciate any effort you can make.


Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dozierhc at aol.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Claire...
>
> Are you checksumming the EPROMs or at least disabling the checksum
algorithm by placing an "AA" at the Program ID location ($8008?)  This could
certainly cause this type of action.
>
> I would burn an EPROM with the $8D set to "$AA" at location, or checksum
what you have again and manually update the locations $8006-7 with the
resultant checksum and try that.
>
> Hank
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:57:54 -0500
> From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Message-ID: <003201c78279$f6eb06c0$03000004 at davis>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Yes, they are both $8D, and I was surprised, too.  With the emulator
(Moates
> APU-1) in place, it's not a problem of a chip not burning right, and the
> bin's can be swapped around easily.  I think I need to do a bit more
> research on other 5-speed calibrations and see which ones will load up and
> idle without a hitch.  The only error code I could retrieve was "12", so
> that's not very revealing, either.
>
> Clair
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
> > > right up when I reloaded the bin I was driving with last weekend.  I
> > > couldn't even get the ALDL to synch up until the last bin was loaded.
> >
> > I'm surprised by this. Aren't the two .BINs you're using both $8D? If
so,
> > AIUI, the only difference should be the lookup values, so why would the
> ALDL
> > be affected?
> >
> > Robin
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.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 clair.davis at charter.net  Thu Apr 19 22:32:35 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:32:35 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis><01eb01c7824e$5845d520$020101c0@gandalf><003201c78279$f6eb06c0$03000004@davis>
	<022601c782b4$9f3e4190$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <006b01c782fc$899bb140$03000004@davis>

Robin,
The message I sent you bounced.  If you can contact me off-list, I'll try
again.

Sorry for the distraction, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> It would be interesting to compare the two bins, byte for byte. I have
> written a proggie to do this and would be happy to use it to find out
where
> the differences are, if you could e-mail me the bins...
>
> HTH
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 19 April 2007 12:57
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
> > Yes, they are both $8D, and I was surprised, too.  With the emulator
> > (Moates
> > APU-1) in place, it's not a problem of a chip not burning right, and the
> > bin's can be swapped around easily.  I think I need to do a bit more
> > research on other 5-speed calibrations and see which ones will load up
and
> > idle without a hitch.  The only error code I could retrieve was "12", so
> > that's not very revealing, either.
> >
> > Clair
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
> >
> >
> >> > right up when I reloaded the bin I was driving with last weekend.  I
> >> > couldn't even get the ALDL to synch up until the last bin was loaded.
> >>
> >> I'm surprised by this. Aren't the two .BINs you're using both $8D? If
so,
> >> AIUI, the only difference should be the lookup values, so why would the
> > ALDL
> >> be affected?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Fri Apr 20 01:36:53 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:36:53 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...[OT]
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis><01eb01c7824e$5845d520$020101c0@gandalf><003201c78279$f6eb06c0$03000004@davis><022601c782b4$9f3e4190$020101c0@gandalf>
	<006b01c782fc$899bb140$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <028f01c78316$49b58320$020101c0@gandalf>

Replied off-list.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 20 April 2007 04:32
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Robin,
> The message I sent you bounced.  If you can contact me off-list, I'll try
> again.
> 
> Sorry for the distraction, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.
> 
> Clair



From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Fri Apr 20 06:02:08 2007
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:02:08 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
In-Reply-To: <001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis>
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com>
	<001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <8C951527916404A-CD4-FAE4@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com>

AXXC is a decent calibration to start with.  Did you load it into the emulator or into a chip?  Is the checksum calculation disabled in the calibration which works (mask ID set to $AA)?
 
Large plenum intakes tend to like more pump shot.  Sometimes surprisingly more.  Other than that it's the same old game of finding the correct VE and timing by trial and error.
 
Zaphod
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: clair.davis at charter.net
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


I've got some more comparing to do tonight.  I uploaded the lightly-tweaked
AXXC when I got home from work, and it almost instantly turned on the
CEL/SES/whachamacallit light, so I couldn't get an idea of how it would even
idle.  Swapping in the untouched AXXC did the same thing, but it cleaned
right up when I reloaded the bin I was driving with last weekend.  I
couldn't even get the ALDL to synch up until the last bin was loaded.

