From davesnothereman at netscape.net  Wed Aug  1 11:31:40 2007
From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net)
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:31:40 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: 1227727 really the same as a 1227730
In-Reply-To: <BAY122-DAV734EEA039E8A1B287BECFBAE80@phx.gbl>
References: <28381675.1185345860419.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps16.sth.basefarm.net><8C99E86ACEA2CC6-8B8-56DC@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><46AB4961.8030406@verizon.net><8C99F688E9BB0B8-D74-459E@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><46ACD74C.4040808@verizon.net><BAY122-DAV26A23322EA50D872C8A97BAEE0@phx.gbl>	<BC6FF71A-2FE0-4246-BFEE-CBEF7D731DDD@garyandliz.com>
	<BAY122-DAV734EEA039E8A1B287BECFBAE80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8C9A27092FDFA80-778-8677@webmail-dd08.sysops.aol.com>

The prom size must be large enough for the particular calibration you're using.? The ecm will work with 27128, 27256, and 27512 eproms among others.


-----Original Message-----
From: WopOnTour <wopontour at hotmail.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:28 am
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: 1227727 really the same as a 1227730


Thanks Gary (and others)?
Does it matter if my PROM is 128 or 256? Will the 227 work with either??
WOT?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Evans" <gary at garyandliz.com>?
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>?
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 1:10 PM?
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: 1227727 really the same as a 1227730?
?
> They are the same, I have used both. To convert from one to the other > just move the prom, rewire harness and enjoy.?
> > > > On Jul 29, 2007, at 10:20 PM, WopOnTour wrote:?
> >> Seen this on eBay?
>> http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=220133490178?
>> Can anyone confirm that a 1227727 is the same as a 1227730 ??
>> Can I just splice in the new connectors and use my AZTY bin with a >> 27C256 ??
>> Thanks?
>> WOT?
>> _______________________________________________?
>> 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 -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.


From BNRVL at aol.com  Thu Aug  2 09:34:38 2007
From: BNRVL at aol.com (BNRVL at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:34:38 EDT
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: 1227727 really the same as a 1227730
Message-ID: <bf4.d5bf893.33e3457e@aol.com>

  
Hello looking for a 1985-86  TPI lower intake manifold , can you help ? I 
just missed one on ebay . 
I have a 1969 small block 2350 ci with  the old cast iron heads .

Thanks

 Bob Norville


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the 
all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


From ne14roxcj at gmail.com  Thu Aug  2 10:54:48 2007
From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship)
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:54:48 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Parts and info requests/TPI conversion/... was: 1227727
	really the same as a 1227730
In-Reply-To: <bf4.d5bf893.33e3457e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <46b1fe56.0661220a.637d.3fee@mx.google.com>

Bob, you should read the mailing lists terms. I don't think this list was
intended as a classified ad. Hell, look at the subject line. Does this post
have anything to do with the '727 or '730 ECM? At the very least, start a
new thread if you feel its proper to solicit transactions here. At least
then we can delete them if we choose.

I'm not trying to be hard on you, but this keeps happening. This is a D I Y
list and there is plenty of info on the internet and in this lists archives.
This is a project for you to learn and enjoy. If you don't want to learn,
just enjoy, then find a competent shop to do the work for you and fork over
the cash. eBay is a good place for parts, as are the local salvage yards,
swap meets, car shows, etc. DIY implies that you Do It Yourself. Searching,
researching, wrench turning, knuckle busting and head scratching. Your 350
TPI project has been done so many times and is documented in so many places,
you should have no problem finding info. Google should be your best friend
through the project and even after.

In my reply to your off-list e-mail, I recommended a couple of books to
read. Get those books and gather your parts. Don't be scared. Just jump in
there and start turning wrenches. Hell, its not you daily driver, is it?
It's a project. When you run into problems that you can't resolve with the
books, archives, Google, and other resources, post a question to the list. I
say "to the list" because you will get many more answers and possible ways
to resolve your problem. Plus, each of us may not have the time to
trouble-shoot your system when you e-mail off-list. There's tons of info on
the TWiki @ http://www.diy-efi.org/twiki/bin/view.pl.

Beau

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of BNRVL at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:35 AM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: 1227727 really the same as a 1227730

  
Hello looking for a 1985-86  TPI lower intake manifold , can you help ? I 
just missed one on ebay . 
I have a 1969 small block 2350 ci with  the old cast iron heads .

Thanks

 Bob Norville


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the 
all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
_______________________________________________
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 kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net  Thu Aug  2 19:09:01 2007
From: kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net (kc)
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:09:01 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
In-Reply-To: <46AEAC8A.50507@vessels-clan.com>
References: <28381675.1185345860419.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps16.sth.basefarm.net>
	<8C99E86ACEA2CC6-8B8-56DC@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com>
	<46AB4961.8030406@verizon.net>
	<8C99F688E9BB0B8-D74-459E@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com>
	<46ACD74C.4040808@verizon.net>	<46AD2E32.4020306@vessels-clan.com>
	<46AD9A15.20605@verizon.net> <46AEAC8A.50507@vessels-clan.com>
Message-ID: <46B2721D.5020505@verizon.net>

Jay Vessels wrote:
> Hi there!
>
>> i have been told by others the eeprom is bad
>> digital dash works except the odometer]eter
>> it reads ERROR EVERYTHING ELSE runs/is fine
>> trip meter reset works fine. THE metric/english setting works fine as 
>> an ex.
>> I cannot inspect thus vehicle in PA w/no odometer reading!
>
> That's not the PROM in the ECM.  That's the EEPROM which is either in 
> the instrument panel cluster or the BCM (don't remember but I suspect 
> it's in the IPC).
>
> I think someone on this list had a Toronado (an E-body like your Riv) 
> who may have knowledge on the EEPROM.  Unfortunately, I don't think 
> it's as simple as replacing the EEPROM, so you may be facing either 
> having the IPC rebuilt by GM (who apparently still services them 
> according to a conversation on a J-body list), or by one of the 
> aftermarket rebuilders.
>
> Jay Vessels
> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending)
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
>
the dash was replaced after the orig blew up
is that an issue
where is bcm located   fwiw it will NOT allow me to clear THOSE STORED 
CODES-from BCM)


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Aug  4 14:52:20 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:52:20 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] GMECM MAT calibration
References: <46b1fe56.0661220a.637d.3fee@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <044301c7d6d0$fa0dab90$020101c0@gandalf>

Call me sad but, returning to my analysis of MAT calibrations from a year 
ago in preparation for my long overdue move to EFi, I think I have moved 
forward. I'd be grateful if somebody could sanity check where I've got to:

If I'm right:

- $8D code has a lookup array that converts the 8 bit complement of raw MAT 
AtoD value to a scaled MAT temperature value (which can be converted to 
degrees C using the same formula as CTS ie. (lookup value * 0.75) - 40
- $58 code has no such lookup array - so the AYBN_hac.src and 
58_disassembly.src hacks have some other lookup array wrongly identified as 
a MAT lookup array. Interestingly, AYBN_hac.src has a MAT AtoD to degrees C 
conversion array inserted purely as a comment. When plotted, this matches 
very well with the $8D lookup array. The version at 
http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm/component_info/sensors.html matches less well - 
below 50C.
- $8D code mostly uses the scaled MAT temperature value for indexing into 
other arrays.
- $58 code uses the raw MAT AtoD value for indexing into other arrays.
- $8D code puts the 8 bit complement of raw MAT AtoD value in the Mode 1 
ALDL message.
- $58 code puts the raw MAT AtoD value in the Mode 1 ALDL message.

I find it strange that one version of GM code calculates a MAT temperature 
and another doesn't. I know it doesn't matter, as long as the comparison 
values are right but... I also find it strange that a version of GM code 
that does calculate MAT temperature ($8D) doesn't output that temperature 
value in the ALDL message - so, to compute it, you have to do a calibrated 
lookup in your monitor code! :-( Why should MAT be any different from CTS?

Am I right in thinking that the Corvette ($8D) and Sunbird ($58) 
installations used the same/equivalent MAT sensor? Is the same MAT sensor or 
MAT sensor calibration used in most of the GM ECM installations?

How much can these MAT sensors be bought for new/scrap? Does anybody know if 
there is a handy source of equivalents that I could cheaply buy in the UK?

Rob 



From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Sat Aug  4 22:37:28 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:37:28 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F2938CDAE2@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

The schematics for my truck ('02 K1500) show 4 wires to the DLC:

pin 2:  class2 data
pin 4:  gnd
pin 5:  gnd
pin 16: Vbatt

But my actual connector has a fifth wire, green, on pin 14.  The OBD2
spec seems to say this is a CAN line, but if CAN were implemented there
would have to be a wire in pin 6 also, and there's not.  Any idea what
this wire might be?

thanks,
--steve

-------------------
Steve Ravet
ARM
steve.ravet at arm.com

-- 
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.




From md4etal at netzero.net  Sun Aug  5 10:13:02 2007
From: md4etal at netzero.net (md4etal at netzero.net)
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:13:02 GMT
Subject: [Gmecm] GMECM MAT calibration
Message-ID: <20070805.101302.11932.0@webmail17.dca.untd.com>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.diy-efi.org/pipermail/gmecm/attachments/20070805/8b4bf086/attachment.pl 

From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Aug  5 11:11:01 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 17:11:01 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] GMECM MAT calibration
References: <20070805.101302.11932.0@webmail17.dca.untd.com>
Message-ID: <006501c7d77b$394682a0$020101c0@gandalf>

Many thanks! For some reason I hadn't thought to overlay the CTS and MAT 
plots, but they are indeed a good match! This means that it should be easy 
to add the extra code in the ECM to use the CTS lookup array to compute MAT 
temperature! :-)

Thanks also for the part info which immediately led me to here: 
http://inpcars.com/ambient-air-temperature/7.html.

Interestingly, my Vauxhall (GM) CTS (that I'm using with a GMECM) looks 
exactly like the Beck Arnley 158-0134.

Since I have a spare one of those, I'm now wondering whether I can cut away 
some of the brass to expose the thyrister - making it suitable as a MAT 
sensor... :-) (I had thought that I could just take a MAT sensor from a 
Vauxhall, but it turned out to be Bosch and with a totally different 
calibration from the GM ones!)

BR,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <md4etal at netzero.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 05 August 2007 16:13
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] GMECM MAT calibration


The sensors are available from Standard Motor Parts number AX3.  This 
thermistor is very, very close to the coolant temperature sensor.
Hope this helps.
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm



From wopontour at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  6 22:01:08 2007
From: wopontour at hotmail.com (WopOnTour)
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 21:01:08 -0600
Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
References: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F2938CDAE2@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <BAY122-DAV1105DB32081CD82DE4D0FDBAE60@phx.gbl>

Steve:
According to the wiring 2001 thru 2003 DLC wiring schematic, there should 
only be 4 wires to your DLC.(as you  indicated)
The green wire you have in pin 14 has likely been something added by some 
after market accessory or gage. While it's true pin 14 is designated for 
CAN, there was not CAN (GMLAN) implemented (at the DLC at least) into any GM 
truck in 2002. If there WAS (eg. as for the Parallel Hybrid Truck -PHT a 
couple years later in 2004)  it would be DUAL WIRE CAN (aka High Speed 
GMLAN) and therefore would also require there be a wire in pin 6 (HS GMLAN 
+). These wires are usually tan (pin 14 GMLAN HS-) and tan/wht  (pin 6 GMLAN 
HS+)  What do you measure on that wire with a DVOM or DSO??
Regards
WOT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:37 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question


The schematics for my truck ('02 K1500) show 4 wires to the DLC:

pin 2:  class2 data
pin 4:  gnd
pin 5:  gnd
pin 16: Vbatt

But my actual connector has a fifth wire, green, on pin 14.  The OBD2
spec seems to say this is a CAN line, but if CAN were implemented there
would have to be a wire in pin 6 also, and there's not.  Any idea what
this wire might be?

thanks,
--steve

-------------------
Steve Ravet
ARM
steve.ravet at arm.com

-- 
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the 
contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the 
information in any medium.  Thank you.


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



From mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net  Tue Aug  7 08:58:03 2007
From: mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net (Scott Pearson)
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:58:03 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
References: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F2938CDAE2@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>
	<BAY122-DAV1105DB32081CD82DE4D0FDBAE60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <001f01c7d8fa$f9973b50$8d750747@DELL3G>

Green was traditionally E&C data. Might check and see if it connects to the 
radio.

Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "WopOnTour" <wopontour at hotmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question


> Steve:
> According to the wiring 2001 thru 2003 DLC wiring schematic, there should 
> only be 4 wires to your DLC.(as you  indicated)
> The green wire you have in pin 14 has likely been something added by some 
> after market accessory or gage. While it's true pin 14 is designated for 
> CAN, there was not CAN (GMLAN) implemented (at the DLC at least) into any 
> GM truck in 2002. If there WAS (eg. as for the Parallel Hybrid Truck -PHT 
> a couple years later in 2004)  it would be DUAL WIRE CAN (aka High Speed 
> GMLAN) and therefore would also require there be a wire in pin 6 (HS GMLAN 
> +). These wires are usually tan (pin 14 GMLAN HS-) and tan/wht  (pin 6 
> GMLAN HS+)  What do you measure on that wire with a DVOM or DSO??
> Regards
> WOT
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:37 PM
> Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
>
>
> The schematics for my truck ('02 K1500) show 4 wires to the DLC:
>
> pin 2:  class2 data
> pin 4:  gnd
> pin 5:  gnd
> pin 16: Vbatt
>
> But my actual connector has a fifth wire, green, on pin 14.  The OBD2
> spec seems to say this is a CAN line, but if CAN were implemented there
> would have to be a wire in pin 6 also, and there's not.  Any idea what
> this wire might be?
>
> thanks,
> --steve
>
> -------------------
> Steve Ravet
> ARM
> steve.ravet at arm.com
>
> -- 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the 
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the 
> information in any medium.  Thank you.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net  Tue Aug  7 09:01:59 2007
From: mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net (Scott Pearson)
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 09:01:59 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
References: <28381675.1185345860419.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps16.sth.basefarm.net>	<8C99E86ACEA2CC6-8B8-56DC@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com>	<46AB4961.8030406@verizon.net>	<8C99F688E9BB0B8-D74-459E@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com>	<46ACD74C.4040808@verizon.net><46AD2E32.4020306@vessels-clan.com>
	<46AD9A15.20605@verizon.net> <46AEAC8A.50507@vessels-clan.com>
Message-ID: <002801c7d8fb$862570a0$8d750747@DELL3G>

The mileage is stored in the EEPROM in the BCM.

It really sounds like he needs an EEPROM, but that's just a guess without 
actual testing.

Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jay Vessels" <jay at vessels-clan.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip


> Hi there!
>
>> i have been told by others the eeprom is bad
>> digital dash works except the odometer]eter
>> it reads ERROR EVERYTHING ELSE runs/is fine
>> trip meter reset works fine. THE metric/english setting works fine as an 
>> ex.
>> I cannot inspect thus vehicle in PA w/no odometer reading!
>
> That's not the PROM in the ECM.  That's the EEPROM which is either in the 
> instrument panel cluster or the BCM (don't remember but I suspect it's in 
> the IPC).
>
> I think someone on this list had a Toronado (an E-body like your Riv) who 
> may have knowledge on the EEPROM.  Unfortunately, I don't think it's as 
> simple as replacing the EEPROM, so you may be facing either having the IPC 
> rebuilt by GM (who apparently still services them according to a 
> conversation on a J-body list), or by one of the aftermarket rebuilders.
>
> Jay Vessels
> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending)
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm 





From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Tue Aug  7 15:14:38 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:14:38 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
In-Reply-To: <001f01c7d8fa$f9973b50$8d750747@DELL3G>
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F2938CE254@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

I'd like it to be E&C, after I get my USB/VPW project done I'd like to
do an E&C project.  I'll put a scope on and see what it does.

--steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Scott Pearson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:58 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> 
> Green was traditionally E&C data. Might check and see if it 
> connects to the radio.
> 
> Scott
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WopOnTour" <wopontour at hotmail.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> 
> 
> > Steve:
> > According to the wiring 2001 thru 2003 DLC wiring 
> schematic, there should 
> > only be 4 wires to your DLC.(as you  indicated)
> > The green wire you have in pin 14 has likely been something 
> added by some 
> > after market accessory or gage. While it's true pin 14 is 
> designated for 
> > CAN, there was not CAN (GMLAN) implemented (at the DLC at 
> least) into any 
> > GM truck in 2002. If there WAS (eg. as for the Parallel 
> Hybrid Truck -PHT 
> > a couple years later in 2004)  it would be DUAL WIRE CAN 
> (aka High Speed 
> > GMLAN) and therefore would also require there be a wire in 
> pin 6 (HS GMLAN 
> > +). These wires are usually tan (pin 14 GMLAN HS-) and 
> tan/wht  (pin 6 
> > GMLAN HS+)  What do you measure on that wire with a DVOM or DSO??
> > Regards
> > WOT
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:37 PM
> > Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >
> >
> > The schematics for my truck ('02 K1500) show 4 wires to the DLC:
> >
> > pin 2:  class2 data
> > pin 4:  gnd
> > pin 5:  gnd
> > pin 16: Vbatt
> >
> > But my actual connector has a fifth wire, green, on pin 14. 
>  The OBD2
> > spec seems to say this is a CAN line, but if CAN were 
> implemented there
> > would have to be a wire in pin 6 also, and there's not.  
> Any idea what
> > this wire might be?
> >
> > thanks,
> > --steve
> >
> > -------------------
> > Steve Ravet
> > ARM
> > steve.ravet at arm.com
> >
> > -- 
> > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any 
> attachments are 
> > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the 
> intended 
> > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not 
> disclose the 
> > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or 
> store or copy the 
> > information in any medium.  Thank you.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gmecm mailing list
> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 wopontour at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  7 18:05:04 2007
From: wopontour at hotmail.com (WopOnTour)
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:05:04 -0600
Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
References: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F2938CE254@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <BAY122-DAV976493FA4DEFFF5959E9DBAE60@phx.gbl>

Cool
It IS E&C!
The audio schematics show it from pin 14 of the DLC to C2 pin 15 (E&C) of 
the radio, even though the DLC schematic shows it as being unpopulated.
Good Luck on the E&C interface!
WOT
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] DLC question


I'd like it to be E&C, after I get my USB/VPW project done I'd like to
do an E&C project.  I'll put a scope on and see what it does.

--steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Scott Pearson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:58 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
>
> Green was traditionally E&C data. Might check and see if it
> connects to the radio.
>
> Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WopOnTour" <wopontour at hotmail.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
>
>
> > Steve:
> > According to the wiring 2001 thru 2003 DLC wiring
> schematic, there should
> > only be 4 wires to your DLC.(as you  indicated)
> > The green wire you have in pin 14 has likely been something
> added by some
> > after market accessory or gage. While it's true pin 14 is
> designated for
> > CAN, there was not CAN (GMLAN) implemented (at the DLC at
> least) into any
> > GM truck in 2002. If there WAS (eg. as for the Parallel
> Hybrid Truck -PHT
> > a couple years later in 2004)  it would be DUAL WIRE CAN
> (aka High Speed
> > GMLAN) and therefore would also require there be a wire in
> pin 6 (HS GMLAN
> > +). These wires are usually tan (pin 14 GMLAN HS-) and
> tan/wht  (pin 6
> > GMLAN HS+)  What do you measure on that wire with a DVOM or DSO??
> > Regards
> > WOT
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:37 PM
> > Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >
> >
> > The schematics for my truck ('02 K1500) show 4 wires to the DLC:
> >
> > pin 2:  class2 data
> > pin 4:  gnd
> > pin 5:  gnd
> > pin 16: Vbatt
> >
> > But my actual connector has a fifth wire, green, on pin 14.
>  The OBD2
> > spec seems to say this is a CAN line, but if CAN were
> implemented there
> > would have to be a wire in pin 6 also, and there's not.
> Any idea what
> > this wire might be?
> >
> > thanks,
> > --steve
> >
> > -------------------
> > Steve Ravet
> > ARM
> > steve.ravet at arm.com
> >
> > -- 
> > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any
> attachments are
> > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
> intended
> > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not
> disclose the
> > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or
> store or copy the
> > information in any medium.  Thank you.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gmecm mailing list
> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 wopontour at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  7 18:24:23 2007
From: wopontour at hotmail.com (WopOnTour)
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:24:23 -0600
Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
References: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F2938CE254@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>
	<BAY122-DAV976493FA4DEFFF5959E9DBAE60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY122-DAV170619AE2060EBDB5DC931BAE60@phx.gbl>

FYI
one end of the green E&C wire goes to either a "blunt cut" dead ended wire 
if w/o Onstar or remote CD player or TO those items (if equipped)
WOT
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "WopOnTour" <wopontour at hotmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question


> Cool
> It IS E&C!
> The audio schematics show it from pin 14 of the DLC to C2 pin 15 (E&C) of 
> the radio, even though the DLC schematic shows it as being unpopulated.
> Good Luck on the E&C interface!
> WOT
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:14 PM
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] DLC question
>
>
> I'd like it to be E&C, after I get my USB/VPW project done I'd like to
> do an E&C project.  I'll put a scope on and see what it does.
>
> --steve
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
>> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Scott Pearson
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:58 AM
>> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
>>
>> Green was traditionally E&C data. Might check and see if it
>> connects to the radio.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "WopOnTour" <wopontour at hotmail.com>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
>>
>>
>> > Steve:
>> > According to the wiring 2001 thru 2003 DLC wiring
>> schematic, there should
>> > only be 4 wires to your DLC.(as you  indicated)
>> > The green wire you have in pin 14 has likely been something
>> added by some
>> > after market accessory or gage. While it's true pin 14 is
>> designated for
>> > CAN, there was not CAN (GMLAN) implemented (at the DLC at
>> least) into any
>> > GM truck in 2002. If there WAS (eg. as for the Parallel
>> Hybrid Truck -PHT
>> > a couple years later in 2004)  it would be DUAL WIRE CAN
>> (aka High Speed
>> > GMLAN) and therefore would also require there be a wire in
>> pin 6 (HS GMLAN
>> > +). These wires are usually tan (pin 14 GMLAN HS-) and
>> tan/wht  (pin 6
>> > GMLAN HS+)  What do you measure on that wire with a DVOM or DSO??
>> > Regards
>> > WOT
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
>> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:37 PM
>> > Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
>> >
>> >
>> > The schematics for my truck ('02 K1500) show 4 wires to the DLC:
>> >
>> > pin 2:  class2 data
>> > pin 4:  gnd
>> > pin 5:  gnd
>> > pin 16: Vbatt
>> >
>> > But my actual connector has a fifth wire, green, on pin 14.
>>  The OBD2
>> > spec seems to say this is a CAN line, but if CAN were
>> implemented there
>> > would have to be a wire in pin 6 also, and there's not.
>> Any idea what
>> > this wire might be?
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > --steve
>> >
>> > -------------------
>> > Steve Ravet
>> > ARM
>> > steve.ravet at arm.com
>> >
>> > -- 
>> > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any
>> attachments are
>> > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
>> intended
>> > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not
>> disclose the
>> > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or
>> store or copy the
>> > information in any medium.  Thank you.
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gmecm mailing list
>> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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 kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net  Tue Aug  7 19:38:36 2007
From: kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net (kc)
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:38:36 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
In-Reply-To: <002801c7d8fb$862570a0$8d750747@DELL3G>
References: <28381675.1185345860419.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps16.sth.basefarm.net>
	<8C99E86ACEA2CC6-8B8-56DC@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com>
	<46AB4961.8030406@verizon.net>
	<8C99F688E9BB0B8-D74-459E@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com>
	<46ACD74C.4040808@verizon.net><46AD2E32.4020306@vessels-clan.com>
	<46AD9A15.20605@verizon.net> <46AEAC8A.50507@vessels-clan.com>
	<002801c7d8fb$862570a0$8d750747@DELL3G>
Message-ID: <46B9108C.4040903@verizon.net>

Scott Pearson wrote:
> The mileage is stored in the EEPROM in the BCM.
>
> It really sounds like he needs an EEPROM, but that's just a guess without 
> actual testing.
>
> Scott
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jay Vessels" <jay at vessels-clan.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
>
>
>   
>> Hi there!
>>
>>     
>>> i have been told by others the eeprom is bad
>>> digital dash works except the odometer]eter
>>> it reads ERROR EVERYTHING ELSE runs/is fine
>>> trip meter reset works fine. THE metric/english setting works fine as an 
>>> ex.
>>> I cannot inspect thus vehicle in PA w/no odometer reading!
>>>       
>> That's not the PROM in the ECM.  That's the EEPROM which is either in the 
>> instrument panel cluster or the BCM (don't remember but I suspect it's in 
>> the IPC).
>>
>> I think someone on this list had a Toronado (an E-body like your Riv) who 
>> may have knowledge on the EEPROM.  Unfortunately, I don't think it's as 
>> simple as replacing the EEPROM, so you may be facing either having the IPC 
>> rebuilt by GM (who apparently still services them according to a 
>> conversation on a J-body list), or by one of the aftermarket rebuilders.
>>
>> Jay Vessels
>> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
>> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>   
there is only 1 computer in this ride has 3 connections
not taking it out until i have a replacement i won on ebay


From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Tue Aug  7 23:55:18 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 21:55:18 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
In-Reply-To: <BAY122-DAV170619AE2060EBDB5DC931BAE60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F2938CE38B@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

There's no Onstar, was it available in '02 pickups?  Maybe LT, but not
my LS.  Also no changer.  So I'm out of luck?  I thought you were going
to save me lugging the scope out there, but now I guess I'll have to.
:-)

--steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of WopOnTour
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:24 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> 
> FYI
> one end of the green E&C wire goes to either a "blunt cut" 
> dead ended wire if w/o Onstar or remote CD player or TO those 
> items (if equipped) WOT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WopOnTour" <wopontour at hotmail.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> 
> 
> > Cool
> > It IS E&C!
> > The audio schematics show it from pin 14 of the DLC to C2 
> pin 15 (E&C) 
> > of the radio, even though the DLC schematic shows it as 
> being unpopulated.
> > Good Luck on the E&C interface!
> > WOT
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:14 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >
> >
> > I'd like it to be E&C, after I get my USB/VPW project done 
> I'd like to 
> > do an E&C project.  I'll put a scope on and see what it does.
> >
> > --steve
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
> >> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Scott Pearson
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:58 AM
> >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >>
> >> Green was traditionally E&C data. Might check and see if 
> it connects 
> >> to the radio.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "WopOnTour" <wopontour at hotmail.com>
> >> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:01 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >>
> >>
> >> > Steve:
> >> > According to the wiring 2001 thru 2003 DLC wiring
> >> schematic, there should
> >> > only be 4 wires to your DLC.(as you  indicated) The 
> green wire you 
> >> > have in pin 14 has likely been something
> >> added by some
> >> > after market accessory or gage. While it's true pin 14 is
> >> designated for
> >> > CAN, there was not CAN (GMLAN) implemented (at the DLC at
> >> least) into any
> >> > GM truck in 2002. If there WAS (eg. as for the Parallel
> >> Hybrid Truck -PHT
> >> > a couple years later in 2004)  it would be DUAL WIRE CAN
> >> (aka High Speed
> >> > GMLAN) and therefore would also require there be a wire in
> >> pin 6 (HS GMLAN
> >> > +). These wires are usually tan (pin 14 GMLAN HS-) and
> >> tan/wht  (pin 6
> >> > GMLAN HS+)  What do you measure on that wire with a DVOM or DSO??
> >> > Regards
> >> > WOT
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> >> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> >> > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:37 PM
> >> > Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The schematics for my truck ('02 K1500) show 4 wires to the DLC:
> >> >
> >> > pin 2:  class2 data
> >> > pin 4:  gnd
> >> > pin 5:  gnd
> >> > pin 16: Vbatt
> >> >
> >> > But my actual connector has a fifth wire, green, on pin 14.
> >>  The OBD2
> >> > spec seems to say this is a CAN line, but if CAN were
> >> implemented there
> >> > would have to be a wire in pin 6 also, and there's not.
> >> Any idea what
> >> > this wire might be?
> >> >
> >> > thanks,
> >> > --steve
> >> >
> >> > -------------------
> >> > Steve Ravet
> >> > ARM
> >> > steve.ravet at arm.com
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any
> >> attachments are
> >> > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
> >> intended
> >> > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not
> >> disclose the
> >> > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or
> >> store or copy the
> >> > information in any medium.  Thank you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Gmecm mailing list
> >> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> >> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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 mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net  Wed Aug  8 08:27:32 2007
From: mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net (Scott Pearson)
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 08:27:32 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
References: <28381675.1185345860419.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps16.sth.basefarm.net><8C99E86ACEA2CC6-8B8-56DC@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><46AB4961.8030406@verizon.net><8C99F688E9BB0B8-D74-459E@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><46ACD74C.4040808@verizon.net><46AD2E32.4020306@vessels-clan.com><46AD9A15.20605@verizon.net>
	<46AEAC8A.50507@vessels-clan.com><002801c7d8fb$862570a0$8d750747@DELL3G>
	<46B9108C.4040903@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <010401c7d9bf$e09d88f0$8d750747@DELL3G>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kc" <kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip


> there is only 1 computer in this ride has 3 connections
> not taking it out until i have a replacement i won on ebay

There's going to be more than one computer in this car. Without looking at 
the schematics, I'm going to guess 5-7 individual modules. The PCM (under 
the passenger side of the dash) and the BCM (behind the glove box) both have 
3 connections. The two black ones will be the same, but the colored one will 
be different. I think a 92 will have red on the BCM and green on the PCM.

Scott 





From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Wed Aug  8 23:12:51 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:12:51 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
In-Reply-To: <BAY122-DAV170619AE2060EBDB5DC931BAE60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F2938CE73D@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

And the answer is...  E&C, and it is connected.  It idles high at 12V,
and I see bits fly by when the radio is turned on or off, and switched
between radio and CD.  This is in a truck without OnStar, CD changer, or
fancy A/C controls.  Now if I could just get the USB/VPW done I could
start on E&C.

I've not been able to turn up anything about E&C other than the most
basic information -- idle is 12V, and bit rate is around 1kbit/sec.
Does anyone have anything more detailed about it?  Electrical layer or
message layer?

--steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of WopOnTour
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 6:24 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> 
> FYI
> one end of the green E&C wire goes to either a "blunt cut" 
> dead ended wire if w/o Onstar or remote CD player or TO those 
> items (if equipped) WOT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WopOnTour" <wopontour at hotmail.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> 
> 
> > Cool
> > It IS E&C!
> > The audio schematics show it from pin 14 of the DLC to C2 
> pin 15 (E&C) 
> > of the radio, even though the DLC schematic shows it as 
> being unpopulated.
> > Good Luck on the E&C interface!
> > WOT
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:14 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >
> >
> > I'd like it to be E&C, after I get my USB/VPW project done 
> I'd like to 
> > do an E&C project.  I'll put a scope on and see what it does.
> >
> > --steve
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
> >> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Scott Pearson
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:58 AM
> >> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >>
> >> Green was traditionally E&C data. Might check and see if 
> it connects 
> >> to the radio.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "WopOnTour" <wopontour at hotmail.com>
> >> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:01 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >>
> >>
> >> > Steve:
> >> > According to the wiring 2001 thru 2003 DLC wiring
> >> schematic, there should
> >> > only be 4 wires to your DLC.(as you  indicated) The 
> green wire you 
> >> > have in pin 14 has likely been something
> >> added by some
> >> > after market accessory or gage. While it's true pin 14 is
> >> designated for
> >> > CAN, there was not CAN (GMLAN) implemented (at the DLC at
> >> least) into any
> >> > GM truck in 2002. If there WAS (eg. as for the Parallel
> >> Hybrid Truck -PHT
> >> > a couple years later in 2004)  it would be DUAL WIRE CAN
> >> (aka High Speed
> >> > GMLAN) and therefore would also require there be a wire in
> >> pin 6 (HS GMLAN
> >> > +). These wires are usually tan (pin 14 GMLAN HS-) and
> >> tan/wht  (pin 6
> >> > GMLAN HS+)  What do you measure on that wire with a DVOM or DSO??
> >> > Regards
> >> > WOT
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> >> > To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> >> > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:37 PM
> >> > Subject: [Gmecm] DLC question
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The schematics for my truck ('02 K1500) show 4 wires to the DLC:
> >> >
> >> > pin 2:  class2 data
> >> > pin 4:  gnd
> >> > pin 5:  gnd
> >> > pin 16: Vbatt
> >> >
> >> > But my actual connector has a fifth wire, green, on pin 14.
> >>  The OBD2
> >> > spec seems to say this is a CAN line, but if CAN were
> >> implemented there
> >> > would have to be a wire in pin 6 also, and there's not.
> >> Any idea what
> >> > this wire might be?
> >> >
> >> > thanks,
> >> > --steve
> >> >
> >> > -------------------
> >> > Steve Ravet
> >> > ARM
> >> > steve.ravet at arm.com
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any
> >> attachments are
> >> > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
> >> intended
> >> > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not
> >> disclose the
> >> > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or
> >> store or copy the
> >> > information in any medium.  Thank you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Gmecm mailing list
> >> > Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >> > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> >> > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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 kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net  Thu Aug  9 08:50:02 2007
From: kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net (kc)
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:50:02 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
References: <28381675.1185345860419.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps16.sth.basefarm.net><8C99E86ACEA2CC6-8B8-56DC@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><46AB4961.8030406@verizon.net><8C99F688E9BB0B8-D74-459E@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><46ACD74C.4040808@verizon.net><46AD2E32.4020306@vessels-clan.com><46AD9A15.20605@verizon.net>
	<46AEAC8A.50507@vessels-clan.com><002801c7d8fb$862570a0$8d750747@DELL3G>
	<46B9108C.4040903@verizon.net> <010401c7d9bf$e09d88f0$8d750747@DELL3G>
Message-ID: <9201BFF347874C978168C48E99F98E79@TOBYWXIMCB1684A>

my 4" thick manual only shows ONE behind the dash. It is held in place with 
TORX screws and rather small.