Once I get a bit more sorted out, I'll need to pick your brain on the finer
points of tuning with a large volume short runner intake.  That's
essentially what I have on my 340, one of the Mopar Performance M1 series.
I've also got a large direct-linkage 4V throttle body that I'm going to have
to work with, too.  PE and SA ought to clean those up, though.  And good
point on the TPI intake, I forget how well it worked.  The early Chrysler
long-ram and short-ram engines would generate over 100% VE even back in the
day, but I don't think they were as much of a treat off idle.  I'll keep
that in mind.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Clair, it sounds like you are on the right track with what you are
thinking.
> A fairly stock program for a TPI F-body is probably a good starting point
> for a lot of older muscle cars to use as a base program. The Vette
programs
> are too aggressive and fine tuned for their application to make them easy
to
> retrofit into another application.
>
> The TPI intakes have a lot to do with the high VE numbers. The velocity
they
> generate gives amazing amounts of low end torque. They run out of steam
> really fast but low end is fantastic. This is great for a street car but
not
> for racing. Most TPI powered cars end up highly modified if the owner gets
> into drag racing, like mine. I eventually ended up running a Victor Jr.
> intake that I converted to fuel injection. My big valve 409 inch small
block
> was just too much even for the best of the aftermarket TPI intake parts
that
> I tried.
>
> Good luck with the tuning,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
Behalf
> Of Clair Davis
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:28 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
> Thanks for that suggestion, Mike, that's an interesting looking bin.  The
VE
> curves have a very similar character to what mine could/should be on the
WOT
> end, but it still floors me that VE can be so high in the idle range -
over
> 60 at 800rpm!  My lean-best-idle appeared to be in the low-mid 40's, but
> that may make sense with my low 8.5:1 CR.
>
> I'm tempted to just tweak the injector & cylinder specs, tone down the
spark
> advance table, and give it a spin.  If I'm thinking about this right,
having
> the VE's too high just means I'll tend rich with the INT/BLM's again.  If
it
> runs like crap, at least I have some confidence that it hasn't been
monkeyed
> with too much before I got it.
>
> Clair
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
> > Clair, with a manual transmission & iron heads the best way for you to
get
> > started is to use the 1992 5.0 liter 5-speed Camaro bin AXXC and copy
the
> > VE, PE, AE & cold start up info from the 350 auto AUJP bin into the 305
> bin
> > plus change the cylinder volume & injector flow rate and disable VATS.
> >
> > You may want to pull more timing out because of your data logging on
your
> > specific engine but this should get you a lot closer to a drivable
engine
> to
> > start with. With a good manual transmission iron head base program you
can
> > then tune for your cam and headers and modify the rest of the program to
> fit
> > your application.
> >
> > I did this when I put a T-56 into my 91 5.7 TPI Z/28 and it worked very
> well
> > but my engine was otherwise stock so I only had to deal with the manual
> > transmission issue.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of Clair Davis
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:38 PM
> > To: For discussion of GM EFI hardware and software
> > Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
> >
> > ... 3) Is there a benefit to using a different base cal, such as ANHT
vs.
> > AUJP or whatever, as long as they're for essentially the same family of
> > engines?
> >
> > Thanks in advance as usual, and I really am glad to be able to drive
this
> > old girl again, as frustrating as it is at the moment.
> >
> > Clair
> > 69 Plymouth Valiant, 340+730
> > Fort Worth, TX
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gmecm mailing list
> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>


_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.


From clair.davis at charter.net  Fri Apr 20 07:05:11 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:05:11 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis>
	<8C951527916404A-CD4-FAE4@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <004c01c78344$26062460$03000004@davis>

I'm pulling .bin's from the laptop to the emulator, where they're stored in
NVRAM, as I understand it.  Mask ID is set to AA (or $AA I suppose, as the
software strips out the "$" on the input side).  It won't emulate at all
without this step, as I found out on my first attempt.

I agree on the probable need for a large pump shot.  I would like to bump
that up substantially, but I haven't sorted out which of the PE functions
does that most directly, and I also haven't got a handle on exactly where
the delta TPS functions are stored.  I can see the TPS changing with
throttle input, so I know that's working, but I'd like to see what the ECM
sees for dTPS/time, just so I know.  The learning curve is steep.  I know I
can change the pump cam, lever arm and shooter size on this thing, I just
don't know where to bolt them on yet...