SSO....if I replace the computret behind the glove box might my problem 
disappear?

I CANNOT reset the BCM codes when I get them thru the system

I don't trust GM to diagnose the problem w/o costing me a FORTUNE

I *did* win a new computer (a steal at $9.95)

If you go to partsamerica.com and punch in my 92 riv there is the one 
computer starting with (from memory) 16... and that is the one I won

kc

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Pearson" <mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "kc" <kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 7:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
>
>
>> there is only 1 computer in this ride has 3 connections
>> not taking it out until i have a replacement i won on ebay
>
> There's going to be more than one computer in this car. Without looking at 
> the schematics, I'm going to guess 5-7 individual modules. The PCM (under 
> the passenger side of the dash) and the BCM (behind the glove box) both 
> have 3 connections. The two black ones will be the same, but the colored 
> one will be different. I think a 92 will have red on the BCM and green on 
> the PCM.
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm 



From sonex128 at gmail.com  Thu Aug  9 09:56:41 2007
From: sonex128 at gmail.com (Brian Bland)
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:56:41 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 BNKM with 700R4
Message-ID: <46BB2B29.1060000@gmail.com>

I have a 16197427 ECM with BNKM from a 1995 Chevy 3500.

I am wanting to use this with a 350 TBI and 700R4 in my Jeep. 

I am trying to figure out how to chang the program so I can use a 700R4 
instead of the 4l60e or 4l80e.

Not sure where to start.  I have been going crazy lately trying to read 
everything I can about this.

Anybody care to help me get going in the right direction?

Thanks,

Brian Bland
Claremore, OK


From jlg-sep at comcast.net  Thu Aug  9 12:18:18 2007
From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch)
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:18:18 +0000
Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 BNKM with 700R4
Message-ID: <080920071718.14784.46BB4C5A00090FA3000039C022068246939F0A9CD3090406@comcast.net>

Its actually fairly easy - just turn off all of the transmission related DTC's
using your favorite editor.

You might also look in the cal to see if there is a switch setting labeled
"Electronic Transmission Option", which is quite common in many of
the OBDII calibrations.  Your '95 might have it.

-Scott

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Brian Bland <sonex128 at gmail.com>
> I have a 16197427 ECM with BNKM from a 1995 Chevy 3500.
> 
> I am wanting to use this with a 350 TBI and 700R4 in my Jeep. 
> 
> I am trying to figure out how to chang the program so I can use a 700R4 
> instead of the 4l60e or 4l80e.
> 
> Not sure where to start.  I have been going crazy lately trying to read 
> everything I can about this.
> 
> Anybody care to help me get going in the right direction?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brian Bland
> Claremore, OK


From jay at vessels-clan.com  Thu Aug  9 17:55:20 2007
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:55:20 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
In-Reply-To: <9201BFF347874C978168C48E99F98E79@TOBYWXIMCB1684A>
References: <28381675.1185345860419.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps16.sth.basefarm.net><8C99E86ACEA2CC6-8B8-56DC@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><46AB4961.8030406@verizon.net><8C99F688E9BB0B8-D74-459E@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><46ACD74C.4040808@verizon.net><46AD2E32.4020306@vessels-clan.com><46AD9A15.20605@verizon.net>	<46AEAC8A.50507@vessels-clan.com><002801c7d8fb$862570a0$8d750747@DELL3G>	<46B9108C.4040903@verizon.net>
	<010401c7d9bf$e09d88f0$8d750747@DELL3G>
	<9201BFF347874C978168C48E99F98E79@TOBYWXIMCB1684A>
Message-ID: <46BB9B58.9050205@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

I have an '89 Eldorado shop manual, which is an E-body car like your Riv 
(though a bit older).  If I can dig it up, I'll see what I can find.

The problem is that the EEPROM that contains the odometer mileage is not 
in the ECM ("computer").  It's in either the BCM (another computer) or 
the IPC (instrument panel cluster, yet another computer).  Replacing the 
ECM won't do you any good  -- it's more-or-less not involved in the 
IPC's displaying the odometer.

Search through that manual (by the size, I'm assuming the Helm manual?) 
and look for "BCM" and "IPC" and see what you find.

If you take your car to a GM dealer, they'll take the IPC out and send 
it off for remanufacturing.  I don't know if the original mileage will 
still be there or not.  If not, then the title to the car may have to be 
marked "unknown mileage" if you try to sell it (going by my experience 
in KY).

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


kc wrote:
> my 4" thick manual only shows ONE behind the dash. It is held in place 
> with TORX screws and rather small.
> 
> SSO....if I replace the computret behind the glove box might my problem 
> disappear?
> 
> I CANNOT reset the BCM codes when I get them thru the system
> 
> I don't trust GM to diagnose the problem w/o costing me a FORTUNE
> 
> I *did* win a new computer (a steal at $9.95)
> 
> If you go to partsamerica.com and punch in my 92 riv there is the one 
> computer starting with (from memory) 16... and that is the one I won
> 
> kc
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Pearson" <mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "kc" <kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 7:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
>>
>>
>>> there is only 1 computer in this ride has 3 connections
>>> not taking it out until i have a replacement i won on ebay
>>
>> There's going to be more than one computer in this car. Without 
>> looking at the schematics, I'm going to guess 5-7 individual modules. 
>> The PCM (under the passenger side of the dash) and the BCM (behind the 
>> glove box) both have 3 connections. The two black ones will be the 
>> same, but the colored one will be different. I think a 92 will have 
>> red on the BCM and green on the PCM.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> 


From dvfagan at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  9 18:42:28 2007
From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan)
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 BNKM with 700R4
In-Reply-To: <46BB2B29.1060000@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <563770.54657.qm@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Brian,
Why not just set the bit that tells the ecm it has a
manual tranny, and control the 700R4 with a kit from
one of the tranny builders? 
Dennis 
--- Brian Bland <sonex128 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a 16197427 ECM with BNKM from a 1995 Chevy
> 3500.
> 
> I am wanting to use this with a 350 TBI and 700R4 in
> my Jeep. 
> 
> I am trying to figure out how to chang the program
> so I can use a 700R4 
> instead of the 4l60e or 4l80e.
> 
> Not sure where to start.  I have been going crazy
> lately trying to read 
> everything I can about this.
> 
> Anybody care to help me get going in the right
> direction?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brian Bland
> Claremore, OK
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe:
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 


From sonex128 at gmail.com  Thu Aug  9 21:13:51 2007
From: sonex128 at gmail.com (Brian Bland)
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:13:51 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 BNKM with 700R4
In-Reply-To: <563770.54657.qm@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <563770.54657.qm@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <46BBC9DF.2050903@gmail.com>

That would work.  What definiton file should I use with BNKM?  Is it 
$OD?  I am using TunerPro software.

Brian

DV Fagan wrote:
> Brian,
> Why not just set the bit that tells the ecm it has a
> manual tranny, and control the 700R4 with a kit from
> one of the tranny builders? 
> Dennis 
> --- Brian Bland <sonex128 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> I have a 16197427 ECM with BNKM from a 1995 Chevy
>> 3500.
>>
>> I am wanting to use this with a 350 TBI and 700R4 in
>> my Jeep. 
>>
>> I am trying to figure out how to chang the program
>> so I can use a 700R4 
>> instead of the 4l60e or 4l80e.
>>
>> Not sure where to start.  I have been going crazy
>> lately trying to read 
>> everything I can about this.
>>
>> Anybody care to help me get going in the right
>> direction?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Brian Bland
>> Claremore, OK
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe:
>> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>        
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
>   



From dvfagan at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  9 22:30:17 2007
From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan)
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 BNKM with 700R4
In-Reply-To: <46BBC9DF.2050903@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <591520.60859.qm@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Brian,
My '95 had a manual tranny and had a smaller prom than
yours.  The chip was a 2732a and pattern was $9A. The
$0D is similar.  Your prom chip is a 27C256 which is 8
times larger.  Your cpu rom isn't compatible with a
$0D image. I would go with a new non-gm pattern which
runs totally out of the prom and disables the rom on
the cpu. The advantage with this is that the ALDL data
rates are higher and the data tables are larger giving
greater resolution.  Have fun!!
Dennis

--- Brian Bland <sonex128 at gmail.com> wrote:

> That would work.  What definiton file should I use
> with BNKM?  Is it 
> $OD?  I am using TunerPro software.
> 
> Brian
> 
> DV Fagan wrote:
> > Brian,
> > Why not just set the bit that tells the ecm it has
> a
> > manual tranny, and control the 700R4 with a kit
> from
> > one of the tranny builders? 
> > Dennis 
> > --- Brian Bland <sonex128 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> I have a 16197427 ECM with BNKM from a 1995 Chevy
> >> 3500.
> >>
> >> I am wanting to use this with a 350 TBI and 700R4
> in
> >> my Jeep. 
> >>
> >> I am trying to figure out how to chang the
> program
> >> so I can use a 700R4 
> >> instead of the 4l60e or 4l80e.
> >>
> >> Not sure where to start.  I have been going crazy
> >> lately trying to read 
> >> everything I can about this.
> >>
> >> Anybody care to help me get going in the right
> >> direction?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Brian Bland
> >> Claremore, OK
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Gmecm mailing list
> >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >> Subscribe:
> >> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> >        
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo!
> Small Business gives you all the tools to get
> online.
> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222


From red83brick at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  9 23:01:25 2007
From: red83brick at yahoo.com (Chris Reynolds)
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 BNKM with 700R4
In-Reply-To: <591520.60859.qm@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <817181.50739.qm@web61023.mail.yahoo.com>

With the 427 PCM simply check the TCC only option bit, along with the Automatic transmission option selected.  The code is all there, just needs to have the right option checksum checked.  It is very simple if you look through the hack.  It is at L400F, Bit 6, simply check the flag. Make for sure that L400F, Bit 7 is unchecked (Checked=Manual trans, Un-checked = Automatic Trans)

DV Fagan <dvfagan at yahoo.com> wrote:  Brian,
My '95 had a manual tranny and had a smaller prom than
yours. The chip was a 2732a and pattern was $9A. The
$0D is similar. Your prom chip is a 27C256 which is 8
times larger. Your cpu rom isn't compatible with a
$0D image. I would go with a new non-gm pattern which
runs totally out of the prom and disables the rom on
the cpu. The advantage with this is that the ALDL data
rates are higher and the data tables are larger giving
greater resolution. Have fun!!
Dennis

--- Brian Bland wrote:

> That would work. What definiton file should I use
> with BNKM? Is it 
> $OD? I am using TunerPro software.
> 
> Brian
> 
> DV Fagan wrote:
> > Brian,
> > Why not just set the bit that tells the ecm it has
> a
> > manual tranny, and control the 700R4 with a kit
> from
> > one of the tranny builders? 
> > Dennis 
> > --- Brian Bland wrote:
> >
> > 
> >> I have a 16197427 ECM with BNKM from a 1995 Chevy
> >> 3500.
> >>
> >> I am wanting to use this with a 350 TBI and 700R4
> in
> >> my Jeep. 
> >>
> >> I am trying to figure out how to chang the
> program
> >> so I can use a 700R4 
> >> instead of the 4l60e or 4l80e.
> >>
> >> Not sure where to start. I have been going crazy
> >> lately trying to read 
> >> everything I can about this.
> >>
> >> Anybody care to help me get going in the right
> >> direction?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Brian Bland
> >> Claremore, OK
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Gmecm mailing list
> >> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> >> Subscribe:
> >> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> >> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> >>
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo!
> Small Business gives you all the tools to get
> online.
> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 




____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
_______________________________________________
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


       
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. 

From di_dallas at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  9 23:01:49 2007
From: di_dallas at yahoo.com (Tom Butcher)
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] 16197427 BNKM with 700R4
In-Reply-To: <46BBC9DF.2050903@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <947938.61707.qm@web53708.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

BNKM is the $31 mask.  Originally for a 1995 5.7L HD TBI truck with a 4L80E.  The EPROM is 27C512.  HTH
   
  Tom

Brian Bland <sonex128 at gmail.com> wrote:
  That would work. What definiton file should I use with BNKM? Is it 
$OD? I am using TunerPro software.

Brian

DV Fagan wrote:
> Brian,
> Why not just set the bit that tells the ecm it has a
> manual tranny, and control the 700R4 with a kit from
> one of the tranny builders? 
> Dennis 
> --- Brian Bland wrote:
>
> 
>> I have a 16197427 ECM with BNKM from a 1995 Chevy
>> 3500.
>>
>> I am wanting to use this with a 350 TBI and 700R4 in
>> my Jeep. 
>>
>> I am trying to figure out how to chang the program
>> so I can use a 700R4 
>> instead of the 4l60e or 4l80e.
>>
>> Not sure where to start. I have been going crazy
>> lately trying to read 
>> everything I can about this.
>>
>> Anybody care to help me get going in the right
>> direction?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Brian Bland
>> Claremore, OK
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe:
>> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>
>> 
>
>
>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


       
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

From kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net  Sat Aug 11 10:02:17 2007
From: kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net (kc)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:02:17 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
In-Reply-To: <46BB9B58.9050205@vessels-clan.com>
References: <28381675.1185345860419.JavaMail.apache@eni-cpps16.sth.basefarm.net><8C99E86ACEA2CC6-8B8-56DC@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com><46AB4961.8030406@verizon.net><8C99F688E9BB0B8-D74-459E@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com><46ACD74C.4040808@verizon.net><46AD2E32.4020306@vessels-clan.com><46AD9A15.20605@verizon.net>
	<46AEAC8A.50507@vessels-clan.com><002801c7d8fb$862570a0$8d750747@DELL3G>
	<46B9108C.4040903@verizon.net>	<010401c7d9bf$e09d88f0$8d750747@DELL3G>
	<9201BFF347874C978168C48E99F98E79@TOBYWXIMCB1684A>
	<46BB9B58.9050205@vessels-clan.com>
Message-ID: <46BDCF79.5040105@verizon.net>

Jay Vessels wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> I have an '89 Eldorado shop manual, which is an E-body car like your 
> Riv (though a bit older).  If I can dig it up, I'll see what I can find.
>
> The problem is that the EEPROM that contains the odometer mileage is 
> not in the ECM ("computer").  It's in either the BCM (another 
> computer) or the IPC (instrument panel cluster, yet another 
> computer).  Replacing the ECM won't do you any good  -- it's 
> more-or-less not involved in the IPC's displaying the odometer.
>
> Search through that manual (by the size, I'm assuming the Helm 
> manual?) and look for "BCM" and "IPC" and see what you find.
>
> If you take your car to a GM dealer, they'll take the IPC out and send 
> it off for remanufacturing.  I don't know if the original mileage will 
> still be there or not.  If not, then the title to the car may have to 
> be marked "unknown mileage" if you try to sell it (going by my 
> experience in KY).
>
> Good luck,
> Jay Vessels
> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending)
>
>
> kc wrote:
>> my 4" thick manual only shows ONE behind the dash. It is held in 
>> place with TORX screws and rather small.
>>
>> SSO....if I replace the computret behind the glove box might my 
>> problem disappear?
>>
>> I CANNOT reset the BCM codes when I get them thru the system
>>
>> I don't trust GM to diagnose the problem w/o costing me a FORTUNE
>>
>> I *did* win a new computer (a steal at $9.95)
>>
>> If you go to partsamerica.com and punch in my 92 riv there is the one 
>> computer starting with (from memory) 16... and that is the one I won
>>
>> kc
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Scott Pearson" <mrcad472 at iowatelecom.net>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "kc" <kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net>
>>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 7:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] gm 92 riv prom chip
>>>
>>>
>>>> there is only 1 computer in this ride has 3 connections
>>>> not taking it out until i have a replacement i won on ebay
>>>
>>> There's going to be more than one computer in this car. Without 
>>> looking at the schematics, I'm going to guess 5-7 individual 
>>> modules. The PCM (under the passenger side of the dash) and the BCM 
>>> (behind the glove box) both have 3 connections. The two black ones 
>>> will be the same, but the colored one will be different. I think a 
>>> 92 will have red on the BCM and green on the PCM.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gmecm mailing list
>>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
book shows BCM as a stick man picture only with NO location.
3 connections. Looks like unit behind dash suspiciously
what is SHOT?
Since dash WAS replaced and worked FINE on car it WAS in.
EVERYTHING works except the odometer.

kc


From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Sat Aug 11 18:03:45 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:03:45 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] corsica/beretta service manuals available
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F293909E81@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

I've got the complete set of factory service manuals for 1988
corsica/beretta.  The car is long gone, I need to get rid of the
manuals.  3 books:

1987/1988 service manual
1988 electrical diagnosis service manual supplement
1988 service manual supplement.

Make me an offer I can't refuse!

--steve

-------------------
Steve Ravet
ARM
steve.ravet at arm.com

-- 
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.




From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Sat Aug 11 19:00:55 2007
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] part search
Message-ID: <161570.55187.qm@web80504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I'm trying to locate the one last part for my TBI conversion. It has me stalemated!
I'm trying to locate the sender assembly for the intank pump/sender unit for an 85 El Camino from the fuel injected V6 setup. All of the aftermarket sources we've been able to locate are unable to source a new unit. We prefer a new one as the tank is new and we'd prefer to not have to do that part again. Once dropping the tank is enough.
I know this is not normal for this list, but at this point I'm at wit's end trying to find one.
Any help would be very greatly appreciated.

From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Sat Aug 11 20:11:39 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:11:39 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] part search
In-Reply-To: <161570.55187.qm@web80504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F293909E8C@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

I think it was a fuel injected 4.3L v8, not v6.  I got mine from a Monte
Carlo.  I was able to get a new sender from the dealer, but they must
have been in short supply because they wanted proof (ie VIN) that I
actually owned the vehicle!  Anyway if you can get a used one in decent
shape you can put a new pump on it and it should be fine I would think.

--steve
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:01 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] part search
> 
> I'm trying to locate the one last part for my TBI conversion. 
> It has me stalemated!
> I'm trying to locate the sender assembly for the intank 
> pump/sender unit for an 85 El Camino from the fuel injected 
> V6 setup. All of the aftermarket sources we've been able to 
> locate are unable to source a new unit. We prefer a new one 
> as the tank is new and we'd prefer to not have to do that 
> part again. Once dropping the tank is enough.
> I know this is not normal for this list, but at this point 
> I'm at wit's end trying to find one.
> Any help would be very greatly appreciated.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

-- 
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.




From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Sat Aug 11 20:40:11 2007
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] part search
Message-ID: <245017.96330.qm@web80504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

We can no longer get one from our local dealers, that was our last resort due to price and they don't list it available :-(


----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Ravet <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 8:11:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] part search


I think it was a fuel injected 4.3L v8, not v6.  I got mine from a Monte
Carlo.  I was able to get a new sender from the dealer, but they must
have been in short supply because they wanted proof (ie VIN) that I
actually owned the vehicle!  Anyway if you can get a used one in decent
shape you can put a new pump on it and it should be fine I would think.

--steve


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:01 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] part search
> 
> I'm trying to locate the one last part for my TBI conversion. 
> It has me stalemated!
> I'm trying to locate the sender assembly for the intank 
> pump/sender unit for an 85 El Camino from the fuel injected 
> V6 setup. All of the aftermarket sources we've been able to 
> locate are unable to source a new unit. We prefer a new one 
> as the tank is new and we'd prefer to not have to do that 
> part again. Once dropping the tank is enough.
> I know this is not normal for this list, but at this point 
> I'm at wit's end trying to find one.
> Any help would be very greatly appreciated.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

-- 
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.


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

From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Sat Aug 11 21:05:53 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:05:53 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] part search
In-Reply-To: <245017.96330.qm@web80504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F293909E94@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

try car-part.com for a used one.  I can't imagine you'd have problems
locating one, and a new pump will make it good-as-new.

--steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 8:40 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] part search
> 
> We can no longer get one from our local dealers, that was our 
> last resort due to price and they don't list it available :-(
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Steve Ravet <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 8:11:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] part search
> 
> 
> I think it was a fuel injected 4.3L v8, not v6.  I got mine 
> from a Monte Carlo.  I was able to get a new sender from the 
> dealer, but they must have been in short supply because they 
> wanted proof (ie VIN) that I actually owned the vehicle!  
> Anyway if you can get a used one in decent shape you can put 
> a new pump on it and it should be fine I would think.
> 
> --steve
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
> > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rick McLeod
> > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:01 PM
> > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> > Subject: [Gmecm] part search
> > 
> > I'm trying to locate the one last part for my TBI conversion. 
> > It has me stalemated!
> > I'm trying to locate the sender assembly for the intank pump/sender 
> > unit for an 85 El Camino from the fuel injected
> > V6 setup. All of the aftermarket sources we've been able to 
> locate are 
> > unable to source a new unit. We prefer a new one as the tank is new 
> > and we'd prefer to not have to do that part again. Once 
> dropping the 
> > tank is enough.
> > I know this is not normal for this list, but at this point I'm at 
> > wit's end trying to find one.
> > Any help would be very greatly appreciated.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > 
> 
> -- 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any 
> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If 
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
> immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other 
> person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the 
> information in any medium.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> _______________________________________________
> 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 galaxiecustom500 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 11 23:32:01 2007
From: galaxiecustom500 at yahoo.com (J M)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] part search
In-Reply-To: <161570.55187.qm@web80504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <582438.39810.qm@web57307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


This is the closest I found in a quick search:
http://www.tanks-to-pans.com/site/823208/product/FG10F

It's listed for '86-89 caprice 4.3 v6 vin z.  Would
imagine the fuel lines inside the tank might need
re-angled to be located in the correct position for an
el camino tank.

It's been a couple years since I looked it up but you
used to be able to get sending units for 80's gm
vehicles from Advance Auto, Autozone etc..  

If you haven't tried yet stop in at a local parts
store and see if they have a fuel tank/sending unit
catalog, then have them call the manufacturer.  Could
just be they don't list it anymore but can still get
one special ordered.

Good luck.
--- Rick McLeod <dunvegan at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I'm trying to locate the one last part for my TBI
> conversion. It has me stalemated!
> I'm trying to locate the sender assembly for the
> intank pump/sender unit for an 85 El Camino from the
> fuel injected V6 setup. All of the aftermarket
> sources we've been able to locate are unable to
> source a new unit. We prefer a new one as the tank
> is new and we'd prefer to not have to do that part
> again. Once dropping the tank is enough.
> I know this is not normal for this list, but at this
> point I'm at wit's end trying to find one.
> Any help would be very greatly appreciated.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/


From barryhanas at netscape.net  Sun Aug 12 06:48:53 2007
From: barryhanas at netscape.net (barryhanas at netscape.net)
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:48:53 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] part search
In-Reply-To: <582438.39810.qm@web57307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8C9AAEDE3F7689B-EFC-C13F@webmail-me05.sysops.aol.com>


The tank on a el camino is the same as chev-pont wagon long neck out the side. Maybe a 89 90 caprice car would retro or a 90's cady with a 350 chev motor. 










-----Original Message-----
From: J M <galaxiecustom500 at yahoo.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:32 am
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] part search




This is the closest I found in a quick search:
http://www.tanks-to-pans.com/site/823208/product/FG10F

It's listed for '86-89 caprice 4.3 v6 vin z.  Would
imagine the fuel lines inside the tank might need
re-angled to be located in the correct position for an
el camino tank.

It's been a couple years since I looked it up but you
used to be able to get sending units for 80's gm
vehicles from Advance Auto, Autozone etc..  

If you haven't tried yet stop in at a local parts
store and see if they have a fuel tank/sending unit
catalog, then have them call the manufacturer.  Could
just be they don't list it anymore but can still get
one special ordered.

Good luck.
--- Rick McLeod <dunvegan at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I'm trying to locate the one last part for my TBI
> conversion. It has me stalemated!
> I'm trying to locate the sender assembly for the
> intank pump/sender unit for an 85 El Camino from the
> fuel injected V6 setup. All of the aftermarket
> sources we've been able to locate are unable to
> source a new unit. We prefer a new one as the tank
> is new and we'd prefer to not have to do that part
> again. Once dropping the tank is enough.
> I know this is not normal for this list, but at this
> point I'm at wit's end trying to find one.
> Any help would be very greatly appreciated.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! 
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm


________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.


From dennysweet at charter.net  Sun Aug 12 09:32:08 2007
From: dennysweet at charter.net (Denny)
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:32:08 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] part search
References: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F293909E8C@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <003301c7dced$902bd4e0$2e02a8c0@dennyhuyir5nuj>

Ever think about looking in the Hollander Interchange book?


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Aug 12 12:58:20 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:58:20 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 calibration setting
References: <20070805.101302.11932.0@webmail17.dca.untd.com>
	<006501c7d77b$394682a0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <005301c7dd0a$a1495e60$020101c0@gandalf>

Anybody know what bit 0 of KAFOPT1 actually does? 

If 1, is EGR turned OFF, and the P4 doc BPW formula valid?

Robin


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Aug 12 15:17:56 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:17:56 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 simplification
References: <20070805.101302.11932.0@webmail17.dca.untd.com><006501c7d77b$394682a0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<005301c7dd0a$a1495e60$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <006801c7dd1d$e06e65f0$020101c0@gandalf>

I've spent the whole weekend trying to define a calibration that cuts down 
on the number of adjustments that code $58 makes in preparation for setting 
up base VE tables _from_scratch_.

I've been adopting a 'belt and braces' approach where I set one or more 
thresholds to turn off a factor (e.g. EGR/DFCO) and all the values that the 
factor would apply if it was on - so that they would have no effect.

There's a couple that I'm not clear on:

- how to set the F28 and F75 arrays to make EGR have no effect
- how to set KDFCOG to make DFCO have no effect

Can anybody help?

Robin 



From Joel.Eck at hp.com  Mon Aug 13 08:38:31 2007
From: Joel.Eck at hp.com (Eck, Joel (GCC ISS Engineer))
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:38:31 -0000
Subject: [Gmecm] RE: part search
In-Reply-To: <20070812170245.3BC9032E23@atarelrim03.atl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <D262A9C49230E64E8EFB43127B42EAE40111A818@G3W0633.americas.hpqcorp.net>

If you've got the 22 gallon tank, go check out the 'fuel pump hanger'
for an 87 el camino (85 and 86 don't show it) with the TBI 4.3 V6 on
www.napaonline.com. The picture looks about right. Oreilly's website
lists it as a 'fuel pump hanger', too. Neither Autozone's website nor
Advance's show it, although if you walk in and find a counterman worth
his salt, they may still be able to find it for you.

Delphi FL0212


Thanks,
Joel Eck



From b.shaw at comcast.net  Mon Aug 13 10:28:24 2007
From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:28:24 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 simplification
In-Reply-To: <006801c7dd1d$e06e65f0$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <20070805.101302.11932.0@webmail17.dca.untd.com><006501c7d77b$394682a0$020101c0@gandalf>	<005301c7dd0a$a1495e60$020101c0@gandalf>
	<006801c7dd1d$e06e65f0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <46C07898.2050609@comcast.net>

Hi Robin,

To disable EGR I zeroed the F72 table,  Desired % vs vac & rpm.  I 
vaguely remember one entry somewhere that could be zeroed to disable egr 
but it's been a while since I messed with it.

With no egr the only entry in F28 that is used is the 0 entry.  That is 
basically your injector constant.

To disable DFCO I set KDFCOPT, throttle threshold for decel fuel 
cutoff,  to 0.

hth,

Bill


Rob Handley wrote:
> I've spent the whole weekend trying to define a calibration that cuts 
> down on the number of adjustments that code $58 makes in preparation 
> for setting up base VE tables _from_scratch_.
>
> I've been adopting a 'belt and braces' approach where I set one or 
> more thresholds to turn off a factor (e.g. EGR/DFCO) and all the 
> values that the factor would apply if it was on - so that they would 
> have no effect.
>
> There's a couple that I'm not clear on:
>
> - how to set the F28 and F75 arrays to make EGR have no effect
> - how to set KDFCOG to make DFCO have no effect
>
> Can anybody help?
>
> 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 dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Mon Aug 13 10:57:57 2007
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] part search
Message-ID: <410261.598.qm@web80513.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sorry for my ignorance, I didn't know of the Hollander Interchange book. I obviously don't have access to one, so if anyone does and could check I'd appreciate it.

Application: 85 El Camino V6 w/ fuel injection
Fuel level sender for intank pump/sender
    aka: Fuel Pump Hanger in Delphi terminology

THANKS TO EVERYONE THAT'S TRIED TO HELP SO FAR, GREATLY APPRECIATED!


----- Original Message ----
From: Denny <dennysweet at charter.net>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:32:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] part search


Ever think about looking in the Hollander Interchange book?
_______________________________________________
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  Mon Aug 13 13:30:01 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:30:01 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 simplification
References: <20070805.101302.11932.0@webmail17.dca.untd.com><006501c7d77b$394682a0$020101c0@gandalf>	<005301c7dd0a$a1495e60$020101c0@gandalf><006801c7dd1d$e06e65f0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<46C07898.2050609@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <00e501c7ddd7$f81c2650$020101c0@gandalf>

Hello Bill,

I had the following to zap EGR:

?         KEGRTEM1 ($0669) to maximum possible temperature ? to turn off EGR

?         Contents of F4 ($02FF) to 0 ? to turn off EGR effect

?         Contents of F72 ($06E5) to 0 ? to turn off EGR effect

?         Contents of F73 ($0739) to 0 ? to turn off EGR effect

?         F28 ($040E) to ? ? to turn off EGR effect

?         F75 ($06D1) to ? ? to turn off EGR effect



...and the following to zap DFCO:



?         KDFCOTP ($0388) to minimum possible throttle value ? to turn off 
DFCO

?         KDFCOSLK ($037B) to maximum possible speed ? to turn off DFCO

?         KDFCOG ($0373) to ? ? to turn off DFCO effect ??



Thanks for the tip about the 0 entry in the F28 array - but isn't KDISFS 
(injector flow rate in gallons/hour) not a good place to configure the BPW 
calculation for the injectors in use? (BTW Am I right in thinking that this 
is the rating of each of the 4 injectors, in the Sunbird application?)



Thanks,



Robin



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 13 August 2007 16:28
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 simplification


> Hi Robin,
>
> To disable EGR I zeroed the F72 table,  Desired % vs vac & rpm.  I vaguely 
> remember one entry somewhere that could be zeroed to disable egr but it's 
> been a while since I messed with it.
>
> With no egr the only entry in F28 that is used is the 0 entry.  That is 
> basically your injector constant.
>
> To disable DFCO I set KDFCOPT, throttle threshold for decel fuel cutoff, 
> to 0.
>
> hth,
>
> Bill
>
>
> Rob Handley wrote:
>> I've spent the whole weekend trying to define a calibration that cuts 
>> down on the number of adjustments that code $58 makes in preparation for 
>> setting up base VE tables _from_scratch_.
>>
>> I've been adopting a 'belt and braces' approach where I set one or more 
>> thresholds to turn off a factor (e.g. EGR/DFCO) and all the values that 
>> the factor would apply if it was on - so that they would have no effect.
>>
>> There's a couple that I'm not clear on:
>>
>> - how to set the F28 and F75 arrays to make EGR have no effect
>> - how to set KDFCOG to make DFCO have no effect
>>
>> Can anybody help?
>>
>> Robin



From turbodig at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 13 16:35:45 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 simplification
Message-ID: <571978.69654.qm@web35301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

KDISFS is never used in the code. F28 is the "common" means for scaling injectors.


Later,

Dig


----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:30:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 simplification

Hello Bill,

I had the following to zap EGR:

?         KEGRTEM1 ($0669) to maximum possible temperature ? to turn off EGR

?         Contents of F4 ($02FF) to 0 ? to turn off EGR effect

?         Contents of F72 ($06E5) to 0 ? to turn off EGR effect

?         Contents of F73 ($0739) to 0 ? to turn off EGR effect

?         F28 ($040E) to ? ? to turn off EGR effect

?         F75 ($06D1) to ? ? to turn off EGR effect



...and the following to zap DFCO:



?         KDFCOTP ($0388) to minimum possible throttle value ? to turn off 
DFCO

?         KDFCOSLK ($037B) to maximum possible speed ? to turn off DFCO

?         KDFCOG ($0373) to ? ? to turn off DFCO effect ??



Thanks for the tip about the 0 entry in the F28 array - but isn't KDISFS 
(injector flow rate in gallons/hour) not a good place to configure the BPW 
calculation for the injectors in use? (BTW Am I right in thinking that this 
is the rating of each of the 4 injectors, in the Sunbird application?)