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <davesnothereman at netscape.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> AXXC is a decent calibration to start with.  Did you load it into the
emulator or into a chip?  Is the checksum calculation disabled in the
calibration which works (mask ID set to $AA)?
>
> Large plenum intakes tend to like more pump shot.  Sometimes surprisingly
more.  Other than that it's the same old game of finding the correct VE and
timing by trial and error.
>
> Zaphod
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: clair.davis at charter.net
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Sent: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 9:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
> I've got some more comparing to do tonight.  I uploaded the
lightly-tweaked
> AXXC when I got home from work, and it almost instantly turned on the
> CEL/SES/whachamacallit light, so I couldn't get an idea of how it would
even
> idle.  Swapping in the untouched AXXC did the same thing, but it cleaned
> right up when I reloaded the bin I was driving with last weekend.  I
> couldn't even get the ALDL to synch up until the last bin was loaded.
>
> Once I get a bit more sorted out, I'll need to pick your brain on the
finer
> points of tuning with a large volume short runner intake.  That's
> essentially what I have on my 340, one of the Mopar Performance M1 series.
> I've also got a large direct-linkage 4V throttle body that I'm going to
have
> to work with, too.  PE and SA ought to clean those up, though.  And good
> point on the TPI intake, I forget how well it worked.  The early Chrysler
> long-ram and short-ram engines would generate over 100% VE even back in
the
> day, but I don't think they were as much of a treat off idle.  I'll keep
> that in mind.
>
> Clair
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:26 AM
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
> > Clair, it sounds like you are on the right track with what you are
> thinking.
> > A fairly stock program for a TPI F-body is probably a good starting
point
> > for a lot of older muscle cars to use as a base program. The Vette
> programs
> > are too aggressive and fine tuned for their application to make them
easy
> to
> > retrofit into another application.
> >
> > The TPI intakes have a lot to do with the high VE numbers. The velocity
> they
> > generate gives amazing amounts of low end torque. They run out of steam
> > really fast but low end is fantastic. This is great for a street car but
> not
> > for racing. Most TPI powered cars end up highly modified if the owner
gets
> > into drag racing, like mine. I eventually ended up running a Victor Jr.
> > intake that I converted to fuel injection. My big valve 409 inch small
> block
> > was just too much even for the best of the aftermarket TPI intake parts
> that
> > I tried.
> >
> > Good luck with the tuning,
> > Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of Clair Davis
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:28 PM
> > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
> >
> > Thanks for that suggestion, Mike, that's an interesting looking bin.
The
> VE
> > curves have a very similar character to what mine could/should be on the
> WOT
> > end, but it still floors me that VE can be so high in the idle range -
> over
> > 60 at 800rpm!  My lean-best-idle appeared to be in the low-mid 40's, but
> > that may make sense with my low 8.5:1 CR.
> >
> > I'm tempted to just tweak the injector & cylinder specs, tone down the
> spark
> > advance table, and give it a spin.  If I'm thinking about this right,
> having
> > the VE's too high just means I'll tend rich with the INT/BLM's again.
If
> it
> > runs like crap, at least I have some confidence that it hasn't been
> monkeyed
> > with too much before I got it.
> >
> > Clair
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:29 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
> >
> >
> > > Clair, with a manual transmission & iron heads the best way for you to
> get
> > > started is to use the 1992 5.0 liter 5-speed Camaro bin AXXC and copy
> the
> > > VE, PE, AE & cold start up info from the 350 auto AUJP bin into the
305
> > bin
> > > plus change the cylinder volume & injector flow rate and disable VATS.
> > >
> > > You may want to pull more timing out because of your data logging on
> your
> > > specific engine but this should get you a lot closer to a drivable
> engine
> > to
> > > start with. With a good manual transmission iron head base program you
> can
> > > then tune for your cam and headers and modify the rest of the program
to
> > fit
> > > your application.
> > >
> > > I did this when I put a T-56 into my 91 5.7 TPI Z/28 and it worked
very
> > well
> > > but my engine was otherwise stock so I only had to deal with the
manual
> > > transmission issue.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On
> > Behalf
> > > Of Clair Davis
> > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:38 PM
> > > To: For discussion of GM EFI hardware and software
> > > Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
> > >
> > > ... 3) Is there a benefit to using a different base cal, such as ANHT
> vs.
> > > AUJP or whatever, as long as they're for essentially the same family
of
> > > engines?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance as usual, and I really am glad to be able to drive
> this
> > > old girl again, as frustrating as it is at the moment.
> > >
> > > Clair
> > > 69 Plymouth Valiant, 340+730
> > > Fort Worth, TX
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gmecm mailing list
> > > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> > > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gmecm mailing list
> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gmecm mailing list
> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Fri Apr 20 14:45:22 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:45:22 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis><8C951527916404A-CD4-FAE4@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com>
	<004c01c78344$26062460$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <032a01c78384$714334a0$020101c0@gandalf>

Interesting.

Clair sent me 3 .bins, which I have each compared byte-for-byte with ANHT.

The .bin that calls itself AXXC differs massively from ANHT ($8D), right 
through (including code). This indicates to me that the .bin calling itself 
AXXC isn't $8D. Is this a fair conclusion, or are there different code 
versions of $8D?

The other bins only differed from ANHT in the calibration area, but both had 
the top (warm start?) vector set to $0000, whereas ANHT has it (correctly, 
IMO) set to $B000. Should these two bins run at all?

Certainly, since all their code is the same as ANHT, AIUI their ALDL should 
behave exactly the same as ANHT, and I've used ANHT ALDL w/o any problems, 
with ALDLMON and my own s/w. Have I missed anything?