Thanks,



Robin



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 13 August 2007 16:28
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 simplification


> Hi Robin,
>
> To disable EGR I zeroed the F72 table,  Desired % vs vac & rpm.  I vaguely 
> remember one entry somewhere that could be zeroed to disable egr but it's 
> been a while since I messed with it.
>
> With no egr the only entry in F28 that is used is the 0 entry.  That is 
> basically your injector constant.
>
> To disable DFCO I set KDFCOPT, throttle threshold for decel fuel cutoff, 
> to 0.
>
> hth,
>
> Bill
>
>
> Rob Handley wrote:
>> I've spent the whole weekend trying to define a calibration that cuts 
>> down on the number of adjustments that code $58 makes in preparation for 
>> setting up base VE tables _from_scratch_.
>>
>> I've been adopting a 'belt and braces' approach where I set one or more 
>> thresholds to turn off a factor (e.g. EGR/DFCO) and all the values that 
>> the factor would apply if it was on - so that they would have no effect.
>>
>> There's a couple that I'm not clear on:
>>
>> - how to set the F28 and F75 arrays to make EGR have no effect
>> - how to set KDFCOG to make DFCO have no effect
>>
>> Can anybody help?
>>
>> 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Aug 13 17:27:37 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:27:37 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 simplification
References: <571978.69654.qm@web35301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00ff01c7ddf9$29dad170$020101c0@gandalf>

You're right! :-)

Are there any rules of thumb for setting up the 0 EGR value of F28, based on 
injector rating, that I should know about?

Thanks.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 13 August 2007 22:35
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 simplification


KDISFS is never used in the code. F28 is the "common" means for scaling
injectors.


Later,

Dig


----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:30:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 simplification

Hello Bill,

I had the following to zap EGR:

?         KEGRTEM1 ($0669) to maximum possible temperature ? to turn off EGR

?         Contents of F4 ($02FF) to 0 ? to turn off EGR effect

?         Contents of F72 ($06E5) to 0 ? to turn off EGR effect

?         Contents of F73 ($0739) to 0 ? to turn off EGR effect

?         F28 ($040E) to ? ? to turn off EGR effect

?         F75 ($06D1) to ? ? to turn off EGR effect



...and the following to zap DFCO:



?         KDFCOTP ($0388) to minimum possible throttle value ? to turn off
DFCO

?         KDFCOSLK ($037B) to maximum possible speed ? to turn off DFCO

?         KDFCOG ($0373) to ? ? to turn off DFCO effect ??



Thanks for the tip about the 0 entry in the F28 array - but isn't KDISFS
(injector flow rate in gallons/hour) not a good place to configure the BPW
calculation for the injectors in use? (BTW Am I right in thinking that this
is the rating of each of the 4 injectors, in the Sunbird application?)



Thanks,



Robin



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 13 August 2007 16:28
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 simplification


> Hi Robin,
>
> To disable EGR I zeroed the F72 table,  Desired % vs vac & rpm.  I vaguely
> remember one entry somewhere that could be zeroed to disable egr but it's
> been a while since I messed with it.
>
> With no egr the only entry in F28 that is used is the 0 entry.  That is
> basically your injector constant.
>
> To disable DFCO I set KDFCOPT, throttle threshold for decel fuel cutoff,
> to 0.
>
> hth,
>
> Bill
>
>
> Rob Handley wrote:
>> I've spent the whole weekend trying to define a calibration that cuts
>> down on the number of adjustments that code $58 makes in preparation for
>> setting up base VE tables _from_scratch_.
>>
>> I've been adopting a 'belt and braces' approach where I set one or more
>> thresholds to turn off a factor (e.g. EGR/DFCO) and all the values that
>> the factor would apply if it was on - so that they would have no effect.
>>
>> There's a couple that I'm not clear on:
>>
>> - how to set the F28 and F75 arrays to make EGR have no effect
>> - how to set KDFCOG to make DFCO have no effect
>>
>> Can anybody help?
>>
>> Robin



From captain_krill at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 14 12:30:46 2007
From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
Message-ID: <542968.71380.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hello folks,
I think I understand how turning off EGR could be
useful, as you might then be able to eliminate
components, in addition to possible
performance/driveability improvements and
considersably simpler code.

On the other hand, I'm confused about the DFCO.  What
are the benefits of eliminating DFCO?

Duncan

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


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/


From b.shaw at comcast.net  Tue Aug 14 12:43:04 2007
From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:43:04 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
In-Reply-To: <542968.71380.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <542968.71380.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <46C1E9A8.3000901@comcast.net>

Well,  for me it stopped the 3' fireball I was blowing out of my 
tailpipe under hard braking while deaccelerating from 7k rpm.  That was 
getting the people I just passed all excited :-)

Bill
928s 5.0L Vortech/749

Cowen wrote:
> Hello folks,
> I think I understand how turning off EGR could be
> useful, as you might then be able to eliminate
> components, in addition to possible
> performance/driveability improvements and
> considersably simpler code.
>
> On the other hand, I'm confused about the DFCO.  What
> are the benefits of eliminating DFCO?
>
> Duncan
>
> **********************END TRANSMISSION**********************
>
>
>        
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
>   


From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug 14 12:44:32 2007
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
Message-ID: <940669.31577.qm@web80512.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

driveability? performance?

EGR should theoritically improve both, in that it should allow the tune to border on the edge of ping and recirculate exhaust gas to reduce the o2 content by the introduction of an inert component, effectivey reducing the lean-out that typically results in ping on moderate accel on hot days,

If one could tune a system for all weather conditions, I'd agree w/ removal, but EGR is your friend in most cases, especially for drivability


----- Original Message ----
From: Cowen <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:30:46 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination


Hello folks,
I think I understand how turning off EGR could be
useful, as you might then be able to eliminate
components, in addition to possible
performance/driveability improvements and
considersably simpler code.

On the other hand, I'm confused about the DFCO.  What
are the benefits of eliminating DFCO?

Duncan

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


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm

From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug 14 12:49:50 2007
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
Message-ID: <574075.19932.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

also, DFCO (De-acceleration Fuel Cut Off) is used to coast the engine when the system recognizes that the driver has lifted off the accelerator at speed, to save fuel and maintain control of speed, then re-applying fuel prior to disengagement of the drive train so the engine doesn't stall. This greatly aids drivability and economy, as frequently the intnet of a 'lift' is to slightly slow the vehicle, but the idle circuit provides enough fueling to keep the vehicle at speed, contrary to the drivers intent, and the added fuel saving is slightly noticable (requires slightly less braking to stop when the time comes)

I've a TPI Camaro and have tried both with and without DFCO, it is definately more drivable with it!!


----- Original Message ----
From: Cowen <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:30:46 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination


Hello folks,
I think I understand how turning off EGR could be
useful, as you might then be able to eliminate
components, in addition to possible
performance/driveability improvements and
considersably simpler code.

On the other hand, I'm confused about the DFCO.  What
are the benefits of eliminating DFCO?

Duncan

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


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm

From b.shaw at comcast.net  Tue Aug 14 13:17:36 2007
From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:17:36 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
In-Reply-To: <574075.19932.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <574075.19932.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <46C1F1C0.5080103@comcast.net>

Down the downhill in third,  tap the brakes slightly to set the front 
wheels,   turn in and clip the apex while rolling the power back on.  On 
the floor at the apex,  hold it straight while drifting to the outside 
of the front straight.  Holding it to the floor to 6800,  shift to 4th, 
we blow past several p-bugs by start-finish.  Still on the floor at the 
start of braking zone we're approaching 6800 again but no room for a 
shift.  Hold it to the floor until 4 then off the gas,  hard on the 
brakes (***BANG!!***) fireball!  We just scared the sh!t out of a few 
people :-) Modulate the brakes, turn in hard,  trail brake down to about 
80mph @ the apex then back to the floor again and turn in a bit a bit 
more, we're closing in on the next p-bug......  I can't wait to get back 
on the track.

Fuel economy?  What's that? :-)

Best,

Bill
928s 4 mpg in track mode,  and all smiles.

Rick McLeod wrote:
> also, DFCO (De-acceleration Fuel Cut Off) is used to coast the engine when the system recognizes that the driver has lifted off the accelerator at speed, to save fuel and maintain control of speed, then re-applying fuel prior to disengagement of the drive train so the engine doesn't stall. This greatly aids drivability and economy, as frequently the intnet of a 'lift' is to slightly slow the vehicle, but the idle circuit provides enough fueling to keep the vehicle at speed, contrary to the drivers intent, and the added fuel saving is slightly noticable (requires slightly less braking to stop when the time comes)
>
> I've a TPI Camaro and have tried both with and without DFCO, it is definately more drivable with it!!
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Cowen <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:30:46 PM
> Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
>
>
> Hello folks,
> I think I understand how turning off EGR could be
> useful, as you might then be able to eliminate
> components, in addition to possible
> performance/driveability improvements and
> considersably simpler code.
>
> On the other hand, I'm confused about the DFCO.  What
> are the benefits of eliminating DFCO?
>
> Duncan
>
> **********************END TRANSMISSION**********************
>
>
>        
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
>   


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Aug 14 14:07:03 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:07:03 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
References: <542968.71380.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <016701c7dea6$5063e590$020101c0@gandalf>

I'm just turning everything off apart from main VE based synchronous BPW 
fuel, based on MAP, MAT and RPM to give me a fighting chance of getting that 
set up right (since I am setting up $58 code for a european N/A 2 litre 4 
cyl engine with manual transmission). I don't have any EGR, IAC, ESC, VSS, 
or narrow band lambda hardware. I plan to tune VE in open loop using a WBO2.

I'll probably turn DFCO back on afterwards, for economy. I'll definitely be 
turning AE/PE back on straight after the VE seems sorted, as that'll be the 
next big thing to tune IMO. I expect to run open loop always.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cowen" <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 14 August 2007 18:30
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination


> Hello folks,
> I think I understand how turning off EGR could be
> useful, as you might then be able to eliminate
> components, in addition to possible
> performance/driveability improvements and
> considersably simpler code.
>
> On the other hand, I'm confused about the DFCO.  What
> are the benefits of eliminating DFCO?
>
> Duncan



From b.shaw at comcast.net  Tue Aug 14 14:20:08 2007
From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:20:08 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
In-Reply-To: <016701c7dea6$5063e590$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <542968.71380.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<016701c7dea6$5063e590$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <46C20068.2070200@comcast.net>

If you run $59 you may be able to run closed loop with the wb02.

Bill

Rob Handley wrote:
> I'm just turning everything off apart from main VE based synchronous 
> BPW fuel, based on MAP, MAT and RPM to give me a fighting chance of 
> getting that set up right (since I am setting up $58 code for a 
> european N/A 2 litre 4 cyl engine with manual transmission). I don't 
> have any EGR, IAC, ESC, VSS, or narrow band lambda hardware. I plan to 
> tune VE in open loop using a WBO2.
>
> I'll probably turn DFCO back on afterwards, for economy. I'll 
> definitely be turning AE/PE back on straight after the VE seems 
> sorted, as that'll be the next big thing to tune IMO. I expect to run 
> open loop always.
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cowen" <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 14 August 2007 18:30
> Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
>
>
>> Hello folks,
>> I think I understand how turning off EGR could be
>> useful, as you might then be able to eliminate
>> components, in addition to possible
>> performance/driveability improvements and
>> considersably simpler code.
>>
>> On the other hand, I'm confused about the DFCO.  What
>> are the benefits of eliminating DFCO?
>>
>> Duncan
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Aug 14 16:02:25 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:02:25 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
References: <542968.71380.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com><016701c7dea6$5063e590$020101c0@gandalf>
	<46C20068.2070200@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <017201c7deb6$6b57aa70$020101c0@gandalf>

Is $59 similar to $58? 

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 14 August 2007 20:20
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination


> If you run $59 you may be able to run closed loop with the wb02.
> 
> Bill
> 
> Rob Handley wrote:
>> I'm just turning everything off apart from main VE based synchronous 
>> BPW fuel, based on MAP, MAT and RPM to give me a fighting chance of 
>> getting that set up right (since I am setting up $58 code for a 
>> european N/A 2 litre 4 cyl engine with manual transmission). I don't 
>> have any EGR, IAC, ESC, VSS, or narrow band lambda hardware. I plan to 
>> tune VE in open loop using a WBO2.
>>
>> I'll probably turn DFCO back on afterwards, for economy. I'll 
>> definitely be turning AE/PE back on straight after the VE seems 
>> sorted, as that'll be the next big thing to tune IMO. I expect to run 
>> open loop always.
>>
>> Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Aug 14 16:45:27 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:45:27 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
References: <542968.71380.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com><016701c7dea6$5063e590$020101c0@gandalf><46C20068.2070200@comcast.net>
	<017201c7deb6$6b57aa70$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <017a01c7debc$6f786e90$020101c0@gandalf>

Hmmm, well, one of these seems to have killed off the BPW values that I was 
seeing with the last chip:

?         Contents of F72 ($06E5) to 0 - to turn off EGR effect

?         Contents of F73 ($0739) to 0 - to turn off EGR effect

?         KCLTC ($034A) to maximum possible temperature - to force OPEN loop

?         KPEMAP1 ($0393) to maximum possible pressure value - to turn off 
PE

?         KPEMAP2 ($0394) to maximum possible pressure value - to turn off 
PE

?         KPETPS ($0387) to maximum possible throttle value - to turn off PE

?         KDFCOTP ($0388) to minimum possible throttle value - to turn off 
DFCO

?         KDFCOSLK ($037B) to maximum possible speed - to turn off DFCO

?         KDETATH ($035F) to maximum possible throttle value (255% ?) - to 
turn off DE

?         KDEPMTH ($0360) to maximum possible pressure value (79.7 kPa) - to 
turn off DE

?         Contents of F34 ($04E7) to 0 - to turn off DE effect

?         Contents of F35 ($04F5) to 0 - to turn off DE effect

?         Contents of F36 ($04FB) to 0 - to turn off DE effect

?         Contents of F39 ($0501) to 0 - to turn off DE effect

?         KAPMAX ($036C) to 0 - to turn off AE

?         Contents of F21 ($050C) to 0 - to turn off AE effect

?         Contents of F22 ($0512) to 0 - to turn off AE effect

?         Contents of F37 ($0517) to 0 - to turn off AE effect

?         Contents of F38 ($0524) to 0 - to turn off AE effect

?         KFMPHLOW ($03A0) to maximum possible speed (255 MPH) - to turn off 
Turbo boost

?         KFMPHHI ($03A1) to maximum possible speed (255 MPH) - to turn off 
Turbo boost

?         Contents of F70 ($03C2) to 0 - to turn off Turbo boost effect

?         Contents of F77 ($060D) to 0 - to turn off Turbo boost effect

?         KFUELTMP ($0111) to maximum possible temperature - to turn off 
Premium fuel

?         KFRPMLOW ($038A) to 6510 RPM - to turn off High speed fuel cut off 
below this RPM

?         KFRPMHI ($038C) to 7021 RPM - to turn on High speed fuel cut off 
above this RPM

?         KWGMAPH ($03A3) to maximum possible pressure - to turn off High 
load fuel cut off

?         KWGMAPL ($03A4) to maximum possible pressure - to turn off High 
load fuel cut off

?         KBLMMAX ($0355) to 1.0 - to turn off BLM

?         KBLMMIN ($0356) to 1.0 - to turn off BLM

?         KISSPVT2 ($064E) to maximum possible voltage (25.5) - to turn off 
IAC



Trying to work out which...



Haven't wired up the MAT yet, so that might be a factor. Neither chip seems 
to be showing non-zero AIRFLOW (ALDL byte 44) though - which I can't 
understand ATM.



Robin



From lwester at lincsat.com  Tue Aug 14 17:14:53 2007
From: lwester at lincsat.com (Programmer)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:14:53 -0600
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
References: <574075.19932.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<46C1F1C0.5080103@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <001801c7dec0$8efed160$0200a8c0@WESTER2>

I'm drooling, Bill. That sounds like too much fun.

Lyndon.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination


> Down the downhill in third,  tap the brakes slightly to set the front 
> wheels,   turn in and clip the apex while rolling the power back on.  On 
> the floor at the apex,  hold it straight while drifting to the outside of 
> the front straight.  Holding it to the floor to 6800,  shift to 4th, we 
> blow past several p-bugs by start-finish.  Still on the floor at the start 
> of braking zone we're approaching 6800 again but no room for a shift. 
> Hold it to the floor until 4 then off the gas,  hard on the brakes 
> (***BANG!!***) fireball!  We just scared the sh!t out of a few people :-) 
> Modulate the brakes, turn in hard,  trail brake down to about 80mph @ the 
> apex then back to the floor again and turn in a bit a bit more, we're 
> closing in on the next p-bug......  I can't wait to get back on the track.
>
> Fuel economy?  What's that? :-)
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
> 928s 4 mpg in track mode,  and all smiles.
>
> Rick McLeod wrote:
>> also, DFCO (De-acceleration Fuel Cut Off) is used to coast the engine 
>> when the system recognizes that the driver has lifted off the accelerator 
>> at speed, to save fuel and maintain control of speed, then re-applying 
>> fuel prior to disengagement of the drive train so the engine doesn't 
>> stall. This greatly aids drivability and economy, as frequently the 
>> intnet of a 'lift' is to slightly slow the vehicle, but the idle circuit 
>> provides enough fueling to keep the vehicle at speed, contrary to the 
>> drivers intent, and the added fuel saving is slightly noticable (requires 
>> slightly less braking to stop when the time comes)
>>
>> I've a TPI Camaro and have tried both with and without DFCO, it is 
>> definately more drivable with it!!
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Cowen <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
>> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:30:46 PM
>> Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
>>
>>
>> Hello folks,
>> I think I understand how turning off EGR could be
>> useful, as you might then be able to eliminate
>> components, in addition to possible
>> performance/driveability improvements and
>> considersably simpler code.
>>
>> On the other hand, I'm confused about the DFCO.  What
>> are the benefits of eliminating DFCO?
>>
>> Duncan
>>
>> **********************END TRANSMISSION**********************
>>
>>
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! 
>> FareChase.
>> http://farechase.yahoo.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm 



From turbodig at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 14 17:22:40 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
Message-ID: <578469.15778.qm@web35313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

A group of us  (don't know how many of them are reading here)  started a project to update/fix things we didn't like in $58. $59 was the most clever name we could come up with.

Bruce had started a similar project years back ($60), but it never really caught hold. This is different from his effort.

One of the features, as Bill brings up, is WB o2 control of non PE/AE/DE fueling. It works pretty good, thanks to Don's hard work, although it does require you to have a *fairly* close tune. (WB control loop kinda freaks, otherwise)

You may download/join for free at www.code59.org. The xdf files and other tools are there as well.

The only thing that we ask, per the license, is that if you use it, you must post your tune back to the board. The idea being, that somewhere along the line, someone will need something similar, and can use your tune as a starting point. It's intended to be free for all.

Last big disclaimer, since it seems to offend some:  The xdfs and code is set up for a 3 bar map. A number of people seem to have concerns about the driveability of the 3 bar sensor, but we don't have any problems with it in the field. To each their own.

Really last big disclaimer:  This is a work in progess. We haven't observed any major bugs, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Later,

Dig
www.code59.org



----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:02:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination

Is $59 similar to $58? 

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 14 August 2007 20:20
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination


> If you run $59 you may be able to run closed loop with the wb02.
> 
> Bill
> 
> Rob Handley wrote:
>> I'm just turning everything off apart from main VE based synchronous 
>> BPW fuel, based on MAP, MAT and RPM to give me a fighting chance of 
>> getting that set up right (since I am setting up $58 code for a 
>> european N/A 2 litre 4 cyl engine with manual transmission). I don't 
>> have any EGR, IAC, ESC, VSS, or narrow band lambda hardware. I plan to 
>> tune VE in open loop using a WBO2.
>>
>> I'll probably turn DFCO back on afterwards, for economy. I'll 
>> definitely be turning AE/PE back on straight after the VE seems 
>> sorted, as that'll be the next big thing to tune IMO. I expect to run 
>> open loop always.
>>
>> 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Aug 14 17:32:19 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:32:19 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
References: <578469.15778.qm@web35313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <019c01c7dec2$faa5cca0$020101c0@gandalf>

Interesting. Thanks.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 14 August 2007 23:22
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination


A group of us  (don't know how many of them are reading here)  started a 
project to update/fix things we didn't like in $58. $59 was the most clever 
name we could come up with.

Bruce had started a similar project years back ($60), but it never really 
caught hold. This is different from his effort.

One of the features, as Bill brings up, is WB o2 control of non PE/AE/DE 
fueling. It works pretty good, thanks to Don's hard work, although it does 
require you to have a *fairly* close tune. (WB control loop kinda freaks, 
otherwise)

You may download/join for free at www.code59.org. The xdf files and other 
tools are there as well.

The only thing that we ask, per the license, is that if you use it, you must 
post your tune back to the board. The idea being, that somewhere along the 
line, someone will need something similar, and can use your tune as a 
starting point. It's intended to be free for all.

Last big disclaimer, since it seems to offend some:  The xdfs and code is 
set up for a 3 bar map. A number of people seem to have concerns about the 
driveability of the 3 bar sensor, but we don't have any problems with it in 
the field. To each their own.

Really last big disclaimer:  This is a work in progess. We haven't observed 
any major bugs, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Later,

Dig
www.code59.org



----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:02:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination

Is $59 similar to $58?

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 14 August 2007 20:20
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination


> If you run $59 you may be able to run closed loop with the wb02.
>
> Bill
>
> Rob Handley wrote:
>> I'm just turning everything off apart from main VE based synchronous
>> BPW fuel, based on MAP, MAT and RPM to give me a fighting chance of
>> getting that set up right (since I am setting up $58 code for a
>> european N/A 2 litre 4 cyl engine with manual transmission). I don't
>> have any EGR, IAC, ESC, VSS, or narrow band lambda hardware. I plan to
>> tune VE in open loop using a WBO2.
>>
>> I'll probably turn DFCO back on afterwards, for economy. I'll
>> definitely be turning AE/PE back on straight after the VE seems
>> sorted, as that'll be the next big thing to tune IMO. I expect to run
>> open loop always.
>>
>> Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Aug 14 17:51:02 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:51:02 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
References: <578469.15778.qm@web35313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01bf01c7dec5$97b343e0$020101c0@gandalf>

Forgot to ask. What didn't/don't you like about $58?

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 14 August 2007 23:22
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination


A group of us  (don't know how many of them are reading here)  started a 
project to update/fix things we didn't like in $58. $59 was the most clever 
name we could come up with.

Bruce had started a similar project years back ($60), but it never really 
caught hold. This is different from his effort.

One of the features, as Bill brings up, is WB o2 control of non PE/AE/DE 
fueling. It works pretty good, thanks to Don's hard work, although it does 
require you to have a *fairly* close tune. (WB control loop kinda freaks, 
otherwise)

You may download/join for free at www.code59.org. The xdf files and other 
tools are there as well.

The only thing that we ask, per the license, is that if you use it, you must 
post your tune back to the board. The idea being, that somewhere along the 
line, someone will need something similar, and can use your tune as a 
starting point. It's intended to be free for all.

Last big disclaimer, since it seems to offend some:  The xdfs and code is 
set up for a 3 bar map. A number of people seem to have concerns about the 
driveability of the 3 bar sensor, but we don't have any problems with it in 
the field. To each their own.

Really last big disclaimer:  This is a work in progess. We haven't observed 
any major bugs, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Later,

Dig
www.code59.org



From DOZIERHC at aol.com  Tue Aug 14 18:29:01 2007
From: DOZIERHC at aol.com (DOZIERHC at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:29:01 EDT
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: DFCO and EGR elimination - code $59
Message-ID: <be2.1970d0f1.33f394bd@aol.com>

 
Robin...
 
SW $59 is the new modified by the SyTy community boosted 1227749 ECM code  
based on the SW $58 plus mods for amongst other things, a 3-bar MAP sensor,  
usage of a Wideband O2 sensor for feedback, and better boost control.
 
You can find it by visiting the _www.code59.org_ (http://www.code59.org)  
website.  It also corrects  several bugs/amomolies found in the original GM code. 
 Plus, they have some  neat "Autotune" tools for assistance in calibration.
 
Hank
 
**************************************************
 
In a message dated 8/14/2007 6:17:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk_ (mailto:Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk)   writes:

 
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:02:25 +0100
From: "Rob Handley"  <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: 
To:  <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Message-ID:  <017201c7deb6$6b57aa70$020101c0 at gandalf>
Content-Type: text/plain;  format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response

Is $59 similar to $58?  

Robin




************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


From turbodig at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 14 19:06:00 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
Message-ID: <833452.68910.qm@web35306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



>Forgot to ask. What didn't/don't you like about $58?


>Robin



Where to begin?  There's lots of stuff that's hard to use. Also, more than a few outright bugs in the code.  

Example:  The VE tables are unnecessarily complex.  We've weeded the 3 tables (F29,F29C,and F30) down to one. (F29x).
You can select which of the 3 you want to use or not use.

Bug example: Baro is weird. I've got some stuff that I'm working on for the next release that should fix some of the oddness.

Another bug example:  ALDL comm routine was disabling receives during the "off" time that the scheduler wasn't sending heartbeat messages. Turning this back on make ALDL comm sooooo much easier. You can just send it a byte to shut up now, vs. having to play games with timing the packet.


There's still other things to fix (Mode 2 doesn't work right, the long-standing freak BPW and VE data in the data stream, etc), but we keep whacking away at it.

The v18 feature list is below.  Current dev version is 24, with some neat stuff coming.

Later,

Dig

---------------------------
Features of version 18:



WB Brand selection

   - The code expects the WB sensor voltage to be present on pin F14 (i.e. MAP2)

   - Bit 0 : DIY / TechEdge v1.0 Sensor Nonlinear Output - Uses Table

   - Bit 1 : FJO Nonlinear Output - Uses Table

   - Bit 2 : AEM Nonlinear Output - Uses Table

   - Bit 3 : TechEdge v2.0 Linear Output - Uses Formula  [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 9]

   - Bit 4 : PLX Linear Output - Uses Formula [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 10]

   - Bit 5 : Innovate Linear Output - Uses Formula [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 10]   

   - Bit 6 : AEM Linear Output - Uses Formula  [AFR = (Volts * 2) + 10]

   - Bit 7 : Zeitronix (Nonlinear Output - Uses Table)

      - Second WBo2 Sensor Setting

        - Bit 7 : RAW - Raw output of Voltage, Use formula in TunerPro to display AFR.  DO NOT USE WITH WIDE BAND O2 FUELING FLAGS TURNED ON



Closed Loop WBo2 Fueling(Not active when in PE)

   - AFR High setting

   - AFR Low Setting

   - Sensor Ready Delay, amount of time to delay before WBo2 Closed Loop code is active 



16x32 VE Table F29x covering (400-6400 RPMs, and 0 - 300 kPa (30psi))



F70_MPH - Change table from TPS% to MPH based.  



F71_MPH - Change table from TPS% to MPH based. Helps to reduce boost spiking in 3rd/4th gear.



Updated ALDL Outputs

   - Actual AFR

   - Desired AFR  

   - AE/DE/PE/DFCO Flags 

   - $3f map variable (Real 3 Bar Map Variable, used by F29x, F29_AFR)

   - $3e Filtered Map



F29x Table Only - No longer use F29c (Closed Throttle Table) at idle



Expanded Boost Multipler F77x Table - Covers a wider range of 84 - 292 kPa



Updated BARO LOGIC



V8 EGR Fix



----- Original Message ----

From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>

To: gmecm at diy-efi.org

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:51:02 PM

Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination



Forgot to ask. What didn't/don't you like about $58?



Robin



----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>

To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>

Sent: 14 August 2007 23:22

Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination





A group of us  (don't know how many of them are reading here)  started a 

project to update/fix things we didn't like in $58. $59 was the most clever 

name we could come up with.



Bruce had started a similar project years back ($60), but it never really 

caught hold. This is different from his effort.



One of the features, as Bill brings up, is WB o2 control of non PE/AE/DE 

fueling. It works pretty good, thanks to Don's hard work, although it does 

require you to have a *fairly* close tune. (WB control loop kinda freaks, 

otherwise)



You may download/join for free at www.code59.org. The xdf files and other 

tools are there as well.



The only thing that we ask, per the license, is that if you use it, you must 

post your tune back to the board. The idea being, that somewhere along the 

line, someone will need something similar, and can use your tune as a 

starting point. It's intended to be free for all.



Last big disclaimer, since it seems to offend some:  The xdfs and code is 

set up for a 3 bar map. A number of people seem to have concerns about the 

driveability of the 3 bar sensor, but we don't have any problems with it in 

the field. To each their own.



Really last big disclaimer:  This is a work in progess. We haven't observed 

any major bugs, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.



Later,



Dig

www.code59.org



_______________________________________________

Gmecm mailing list

Gmecm at diy-efi.org

Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm

Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm









From b.shaw at comcast.net  Tue Aug 14 21:04:57 2007
From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:04:57 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
In-Reply-To: <001801c7dec0$8efed160$0200a8c0@WESTER2>
References: <574075.19932.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<46C1F1C0.5080103@comcast.net>
	<001801c7dec0$8efed160$0200a8c0@WESTER2>
Message-ID: <46C25F49.1020303@comcast.net>

By the time I got done writing it I was shaking,  the adrenalin kicks in 
just thinking about it :-)

Bill

Programmer wrote:
> I'm drooling, Bill. That sounds like too much fun.
>
> Lyndon.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
>
>
>> Down the downhill in third,  tap the brakes slightly to set the front 
>> wheels,   turn in and clip the apex while rolling the power back on.  
>> On the floor at the apex,  hold it straight while drifting to the 
>> outside of the front straight.  Holding it to the floor to 6800,  
>> shift to 4th, we blow past several p-bugs by start-finish.  Still on 
>> the floor at the start of braking zone we're approaching 6800 again 
>> but no room for a shift. Hold it to the floor until 4 then off the 
>> gas,  hard on the brakes (***BANG!!***) fireball!  We just scared the 
>> sh!t out of a few people :-) Modulate the brakes, turn in hard,  
>> trail brake down to about 80mph @ the apex then back to the floor 
>> again and turn in a bit a bit more, we're closing in on the next 
>> p-bug......  I can't wait to get back on the track.
>>
>> Fuel economy?  What's that? :-)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>> 928s 4 mpg in track mode,  and all smiles.
>>
>> Rick McLeod wrote:
>>> also, DFCO (De-acceleration Fuel Cut Off) is used to coast the 
>>> engine when the system recognizes that the driver has lifted off the 
>>> accelerator at speed, to save fuel and maintain control of speed, 
>>> then re-applying fuel prior to disengagement of the drive train so 
>>> the engine doesn't stall. This greatly aids drivability and economy, 
>>> as frequently the intnet of a 'lift' is to slightly slow the 
>>> vehicle, but the idle circuit provides enough fueling to keep the 
>>> vehicle at speed, contrary to the drivers intent, and the added fuel 
>>> saving is slightly noticable (requires slightly less braking to stop 
>>> when the time comes)
>>>
>>> I've a TPI Camaro and have tried both with and without DFCO, it is 
>>> definately more drivable with it!!
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Cowen <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
>>> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:30:46 PM
>>> Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello folks,
>>> I think I understand how turning off EGR could be
>>> useful, as you might then be able to eliminate
>>> components, in addition to possible
>>> performance/driveability improvements and
>>> considersably simpler code.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I'm confused about the DFCO.  What
>>> are the benefits of eliminating DFCO?
>>>
>>> Duncan
>>>
>>> **********************END TRANSMISSION**********************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________ 
>>>
>>> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with 
>>> Yahoo! FareChase.
>>> http://farechase.yahoo.com/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gmecm mailing list
>>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gmecm mailing list
>>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gmecm mailing list
>> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm 
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Aug 15 03:53:32 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:53:32 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
References: <833452.68910.qm@web35306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01e301c7df19$c3f4b840$020101c0@gandalf>

<SNIP>
Where to begin?  There's lots of stuff that's hard to use. Also, more than a 
few outright bugs in the code.
Example:  The VE tables are unnecessarily complex.  We've weeded the 3 
tables (F29,F29C,and F30) down to one. (F29x).
You can select which of the 3 you want to use or not use.
</SNIP>

I like the simplicity of that.

<SNIP>
Bug example: Baro is weird. I've got some stuff that I'm working on for the 
next release that should fix some of the oddness.
</SNIP>

I don't understand the relationship between BARO, VACUUM and MAP. I got as 
far as generating this plot: http://213.162.107.39/misc/MAP_Vac_Baro.gif 
last year - but I couldn't explain it. I had bigger (mechanical) engine 
problems at the time so moved on. I had thought that BARO was just the MAP 
reading before the engine started - to provide a reference pressure so that 
atmospheric pressure variation could be compensated for. (BARO seems to be 
constant in the plot.) I had also thought that VACUUM was atmospheric 
pressure (BARO) minus MAP - but the plot conflicts with that. You've got me 
worried that there's a problem waiting to bite me that I don't know about...

For fuel adjustment I was planning to _only_ use:
F29, F29E, F30, F61, F21, F22, F31M, F56, and F57.

The pressure indexed ones seem to all use MAP, so I had thought that I 
didn't need to worry about VACUUM and BARO. Am I horribly wrong? What does 
your updated BARO logic do differently?