Robin 



From clair.davis at charter.net  Fri Apr 20 20:40:35 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:40:35 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis><8C951527916404A-CD4-FAE4@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><004c01c78344$26062460$03000004@davis>
	<032a01c78384$714334a0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <001001c783b6$0eef5180$03000004@davis>

Robin,
On googling, I found this thread on 3rd Gen.org regarding a corrupted AXXC
that's out in the wild.  The ALDL function (or lack thereof) seems to be a
common issue.  Here's the thread:
http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/diy-prom/409989-axxc-bins-no-good.html
They provided a link to an apparently good version, which I'll download and
compare to another that I have stored.  I made a point shortly after getting
my hardware/software of collecting as many bin's as possible for reference
purposes.  I'm fairly sure my "bad" AXXC came from the same sources listed
in the TGO thread.  It looks like another option is to go with AXXD.

Also, FWIW, the two .bin's I supplied that have the top vector set to $0000
are related.  The AFI bin is the original I pulled from the tweaked memcal
provided to me based upon my stated requirements, and 003 is the result of
my changes to that file, specifically in injector size, cylinder vol,
timing, and VE tables.  They should otherwise be nearly identical.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Interesting.
>
> Clair sent me 3 .bins, which I have each compared byte-for-byte with ANHT.
>
> The .bin that calls itself AXXC differs massively from ANHT ($8D), right
> through (including code). This indicates to me that the .bin calling
itself
> AXXC isn't $8D. Is this a fair conclusion, or are there different code
> versions of $8D?
>
> The other bins only differed from ANHT in the calibration area, but both
had
> the top (warm start?) vector set to $0000, whereas ANHT has it (correctly,
> IMO) set to $B000. Should these two bins run at all?
>
> Certainly, since all their code is the same as ANHT, AIUI their ALDL
should
> behave exactly the same as ANHT, and I've used ANHT ALDL w/o any problems,
> with ALDLMON and my own s/w. Have I missed anything?
>
> 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 clair.davis at charter.net  Sun Apr 22 20:50:31 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:50:31 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis><8C951527916404A-CD4-FAE4@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><004c01c78344$26062460$03000004@davis><032a01c78384$714334a0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<001001c783b6$0eef5180$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <003101c78549$c7013380$03000004@davis>

Well, I'm at a loss.  I've tried to copy over the necessary bits of my
previous tune attempts (injector size, displacement, etc) to both AXXC and
AXXD, supposedly known-good 5-speed .bin's, and in every case, they drop in
to limp-home mode almost instantly.  The only code I can retrieve is 12,
ECM, so something is very seriously wrong.  If I'm switching .bin's on the
fly, I can upload my old last attempt, and all gets better.  SES/CEL goes
out, mixture leans out to stoich +/-, and MAP jumps up in to the mid 40's.
I've been through almost all of the various items you can edit through
TunerProRT, and anything obviously strange is evading me at this point.  I
think about all I can do is go through the various tables that appear
related to an auto trans in my .bin and copy in the parts of the 5-speed
.bins I have (AXXC/AXXD/.  I don't know what that will really do for
drivability, but at least it makes it a bit more "right".

Now for the question.  My gut feeling is that I need to seriously adjust my
Accel and Power Enrich functions to make this thing more drivable in the
near term.  I believe this is the case because when the car is in warm-up
mode, throttle response and transition is pretty dang good, but AF is in the
11-12 range.  I think that's fat enough to cover most enrichment sins until
it goes to closed loop.  Where can I find a good description of the
variables in these functions?  I need to be able to change the variables
that make the greatest contribution to the adjustment factor.  So far, the
XDF file for TPRT hasn't really given me what I want, and the book I got
from Customefi's has only discussed the BPW this way.

I'm eventually going to need the same formula info for the spark advance,
but I think PE/AE is the big problem at the moment.

Thanks again,

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Robin,
> On googling, I found this thread on 3rd Gen.org regarding a corrupted AXXC
> that's out in the wild.  The ALDL function (or lack thereof) seems to be a
> common issue.  Here's the thread:
> http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/diy-prom/409989-axxc-bins-no-good.html
> They provided a link to an apparently good version, which I'll download
and
> compare to another that I have stored.  I made a point shortly after
getting
> my hardware/software of collecting as many bin's as possible for reference
> purposes.  I'm fairly sure my "bad" AXXC came from the same sources listed
> in the TGO thread.  It looks like another option is to go with AXXD.
>
> Also, FWIW, the two .bin's I supplied that have the top vector set to
$0000
> are related.  The AFI bin is the original I pulled from the tweaked memcal
> provided to me based upon my stated requirements, and 003 is the result of
> my changes to that file, specifically in injector size, cylinder vol,
> timing, and VE tables.  They should otherwise be nearly identical.
>
> Clair
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
> > Interesting.
> >
> > Clair sent me 3 .bins, which I have each compared byte-for-byte with
ANHT.
> >
> > The .bin that calls itself AXXC differs massively from ANHT ($8D), right
> > through (including code). This indicates to me that the .bin calling
> itself
> > AXXC isn't $8D. Is this a fair conclusion, or are there different code
> > versions of $8D?
> >
> > The other bins only differed from ANHT in the calibration area, but both
> had
> > the top (warm start?) vector set to $0000, whereas ANHT has it
(correctly,
> > IMO) set to $B000. Should these two bins run at all?
> >
> > Certainly, since all their code is the same as ANHT, AIUI their ALDL
> should
> > behave exactly the same as ANHT, and I've used ANHT ALDL w/o any
problems,
> > with ALDLMON and my own s/w. Have I missed anything?
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 dozierhc at aol.com  Mon Apr 23 12:24:30 2007
From: dozierhc at aol.com (dozierhc at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:24:30 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: More '730/$8D tuning questions...
Message-ID: <8C953E3631EC42F-6F4-2369@WEBMAIL-RE12.sysops.aol.com>

Clair...
 
I guess we now need to start looking at details of your equipment, and how calibration is transferred to the EPROMs.
 
1) What EPROM type are you trying to use (eg: 27C256-25, etc?)  Maybe EPROM is too slow?
2) If using a 1227730/1227727 series of ECMs, are you using a 32K (27256) EPROM, or something else.
3) If #2 is other than 27256 type EPROM, are you placing the code at correct offset in chip memory, as well as absolute addressing for SW?
4) Maybe details on how you create, checksum, verify checksum, and burn a EPROM can shed light on this, as well as the equipment used.
 
Not trying to point out any mistakes here in the above questions, but something is going on that should be easy to fix when thoroughly understood.
 
Hank
 
*****************************************
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:50:31 -0500
From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Message-ID: <003101c78549$c7013380$03000004 at davis>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"

Well, I'm at a loss.  I've tried to copy over the necessary bits of my
previous tune attempts (injector size, displacement, etc) to both AXXC and
AXXD, supposedly known-good 5-speed .bin's, and in every case, they drop in
to limp-home mode almost instantly.  The only code I can retrieve is 12,
ECM, so something is very seriously wrong.  If I'm switching .bin's on the
fly, I can upload my old last attempt, and all gets better.  SES/CEL goes
out, mixture leans out to stoich +/-, and MAP jumps up in to the mid 40's.
I've been through almost all of the various items you can edit through
TunerProRT, and anything obviously strange is evading me at this point.  I
think about all I can do is go through the various tables that appear
related to an auto trans in my .bin and copy in the parts of the 5-speed
.bins I have (AXXC/AXXD/.  I don't know what that will really do for
drivability, but at least it makes it a bit more "right".

Now for the question.  My gut feeling is that I need to seriously adjust my
Accel and Power Enrich functions to make this thing more drivable in the
near term.  I believe this is the case because when the car is in warm-up
mode, throttle response and transition is pretty dang good, but AF is in the
11-12 range.  I think that's fat enough to cover most enrichment sins until
it goes to closed loop.  Where can I find a good description of the
variables in these functions?  I need to be able to change the variables
that make the greatest contribution to the adjustment factor.  So far, the
XDF file for TPRT hasn't really given me what I want, and the book I got
from Customefi's has only discussed the BPW this way.

I'm eventually going to need the same formula info for the spark advance,
but I think PE/AE is the big problem at the moment.

Thanks again,

Clair
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


From rdanzy at suddenlink.net  Mon Apr 23 18:17:48 2007
From: rdanzy at suddenlink.net (rdanzy at suddenlink.net)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:17:48 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis><8C951527916404A-CD4-FAE4@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><004c01c78344$26062460$03000004@davis><032a01c78384$714334a0$020101c0@gandalf><001001c783b6$0eef5180$03000004@davis>
	<003101c78549$c7013380$03000004@davis>
Message-ID: <000d01c785fd$9d048e10$6701a8c0@danzyhome>

Have you tried using another eprom?  From my experience, I bought 2 eproms 
when I started programming a 89 TPI '165' ecm.  After about 5 turns on 
swapping eproms (save the old program, try a change) one eprom would not 
control the engine properly (cooling fan turns on with ignition, engine will 
not idle, backfires under acceleration, etc.) but the other eprom with the 
same program runs great and has been through about 100 burns or more to 
date.  Like you with the bad eprom, I cannot get any codes other than 12.