<SNIP>
Another bug example:  ALDL comm routine was disabling receives during the 
"off" time that the scheduler wasn't sending heartbeat messages. Turning 
this back on make ALDL comm sooooo much easier. You can just send it a byte 
to shut up now, vs. having to play games with timing the packet.
</SNIP>

The $58 ALDL is definitely a pain to shut the chatter up. Is that the 
problem that you've fixed? It also seems to 'glitch' like I never saw with 
$8D ALDL.

<SNIP>
There's still other things to fix (Mode 2 doesn't work right, the 
long-standing freak BPW and VE data in the data stream, etc), but we keep 
whacking away at it.
<SNIP>

I've never tried Mode 2. I thought I might remap Mode 1 to give me what I 
want.

What's the long-standing freak BPW and VE data? This sounds worrying...

<SNIP>
Updated ALDL Outputs
   - Actual AFR
   - Desired AFR
   - AE/DE/PE/DFCO Flags
   - $3f map variable (Real 3 Bar Map Variable, used by F29x, F29_AFR)
   - $3e Filtered Map
</SNIP>

It would be great to have AE/DE/PE/DFCO flags in the ALDL. ATM I don't even 
know where these exist in the code. Any pointers would be GREATLY 
appreciated!

$3F & $3E ?

Do you have a complete list of bugs/code fixes documented somewhere? That 
could really help me over the next few months. The only other one that I 
know about is the CLRA at $D0BC which forces the 600 RPM row of the main SA 
table to be used when it really shouldn't. I've put a NOP there which seemed 
to kill off the popping.

Many thanks,

Robin 



From captain_krill at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 15 12:32:42 2007
From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
Message-ID: <840459.2509.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

So far, I love DFCO, for me it's one of the reminders
of how much better my EFI conversion is over the carb
it replaced.  Now, I admit it's not being driven like
the Poche or Camaro described before, but in about a
year the whole shebang will be transplanted into an
MGA (which has been and will be slalomed).  Perhaps
then I'll produce some 3' fireballs.  I didn't know
that was a problem!!

As to the EGR, thanks for the insight, Rick.  On my
installation, it's been a hassle physically and
electrically to get working (wrong VSS hooked up).  It
turns out I don't need it for the emissions tests
(clean as a whistle), and I've converted to DIS (so I
guess spark is as close to max advance as needed for a
street vehicle).  I just assumed I'd delete it on the
MGA conversion, maybe I'll think again.

Duncan

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


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 



From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 15 16:06:44 2007
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
Message-ID: <726468.75994.qm@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

/sigh

What happened to the BCC lookup page?  Why can't we get one up on the GMECM homepage somewhere??  Or anywhere?

I have 3 memcals I have no idea what they're from, and I need to use one of them.

AZTY
ASMY
ARPM

Any ideas??  


From efi at dyakron.com  Wed Aug 15 19:53:01 2007
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:53:01 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
References: <726468.75994.qm@web35909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005701c7df9f$cc1d60e0$0b01a8c0@IBMm>

> AZTY <<=====<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM 
> ASMY <<====<<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM 
> ARPM <<=====<<  1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM

HTHs
MV



From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Wed Aug 15 20:20:07 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:20:07 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
In-Reply-To: <578469.15778.qm@web35313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F29394CF82@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Dig
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:23 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] DFCO and EGR elimination
> 
> A group of us  (don't know how many of them are reading here) 
>  started a project to update/fix things we didn't like in 
> $58. $59 was the most clever name we could come up with.

What a great idea!  Let us know once in a while how your progress is,
when you have releases, etc.

--steve


-- 
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.




From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 16 00:39:34 2007
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
In-Reply-To: <005701c7df9f$cc1d60e0$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
Message-ID: <52859.87516.qm@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks!

Do you know whether they are RWD or FWD?

The one(s) I don't want are from f-bodies.

Ryan 

Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote: > AZTY <<=====<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM 
> ASMY <<====<<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM 
> ARPM <<=====<<  1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM

HTHs
MV

_______________________________________________
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 OlympiaFJ60 at comcast.net  Thu Aug 16 11:22:37 2007
From: OlympiaFJ60 at comcast.net (Brandon Austin)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:22:37 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] 4 out buffer and 7747
Message-ID: <007a01c7e021$aa3c2740$6b01a8c0@Mobileshop>

I have been off list for a long time but searched/read much of the archive
first.

I am using a 7747 to run the TBI on my '87 Toyota Land Cruiser.  I am trying
to use the VSS in my speedo for the signal to the ECM but it is a 4 pulse.
I tried to wire in the "4 out buffer" from a '88 Trans Am.  I know I have
good signal in as I have tested the 4 pulse into the ECM.  I connected the
Red/black to ign pos, the black/white to ground, the brown (2kppm?) out to
the ECM.  For the VSS in, I have tried both the yellow to signal and purple
to ground and the other way around.  The VSS only has signal out and is
internally grounded.

I have also read that the buffer takes in a mag signal and puts out only
digital.  Can the 7747 receive a digital VSS signal?  Do I just need to go
back to the cable mounted VSS (the last one broke apart after 6 years)?

Brandon



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Thu Aug 16 15:03:39 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:03:39 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] ALDL BPW
References: <833452.68910.qm@web35306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<01e301c7df19$c3f4b840$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <02b001c7e040$8b01aca0$020101c0@gandalf>

Anybody know if the $58 ALDL BPW is what the actual injectors would see?

I'm seeing 0 all the time apart from very brief flashes of a non-zero value. 
(No injectors connected yet.)

Robin 



From efi at dyakron.com  Thu Aug 16 21:29:58 2007
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:29:58 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
References: <52859.87516.qm@web35911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <007801c7e076$820e5a90$0b01a8c0@IBMm>

<Puzzled look>   "whuh?"  You mean there's a difference?
Knock filtering different with AL heads maybe?
I'm curious now... 8-P    What are you hoping for?

AZTY <<==<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "F Body"
ASMY <<==<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "A Body"
ARPM <<==<< 1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM   "F Body"


Cheers,
mv

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Hess" <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup


> Thanks!
>
> Do you know whether they are RWD or FWD?
>
> The one(s) I don't want are from f-bodies.
>
> Ryan
>
> Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote: > AZTY <<=====<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto 
> trans, from a 7730 ECM
>> ASMY <<====<<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>> ARPM <<=====<<  1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>
> HTHs
> MV
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm 



From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 17 11:36:18 2007
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
In-Reply-To: <007801c7e076$820e5a90$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
Message-ID: <457538.63908.qm@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Exactly right, they use different knock filter boards.


Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote: 
   "whuh?"  You mean there's a difference?
Knock filtering different with AL heads maybe?
I'm curious now... 8-P    What are you hoping for?

AZTY <<==<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "F Body"
ASMY <<==<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "A Body"
ARPM <<==<< 1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM   "F Body"


Cheers,
mv

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Hess" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup


> Thanks!
>
> Do you know whether they are RWD or FWD?
>
> The one(s) I don't want are from f-bodies.
>
> Ryan
>
> Mike V  wrote: > AZTY <<=====<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto 
> trans, from a 7730 ECM
>> ASMY <<====<<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>> ARPM <<=====<<  1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>
> HTHs
> MV
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 efi at dyakron.com  Fri Aug 17 17:26:29 2007
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:26:29 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
References: <457538.63908.qm@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c7e11d$a88024e0$0b01a8c0@IBMm>

So, what is a 1987 "A-Body" ?  Did it have AL heads?
Do you need a FWD V6 chip?
mv

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Hess" <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup


> Exactly right, they use different knock filter boards.
> 
> 
> Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote: 
>   "whuh?"  You mean there's a difference?
> Knock filtering different with AL heads maybe?
> I'm curious now... 8-P    What are you hoping for?
> 
> AZTY <<==<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "F Body"
> ASMY <<==<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "A Body"
> ARPM <<==<< 1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM   "F Body"
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> mv
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ryan Hess" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
> 
> 
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Do you know whether they are RWD or FWD?
>>
>> The one(s) I don't want are from f-bodies.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> Mike V  wrote: > AZTY <<=====<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto 
>> trans, from a 7730 ECM
>>> ASMY <<====<<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>>> ARPM <<=====<<  1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>>
>> HTHs
>> MV
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 jay at vessels-clan.com  Fri Aug 17 19:05:58 2007
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:05:58 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
In-Reply-To: <000c01c7e11d$a88024e0$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
References: <457538.63908.qm@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<000c01c7e11d$a88024e0$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
Message-ID: <46C637E6.4040604@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

'87 "A" body is Chevy Celebrity, Pontiac 6000, etc.  1987 is the first 
year for "GenII" aluminum heads + DIS 2.8V6 FWD.

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

Mike V wrote:
> So, what is a 1987 "A-Body" ?  Did it have AL heads?
> Do you need a FWD V6 chip?
> mv
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess" <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
> 
> 
>> Exactly right, they use different knock filter boards.
>>
>>
>> Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote:   "whuh?"  You mean there's a difference?
>> Knock filtering different with AL heads maybe?
>> I'm curious now... 8-P    What are you hoping for?
>>
>> AZTY <<==<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "F Body"
>> ASMY <<==<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "A Body"
>> ARPM <<==<< 1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM   "F Body"
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> mv
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess" To: Sent: Thursday, 
>> August 16, 2007 1:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
>>
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Do you know whether they are RWD or FWD?
>>>
>>> The one(s) I don't want are from f-bodies.
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>> Mike V  wrote: > AZTY <<=====<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 
>>> 7730 ECM
>>>> ASMY <<====<<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>>>> ARPM <<=====<<  1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>>>
>>> HTHs
>>> MV



From jay at vessels-clan.com  Fri Aug 17 19:09:28 2007
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:09:28 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 4 out buffer and 7747
In-Reply-To: <007a01c7e021$aa3c2740$6b01a8c0@Mobileshop>
References: <007a01c7e021$aa3c2740$6b01a8c0@Mobileshop>
Message-ID: <46C638B8.1050509@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

'7747 wants a 2000 PPM  0-5V square wave VSS signal.

The original VSS input signal to that buffer was a 4000 PPM magnetic 
sensor, and neither input was grounded.  Not sure what the signal for 
your VSS looks like, but the more you can make it look like the GM 
signal, the better.  Do you have a 'scope?  Any pictures from it?

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


Brandon Austin wrote:
> I have been off list for a long time but searched/read much of the archive
> first.
> 
> I am using a 7747 to run the TBI on my '87 Toyota Land Cruiser.  I am trying
> to use the VSS in my speedo for the signal to the ECM but it is a 4 pulse.
> I tried to wire in the "4 out buffer" from a '88 Trans Am.  I know I have
> good signal in as I have tested the 4 pulse into the ECM.  I connected the
> Red/black to ign pos, the black/white to ground, the brown (2kppm?) out to
> the ECM.  For the VSS in, I have tried both the yellow to signal and purple
> to ground and the other way around.  The VSS only has signal out and is
> internally grounded.
> 
> I have also read that the buffer takes in a mag signal and puts out only
> digital.  Can the 7747 receive a digital VSS signal?  Do I just need to go
> back to the cable mounted VSS (the last one broke apart after 6 years)?
> 
> Brandon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Sat Aug 18 17:26:42 2007
From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:26:42 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Interfacing HEI module to Pertronix pickup assembly
Message-ID: <016a01c7e1e6$dbfe6b00$b1cda5a6@yancey.com>

  Hey all.  I have to convert a distributor from points to ECM-controlled 
HEI ignition.  The distributor can not be modified to use a magnetic pickup 
coil.  It can, however be modified to use a Pertronix Ignitor pickup.
  The Pertronix pickup provides a grounded signal suitable to drive an 
ignition coil directly.  I have to use this signal (firing event on rising 
edge of square wave pulses) to operate an HEI module.  What sort of 
interface circuit will work here?  I have a few ideas but I bet this has 
already been done by someone here on this list.
  The Pertronix circuit, when used with a 100R pull-up resistor, produces a 
square wave that is lowest at 0.75 v and highest at battery voltage. The HEI 
module expects an isolated magnetic pickip coil.  I have an idea of using an 
op-amp comparitor circuit that switches at 1/2 battery voltage, driving a 
small isolation transformer that will give the HEI module it's signal on an 
isolated circuit.
  I will draw a diagram later and post it.  Thanks for any input!
Later,
David





From davida1 at hiwaay.net  Sat Aug 18 21:51:36 2007
From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:51:36 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Interfacing HEI module to Pertronix pickup assembly
References: <016a01c7e1e6$dbfe6b00$b1cda5a6@yancey.com>
Message-ID: <018001c7e20b$dccae2f0$b1cda5a6@yancey.com>

  Okay. I found 2 circuit diagrams on the net, but they  have some problems.
One, keeps current on the coil all the time thus overheating the module and
coil when the engine is not turning.  The other fires on the FALLING edge of
the square-wave signal.  Not sure what this will do but that is not how the
Pertronix is timed.  Also, both these may or may not fire one random spark
when the ignition is turned on or off.  Not too good either.  Both these
operate by putting an extarnal voltage source on the P and N pickup coil
terminals through resistors and other components.  Supposedly they will work
but I am not happy with the side effects.
  I'm going to try the isolated circuit described below tomorrow.
  I would still like to hear if anyone else has successfully done this?
  Later,
David



>  Hey all.  I have to convert a distributor from points to ECM-controlled
> HEI ignition.  The distributor can not be modified to use a magnetic
> pickup coil.  It can, however be modified to use a Pertronix Ignitor
> pickup.
>  The Pertronix pickup provides a grounded signal suitable to drive an
> ignition coil directly.  I have to use this signal (firing event on rising
> edge of square wave pulses) to operate an HEI module.  What sort of
> interface circuit will work here?  I have a few ideas but I bet this has
> already been done by someone here on this list.
>  The Pertronix circuit, when used with a 100R pull-up resistor, produces a
> square wave that is lowest at 0.75 v and highest at battery voltage. The
> HEI module expects an isolated magnetic pickip coil.  I have an idea of
> using an op-amp comparitor circuit that switches at 1/2 battery voltage,
> driving a small isolation transformer that will give the HEI module it's
> signal on an isolated circuit.
>  I will draw a diagram later and post it.  Thanks for any input!
> Later,
> David



From efi at dyakron.com  Sat Aug 18 22:09:21 2007
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:09:21 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
References: <457538.63908.qm@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000c01c7e11d$a88024e0$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
	<46C637E6.4040604@vessels-clan.com>
Message-ID: <003b01c7e20e$56f08010$0b01a8c0@IBMm>

Thanks Jay,
Can AL heads replace iron from a bolt-on perspective?
mv

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jay Vessels" <jay at vessels-clan.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup


> Hi there!
>
> '87 "A" body is Chevy Celebrity, Pontiac 6000, etc.  1987 is the first 
> year for "GenII" aluminum heads + DIS 2.8V6 FWD.
>
> Jay Vessels
> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending)
>
> Mike V wrote:
>> So, what is a 1987 "A-Body" ?  Did it have AL heads?
>> Do you need a FWD V6 chip?
>> mv
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess" <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
>>
>>
>>> Exactly right, they use different knock filter boards.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote:   "whuh?"  You mean there's a 
>>> difference?
>>> Knock filtering different with AL heads maybe?
>>> I'm curious now... 8-P    What are you hoping for?
>>>
>>> AZTY <<==<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "F Body"
>>> ASMY <<==<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM  "A Body"
>>> ARPM <<==<< 1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM   "F Body"
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> mv
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess" To: Sent: Thursday, 
>>> August 16, 2007 1:39 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Do you know whether they are RWD or FWD?
>>>>
>>>> The one(s) I don't want are from f-bodies.
>>>>
>>>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>> Mike V  wrote: > AZTY <<=====<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 
>>>> ECM
>>>>> ASMY <<====<<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>>>>> ARPM <<=====<<  1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a 7730 ECM
>>>>
>>>> HTHs
>>>> MV
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 galaxiecustom500 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 18 23:12:08 2007
From: galaxiecustom500 at yahoo.com (J M)
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
In-Reply-To: <003b01c7e20e$56f08010$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
Message-ID: <16937.92627.qm@web57307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Yes, sort of.

I haven't paid much attention to these engines since
the late 90's, and I mainly looked at the rear wheel
drive applications (camaro, firebird, s-10).

The rear drive engines had cast iron heads, front
wheel drive engines had the aluminum heads.  The cast
iron and aluminum heads will physically interchange on
the blocks.  The issue is they have different intake
ports.  So if you want to put aluminum heads onto a
2.8L camaro you would also need the intake, valve
covers etc..  

The other issue is putting those aluminum front wheel
drive heads on a rear wheel drive 2.8 long block also
results in something like 14:1-15:1 compression ratio.
 I did the math too many years ago to remember
exactly.