Roger

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Well, I'm at a loss.  I've tried to copy over the necessary bits of my
> previous tune attempts (injector size, displacement, etc) to both AXXC and
> AXXD, supposedly known-good 5-speed .bin's, and in every case, they drop 
> in
> to limp-home mode almost instantly.  The only code I can retrieve is 12,
> ECM, so something is very seriously wrong.  If I'm switching .bin's on the
> fly, I can upload my old last attempt, and all gets better.  SES/CEL goes
> out, mixture leans out to stoich +/-, and MAP jumps up in to the mid 40's.
> I've been through almost all of the various items you can edit through
> TunerProRT, and anything obviously strange is evading me at this point.  I
> think about all I can do is go through the various tables that appear
> related to an auto trans in my .bin and copy in the parts of the 5-speed
> .bins I have (AXXC/AXXD/.  I don't know what that will really do for
> drivability, but at least it makes it a bit more "right".
>
> Now for the question.  My gut feeling is that I need to seriously adjust 
> my
> Accel and Power Enrich functions to make this thing more drivable in the
> near term.  I believe this is the case because when the car is in warm-up
> mode, throttle response and transition is pretty dang good, but AF is in 
> the
> 11-12 range.  I think that's fat enough to cover most enrichment sins 
> until
> it goes to closed loop.  Where can I find a good description of the
> variables in these functions?  I need to be able to change the variables
> that make the greatest contribution to the adjustment factor.  So far, the
> XDF file for TPRT hasn't really given me what I want, and the book I got
> from Customefi's has only discussed the BPW this way.
>
> I'm eventually going to need the same formula info for the spark advance,
> but I think PE/AE is the big problem at the moment.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Clair
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>
>
>> Robin,
>> On googling, I found this thread on 3rd Gen.org regarding a corrupted 
>> AXXC
>> that's out in the wild.  The ALDL function (or lack thereof) seems to be 
>> a
>> common issue.  Here's the thread:
>> http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/diy-prom/409989-axxc-bins-no-good.html
>> They provided a link to an apparently good version, which I'll download
> and
>> compare to another that I have stored.  I made a point shortly after
> getting
>> my hardware/software of collecting as many bin's as possible for 
>> reference
>> purposes.  I'm fairly sure my "bad" AXXC came from the same sources 
>> listed
>> in the TGO thread.  It looks like another option is to go with AXXD.
>>
>> Also, FWIW, the two .bin's I supplied that have the top vector set to
> $0000
>> are related.  The AFI bin is the original I pulled from the tweaked 
>> memcal
>> provided to me based upon my stated requirements, and 003 is the result 
>> of
>> my changes to that file, specifically in injector size, cylinder vol,
>> timing, and VE tables.  They should otherwise be nearly identical.
>>
>> Clair
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Robin Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
>>
>>
>> > Interesting.
>> >
>> > Clair sent me 3 .bins, which I have each compared byte-for-byte with
> ANHT.
>> >
>> > The .bin that calls itself AXXC differs massively from ANHT ($8D), 
>> > right
>> > through (including code). This indicates to me that the .bin calling
>> itself
>> > AXXC isn't $8D. Is this a fair conclusion, or are there different code
>> > versions of $8D?
>> >
>> > The other bins only differed from ANHT in the calibration area, but 
>> > both
>> had
>> > the top (warm start?) vector set to $0000, whereas ANHT has it
> (correctly,
>> > IMO) set to $B000. Should these two bins run at all?
>> >
>> > Certainly, since all their code is the same as ANHT, AIUI their ALDL
>> should
>> > behave exactly the same as ANHT, and I've used ANHT ALDL w/o any
> problems,
>> > with ALDLMON and my own s/w. Have I missed anything?
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 clair.davis at charter.net  Mon Apr 23 18:19:51 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:19:51 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <8C953E3631EC42F-6F4-2369@WEBMAIL-RE12.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c785fd$e54e9120$03000004@davis>

Hank,
The learning curve is still near-vertical for me, so I expect to make plenty
of mistakes.  By all means, please point them out!  As long as I can sort
out the mistake, I can keep going, and the learning curve gets a little
flatter.  Feel free to fire away with anything that looks like I might have
screwed up, all I ask is for an explanation of why.  I'm a civil engineer
with a water resources background, so dirt and water are more my thing than
digital devices.  I do a lot of hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, so at
least I'm familiar with complex inter-related systems whose functions are
described with variables based upon approximations and known physical
constants.  I'm also pretty good at putting an analog tune on a car, and
have been tinkering for better than 20 years now.  Sheesh, I'm getting old.

Here are the details of what I'm using for chip reading / tuning / burning /
emulating:

Read/burn/emulate hardware is Craig Moates' APU-1.  With an adapter, it can
read GM OEM memcals, but can't erase or write to them.  Instead, it writes
to one of two types of loose chips (AT29C256 & AM29F040) that are attached
to the ECM with a an adapter that replaces only the chip part of the memcal
and leaves the resistor pack directly connected.  The emulate function
attaches to the memcal chip adapter by a ribbon cable from the APU-1.  The 1
Mbit NVRAM in the APU-1 replaces the chip - no EPROM swapping necessary
while emulating - and can be edited/replaced on the fly by connecting to a
laptop.  I can leave the APU-1 in place without the laptop, and the engine
will run with the calibration that's stored in the NVRAM.  FWIW, the laptop
is a 700mHz Toshiba running WinXP.

Read / burn / emulate / tune software is Mark Mansur's TunerProRT.  I'm sure
everyone knows what it can do, but in a nutshell: I select an appropriate
32KB .bin, choose the appropriate code mask ($8D so far), edit tables &
constants as necessary, and write the .bin to the chip on the APU-1.  I
really don't change anything but VE and SA values at this point.

The base calibration I have is what was provided to me by the guys at
www.AffordableFuelInjection.com, based upon info I gave them about my
engine/vehicle.  They burned the custom .bin on an OEM memcal for a '730
ECM.  This .bin runs the engine fine at idle, but is pig-rich, and is
virtually undrivable.  It is also the base file for my retuning attempts.

With all this in mind, I'll try to answer your questions below:

1,2) I'm about 99.44% sure the EPROM type I'm using is compatible with the
727/730 ECM.

3) I'm ASSuming that the TunerProRT software is placing the code at the
correct offset in the chip memory, as I have run the engine on both burned
chips and the OEM memcal.  I don't know what you mean by "absolute
addressing".

4) My create & burn details are listed above, but checksum & verify checksum
are two operations I'm not familiar with.  Again, I ASSume that this is
being handled appropriately by the software.

So there you go.  I'll try to answer any other questions as best I can.

Clair

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dozierhc at aol.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> Clair...
>
> I guess we now need to start looking at details of your equipment, and how
calibration is transferred to the EPROMs.
>
> 1) What EPROM type are you trying to use (eg: 27C256-25, etc?)  Maybe
EPROM is too slow?
> 2) If using a 1227730/1227727 series of ECMs, are you using a 32K (27256)
EPROM, or something else.
> 3) If #2 is other than 27256 type EPROM, are you placing the code at
correct offset in chip memory, as well as absolute addressing for SW?
> 4) Maybe details on how you create, checksum, verify checksum, and burn a
EPROM can shed light on this, as well as the equipment used.
>
> Not trying to point out any mistakes here in the above questions, but
something is going on that should be easy to fix when thoroughly understood.
>
> Hank
>
> *****************************************
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:50:31 -0500
> From: "Clair Davis" <clair.davis at charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Message-ID: <003101c78549$c7013380$03000004 at davis>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Well, I'm at a loss.  I've tried to copy over the necessary bits of my
> previous tune attempts (injector size, displacement, etc) to both AXXC and
> AXXD, supposedly known-good 5-speed .bin's, and in every case, they drop
in
> to limp-home mode almost instantly.  The only code I can retrieve is 12,
> ECM, so something is very seriously wrong.  If I'm switching .bin's on the
> fly, I can upload my old last attempt, and all gets better.  SES/CEL goes
> out, mixture leans out to stoich +/-, and MAP jumps up in to the mid 40's.
> I've been through almost all of the various items you can edit through
> TunerProRT, and anything obviously strange is evading me at this point.  I
> think about all I can do is go through the various tables that appear
> related to an auto trans in my .bin and copy in the parts of the 5-speed
> .bins I have (AXXC/AXXD/.  I don't know what that will really do for
> drivability, but at least it makes it a bit more "right".
>
> Now for the question.  My gut feeling is that I need to seriously adjust
my
> Accel and Power Enrich functions to make this thing more drivable in the
> near term.  I believe this is the case because when the car is in warm-up
> mode, throttle response and transition is pretty dang good, but AF is in
the
> 11-12 range.  I think that's fat enough to cover most enrichment sins
until
> it goes to closed loop.  Where can I find a good description of the
> variables in these functions?  I need to be able to change the variables
> that make the greatest contribution to the adjustment factor.  So far, the
> XDF file for TPRT hasn't really given me what I want, and the book I got
> from Customefi's has only discussed the BPW this way.
>
> I'm eventually going to need the same formula info for the spark advance,
> but I think PE/AE is the big problem at the moment.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Clair
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.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 Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk  Tue Apr 24 01:41:28 2007
From: Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk (Terminal Crazy)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:41:28 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
In-Reply-To: <000d01c785fd$9d048e10$6701a8c0@danzyhome>
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis><8C951527916404A-CD4-FAE4@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><004c01c78344$26062460$03000004@davis><032a01c78384$714334a0$020101c0@gandalf><001001c783b6$0eef5180$03000004@davis>
	<003101c78549$c7013380$03000004@davis>
	<000d01c785fd$9d048e10$6701a8c0@danzyhome>
Message-ID: <4ed86e7d7bTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk>

On 24 Apr, <rdanzy at suddenlink.net> wrote:
> Have you tried using another eprom?  From my experience, I bought 2
> eproms when I started programming a 89 TPI '165' ecm.  After about 5
> turns on swapping eproms (save the old program, try a change) one eprom
> would not control the engine properly (cooling fan turns on with
> ignition, engine will not idle, backfires under acceleration, etc.) but
> the other eprom with the same program runs great and has been through
> about 100 burns or more to date.  Like you with the bad eprom, I cannot
> get any codes other than 12.

> Roger

Clair, following Rogers reply, have you tried reading back what you have
written to the ROM and compared the two.

I'm not sure what type of __256 youre using but may require a
different/thorough erasing procedure. 

If it's possible, have you checked they are fully erased.

-- 
Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6          terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk
Lancashire England          http://www.sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk/terminal_crazy/



From clair.davis at charter.net  Tue Apr 24 07:10:06 2007
From: clair.davis at charter.net (Clair Davis)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:10:06 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...
References: <000601c781cd$ff0c3f60$1500010a@bwarch.com><001001c78221$89a25f80$03000004@davis><8C951527916404A-CD4-FAE4@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><004c01c78344$26062460$03000004@davis><032a01c78384$714334a0$020101c0@gandalf><001001c783b6$0eef5180$03000004@davis><003101c78549$c7013380$03000004@davis><000d01c785fd$9d048e10$6701a8c0@danzyhome>
	<4ed86e7d7bTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002801c78669$7f9c8280$03000004@davis>

Mitch,
The trouble I'm having now is with code uploaded to the emulator, not burned
to a chip.  So far, I've burned 4 or 5 different chips, all roughly based on
the same .bin, and have had no problems.  In fact, if I switch .bins from
one of the AXXC or AXXD-based .bins back to one of my modified originals,
the running problem goes away.  This happens even when the car is running...
there's a small hiccup when I upload, then the engine smoothes right out.
Strange.  It's almost as if as Robin had surmised earlier that the AXXC and
AXXD might not be $8D bins.  I'm WAY out of my comfort zone thinking about
that kind of issue, though.

Clair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terminal Crazy" <Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] More '730/$8D tuning questions...


> On 24 Apr, <rdanzy at suddenlink.net> wrote:
> > Have you tried using another eprom?  From my experience, I bought 2
> > eproms when I started programming a 89 TPI '165' ecm.  After about 5
> > turns on swapping eproms (save the old program, try a change) one eprom
> > would not control the engine properly (cooling fan turns on with
> > ignition, engine will not idle, backfires under acceleration, etc.) but
> > the other eprom with the same program runs great and has been through
> > about 100 burns or more to date.  Like you with the bad eprom, I cannot
> > get any codes other than 12.
>
> > Roger
>
> Clair, following Rogers reply, have you tried reading back what you have
> written to the ROM and compared the two.
>
> I'm not sure what type of __256 youre using but may require a
> different/thorough erasing procedure.
>
> If it's possible, have you checked they are fully erased.
>
> -- 
> Mitch - 1995 Z28 LT1 M6          terminal_crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk
> Lancashire England
http://www.sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk/terminal_crazy/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 dozierhc at aol.com  Tue Apr 24 12:33:45 2007
From: dozierhc at aol.com (dozierhc at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:33:45 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: More '730/$8D tuning questions...
Message-ID: <8C954ADD827F0A4-1844-597B@WEBMAIL-MB20.sysops.aol.com>

Clair Wrote:
 
3) I'm ASSuming that the TunerProRT software is placing the code at the
correct offset in the chip memory, as I have run the engine on both burned
chips and the OEM memcal.  I don't know what you mean by "absolute
addressing".

Clair...
 
Best way to explain absolute versus relative addressing is to look at your 27C256 EPROM used for the $8D SW and calibration.
 
When you burn the EPROM, you start at EPROM memory location $0000.  And the calibration and code goes up from there to the $FFFF location, which is the end of the Interrupt Vector Table.
 
BUT....The SW memory as addressed by the GM 68HC11 processort addresses this "$0000" location at $8000.
Hence the reason the addresses are all $8000 => $FFFF in the SW code.  This is becaues the address lines to reference the EPROM point to $8000 to enable the Chip Select line (CS).  So when the processor Program Counter points to lets say $E000, the memory decode points to the correct instruction in EPROM memory.  As a 27256 is a 32Kx8 memory, this mean its address locations run from $0000 to $7FFF, or 8192 bytes of memory.  So $E000 Micro address decodes to $6000 as the address on the EPROM.  But to resolve BRANCHes, JUMPs and CALLs , the assembler uses the Micros addressing logic.
 
So the ABSOLUTE memory address start is $8000 for the 32K EPROM, but it RELATIVE address is $0000 on the chip.
Or a ZERO offset on the chip for the start of the calibration and therefore cascading the SW alogtithms.
 
Hope this makes sense.  You need both to match for the EPROM code to work correctly.
 
BTW...You can set IC offsets in the TunerproRT to accomodate a lot of stuff.  Make sure in your Preferences for the XDF files that the Offset is set to ZERO (neither a -$xxxx or a positive $xxxx) so that it does not adress adjust the code.
 
Hank
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.