On a side note, I still have the original 2.8L from a
87 camaro I used to have, and 3 cylinder heads, 1
complete intake and a second intake top from 3.1L
cavaliers I pulled out of a repair shops trash ~1999. 
Had the idea of throwing together some sort of dune
buggy vehicle from spare caprice parts and throwing a
set of aluminum heads on that 2.8 then run it on vp100
race gas.  Although E85 is readily avialable now, so
that would be a more attractive fuel.  I highly doubt
the stock lower end would hold together but sure would
be fun to find out how long it would hold together.

--- Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote:

> Thanks Jay,
> Can AL heads replace iron from a bolt-on
> perspective?
> mv
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jay Vessels" <jay at vessels-clan.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
> 
> 
> > Hi there!
> >
> > '87 "A" body is Chevy Celebrity, Pontiac 6000,
> etc.  1987 is the first 
> > year for "GenII" aluminum heads + DIS 2.8V6 FWD.
> >
> > Jay Vessels
> > 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
> > 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI
> pending)
> >
> > Mike V wrote:
> >> So, what is a 1987 "A-Body" ?  Did it have AL
> heads?
> >> Do you need a FWD V6 chip?
> >> mv
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess"
> <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
> >> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:36 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
> >>
> >>
> >>> Exactly right, they use different knock filter
> boards.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote:   "whuh?"  You
> mean there's a 
> >>> difference?
> >>> Knock filtering different with AL heads maybe?
> >>> I'm curious now... 8-P    What are you hoping
> for?
> >>>
> >>> AZTY <<==<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a
> 7730 ECM  "F Body"
> >>> ASMY <<==<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a
> 7730 ECM  "A Body"
> >>> ARPM <<==<< 1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a
> 7730 ECM   "F Body"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> mv
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess"
> To: Sent: Thursday, 
> >>> August 16, 2007 1:39 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you know whether they are RWD or FWD?
> >>>>
> >>>> The one(s) I don't want are from f-bodies.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ryan
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike V  wrote: > AZTY <<=====<<  1992  3.1L V6
> Auto trans, from a 7730 
> >>>> ECM
> >>>>> ASMY <<====<<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from
> a 7730 ECM
> >>>>> ARPM <<=====<<  1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from
> a 7730 ECM
> >>>>
> >>>> HTHs
> >>>> MV
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ 


From jay at vessels-clan.com  Sun Aug 19 08:17:23 2007
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:17:23 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
In-Reply-To: <16937.92627.qm@web57307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <16937.92627.qm@web57307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <46C842E3.9070601@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

JM is spot-on.

You can put the GenII ('87-'93 or '94 2.8V6 and 3.1V6 depending on car 
line) top end on a block that originally had iron heads.   Due to a 
different intake port configuration, your only choice for an intake is 
the matching GenII lower intake manifold for MPFI.  The carb. and TBI 
intakes won't fit.

While the chambers on the GenII heads are smaller than the iron heads, 
the GenII engines' pistons will fit, and there are matching pistons for 
the 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4 iron-head blocks, since all three were available 
as GenII or GenIII configurations.

The good news is that the MPFI intake can be turned around 180 degrees 
so the throttle body faces the front of the vehicle.  So, if you're 
going to use the GenII heads on a RWD application (i.e. S-10) you'll 
need to convert it to MPFI (i.e. 1227730 + $A1).  These engines were 
also DIS, so your choices are to either use the DIS hardware, or if your 
block/crank is not so equipped, do some machining on the intake to get a 
distributor to clear.

GenIII (3x00) heads are much better for flow, and have the same issues 
-- again, TBI and carb. intakes don't fit.

There are a bunch of little detail bits that have to be worked through 
(i.e. sensor locations, throttle cables, etc.) but it's all possible if 
you have the patience.  Most of this work has been documented on the 
V6/60 boards ( http://60degreev6.com/ ).

None of this applies to the 3.4DOHC engine, which while it's a V6/60 
like the others, so much was changed to drive the overhead cams that 
retrofitting the DOHC heads onto a different block is practically not a 
choice.

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

J M wrote:
> Yes, sort of.
> 
> I haven't paid much attention to these engines since
> the late 90's, and I mainly looked at the rear wheel
> drive applications (camaro, firebird, s-10).
> 
> The rear drive engines had cast iron heads, front
> wheel drive engines had the aluminum heads.  The cast
> iron and aluminum heads will physically interchange on
> the blocks.  The issue is they have different intake
> ports.  So if you want to put aluminum heads onto a
> 2.8L camaro you would also need the intake, valve
> covers etc..  
> 
> The other issue is putting those aluminum front wheel
> drive heads on a rear wheel drive 2.8 long block also
> results in something like 14:1-15:1 compression ratio.
>  I did the math too many years ago to remember
> exactly.
> 
> On a side note, I still have the original 2.8L from a
> 87 camaro I used to have, and 3 cylinder heads, 1
> complete intake and a second intake top from 3.1L
> cavaliers I pulled out of a repair shops trash ~1999. 
> Had the idea of throwing together some sort of dune
> buggy vehicle from spare caprice parts and throwing a
> set of aluminum heads on that 2.8 then run it on vp100
> race gas.  Although E85 is readily avialable now, so
> that would be a more attractive fuel.  I highly doubt
> the stock lower end would hold together but sure would
> be fun to find out how long it would hold together.
> 
> --- Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Jay,
>> Can AL heads replace iron from a bolt-on
>> perspective?
>> mv
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Jay Vessels" <jay at vessels-clan.com>
>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
>>
>>
>>> Hi there!
>>>
>>> '87 "A" body is Chevy Celebrity, Pontiac 6000,
>> etc.  1987 is the first 
>>> year for "GenII" aluminum heads + DIS 2.8V6 FWD.
>>>
>>> Jay Vessels
>>> 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI
>>> 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI
>> pending)
>>> Mike V wrote:
>>>> So, what is a 1987 "A-Body" ?  Did it have AL
>> heads?
>>>> Do you need a FWD V6 chip?
>>>> mv
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess"
>> <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
>>>> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:36 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Exactly right, they use different knock filter
>> boards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote:   "whuh?"  You
>> mean there's a 
>>>>> difference?
>>>>> Knock filtering different with AL heads maybe?
>>>>> I'm curious now... 8-P    What are you hoping
>> for?
>>>>> AZTY <<==<<  1992  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a
>> 7730 ECM  "F Body"
>>>>> ASMY <<==<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from a
>> 7730 ECM  "A Body"
>>>>> ARPM <<==<< 1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from a
>> 7730 ECM   "F Body"
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> mv
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Hess"
>> To: Sent: Thursday, 
>>>>> August 16, 2007 1:39 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] BCC lookup
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know whether they are RWD or FWD?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one(s) I don't want are from f-bodies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike V  wrote: > AZTY <<=====<<  1992  3.1L V6
>> Auto trans, from a 7730 
>>>>>> ECM
>>>>>>> ASMY <<====<<   1987  2.8L V6 Auto trans, from
>> a 7730 ECM
>>>>>>> ARPM <<=====<<  1991  3.1L V6 Auto trans, from
>> a 7730 ECM
>>>>>> HTHs
>>>>>> MV


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Aug 19 14:25:53 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:25:53 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 VE tuning approach
References: <833452.68910.qm@web35306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <039701c7e296$c4f634f0$020101c0@gandalf>

Sanity check required:

Given that:

- total VE = VE1 + VE2, where VE1 comes from either F29 (open throttle) or 
F29E (closed throttle) and VE2 comes from F30
- F29 runs out at 4000 RPM, and at higher RPM than that VE1 = the relevant 
MAP indexed value in the 4000 RPM row of F29
- all the cells in F29, F29E, and F30 can hold any value from 0 to 100% VE 
(i.e. the full range)

...and assuming that:

- the engine VE is no less than 30% at any RPM and MAP
- the engine VE at 6400 RPM is no more than 30% less than the VE at 4000 
RPM:

...can anybody see a problem if I:

1) start my VE tuning by putting 0% in all the F29 cells and 30% in all the 
F30 cells (therefore VE = 0 + 30 for all RPM and MAP to start with);
2) then tune up F29 (considering the open throttle case) for 0 to 4000 RPM - 
so VE = VE1 + 30 (N.B. I was thinking of changing the code so that F29E 
isn't used anyway);
3) then finally tune the 4400 RPM to 6400 RPM (inclusive) values in F30 to 
apply corrections to the 4000 RPM F29 VE for these higher RPM.

I must say it seems a bit naff that GM appear to have constructed the VE 
look ups based on the assumption that the profile of engine VE as a function 
of MAP does not change above 4000, rather than preservng the full 2 axis 
lookup right up to 6400.

Taking the F29E disabling idea further, I'm tempted to change the code so 
that the F29E memory locations are used to extend F29 to provide 4400, 4800, 
5200, 5600, 6000, and 6400 RPM rows - which would give greater flexibility 
to optimise the VE tuning in this band than the standard set up.

Thoughts anyone?

Robin 



From tmatthew at tampabay.rr.com  Sun Aug 19 18:45:59 2007
From: tmatthew at tampabay.rr.com (Tom Matthews)
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:45:59 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] looking for ECM Pinout - 1228812
In-Reply-To: <003b01c7e20e$56f08010$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
References: <457538.63908.qm@web35910.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000c01c7e11d$a88024e0$0b01a8c0@IBMm><46C637E6.4040604@vessels-clan.com>
	<003b01c7e20e$56f08010$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
Message-ID: <001e01c7e2bb$183e5b50$6501a8c0@media2>

Hello all,
Long term subscriber, but haven't been active in like 7+ years...
Getting back into GM ECM projects. Strange to drag out the burner after so
long.

Got a strange one here...
1228812, with an AMZS Prom.
Out of 89 C1500 379 CI diesel... trying to swap over to 7747/gas... Anyone
have any pinouts of the '8812 ECM?

What could this puppy do besides lockup the trans? (700R4) 

Googling got me nothing, and I don't have an FSM :-(
Any other underhood wiring help appreciated also ;-)

Thanks,
Tom



From rwhughe at oplink.net  Mon Aug 20 16:23:42 2007
From: rwhughe at oplink.net (Robert W Hughes)
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:23:42 -0500
Subject: re [Gmecm] Interfacing HEI module to Pertronix pickup assembly
Message-ID: <46CA065E.6000202@oplink.net>

> Hey all.  I have to convert a distributor from points to
> ECM-controlled HEI ignition.  The distributor can not be modified to
> use a magnetic pickup coil.  It can, however be modified to use a
> Pertronix Ignitor pickup. The Pertronix pickup provides a grounded
> signal suitable to drive an ignition coil directly.  I have to use
> this signal (firing event on rising edge of square wave pulses) to
> operate an HEI module.  What sort of interface circuit will work
> here?  I have a few ideas but I bet this has already been done by
> someone here on this list. The Pertronix circuit, when used with a
> 100R pull-up resistor, produces a square wave that is lowest at 0.75
> v and highest at battery voltage. The HEI module expects an isolated
> magnetic pickip coil.  I have an idea of using an op-amp comparitor
> circuit that switches at 1/2 battery voltage, driving a small
> isolation transformer that will give the HEI module it's signal on an
>  isolated circuit.

The HEI triggers on a negative-going edge at about 1.25v. See this for a 
picture of the waveforms:

http://bhughes.lonestarfieros.org/HEITriggerWaveform.jpg
-- 
Robert W. Hughes (Bob)
BackYard Engineering
29:40.237N, 95:28.726W or perhaps 30:55.265N, 95:20.590W
Houston, Texas "The city with too much Oxygen"
rwhughe at oplink.net


From bcroe at juno.com  Mon Aug 20 20:47:49 2007
From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com)
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:47:49 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Interfacing HEI module to Pertronix pickup assembly
Message-ID: <20070820.205716.1196.4.bcroe@juno.com>

My first electronic ignition (1965) reused the original 
points. There was just a small points current through 
a resistor.  It worked fine, and the points seemed 
to last forever without that heavy ign coil load.  

Bruce Roe

18 Aug 07 "David Allen" <davida1 at hiwaay.net> writes:
>   Hey all.  I have to convert a distributor from points to 
> ECM-controlled HEI ignition.  The distributor can not 
> be modified to use a magnetic pickup coil.  


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Wed Aug 22 03:03:16 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:03:16 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
References: <840459.2509.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <04f101c7e492$e65c8650$020101c0@gandalf>

I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test values 
in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs) reverting 
to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs this was 
happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the engine not 
running !

Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as used 
for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find the 
table look up code hard to follow.

Robin 



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Wed Aug 22 14:35:22 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:35:22 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
References: <840459.2509.qm@web34315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<04f101c7e492$e65c8650$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <054c01c7e4f3$955e7590$020101c0@gandalf>

Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to use 
in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test 
> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs) 
> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs 
> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the 
> engine not running !
>
> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as 
> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find 
> the table look up code hard to follow.
>
> 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 turbodig at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 23 11:22:28 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
Message-ID: <238342.28247.qm@web35314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sort of a well-known bug... The ALDL stream is reporting erroneous data.

It doesn't seem to be real; there is no corresponding fuel hit that I've ever observed.

I haven't as yet found the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the timing of the routine involved in sending data and the fuel routine.
It's on our "to do" list for code59.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:35:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to use 
in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test 
> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs) 
> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs 
> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the 
> engine not running !
>
> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as 
> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find 
> the table look up code hard to follow.
>
> 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Thu Aug 23 15:14:16 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:14:16 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
References: <238342.28247.qm@web35314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <065601c7e5c2$2f4a67d0$020101c0@gandalf>

Ah. That explains it. Just tried a chip with the complete VE calculation 
bypassed and it did the same thing.

Is the ALDL BPW affected in a similar way?

It really would be very kind if you could let us know what bugs you've 
found. Fixes, if they exist would be nicer still, but just knowing the bugs 
would help focus efforts on tuning rather than bug finding. :-) I spent all 
day working through the array and table look up code trying to find this 
bug! :-(

BTW: If I've got it right, conversion of the code to a version of _F29_ that 
goes up to 6400 is just a case of NOPing out some lines and using a hex 
editor to set up the extended part of _F29_. If it ever stops raining, I 
hope to test this out...

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 17:22
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


Sort of a well-known bug... The ALDL stream is reporting erroneous data.

It doesn't seem to be real; there is no corresponding fuel hit that I've 
ever observed.

I haven't as yet found the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the timing 
of the routine involved in sending data and the fuel routine.
It's on our "to do" list for code59.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:35:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to use
in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test
> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs)
> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs
> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the
> engine not running !
>
> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as
> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find
> the table look up code hard to follow.
>
> 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 turbodig at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 23 15:47:34 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
Message-ID: <822064.97151.qm@web35312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The problem there becomes the size of the table. There's a bug in the 3d table lookup that fouls up lookups over a certain size.

Our F29x is 16x32.

Dig

-----


BTW: If I've got it right, conversion of the code to a version of _F29_ that 
goes up to 6400 is just a case of NOPing out some lines and using a hex 
editor to set up the extended part of _F29_. If it ever stops raining, I 
hope to test this out...

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 17:22
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


Sort of a well-known bug... The ALDL stream is reporting erroneous data.

It doesn't seem to be real; there is no corresponding fuel hit that I've 
ever observed.

I haven't as yet found the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the timing 
of the routine involved in sending data and the fuel routine.
It's on our "to do" list for code59.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:35:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to use
in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test
> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs)
> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs
> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the
> engine not running !
>
> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as
> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find
> the table look up code hard to follow.
>
> 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

_______________________________________________
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 Aug 23 17:13:01 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:13:01 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
References: <822064.97151.qm@web35312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <067b01c7e5d2$c7f9acb0$020101c0@gandalf>

My approach was to remove the 4000 RPM check limit code and the logic which 
uses the F29E table and F30 array, and add 6 more rows to F29, to take it 
from 4000 up to 6400. This makes it 15 x 9. I didn't spot a bug in the table 
look up code, but I only worked through it with one set of values - to make 
it easier. I found it tough going!

I'd be interested to know if the bug would affect my 15 x 9 table. I note 
that F1 is 14 x 17 and F2 is 15 x 5. Are these affected? I think, given that 
my engine is N/A and I'm only using a 1 BAR MAP sensor, 9 MAP columns is 
probably not so bad. I can't imagine where you found space for a 16 x 32 
table!

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 21:47
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


The problem there becomes the size of the table. There's a bug in the 3d 
table lookup that fouls up lookups over a certain size.

Our F29x is 16x32.

Dig

-----


BTW: If I've got it right, conversion of the code to a version of _F29_ that
goes up to 6400 is just a case of NOPing out some lines and using a hex
editor to set up the extended part of _F29_. If it ever stops raining, I
hope to test this out...

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 17:22
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


Sort of a well-known bug... The ALDL stream is reporting erroneous data.

It doesn't seem to be real; there is no corresponding fuel hit that I've
ever observed.

I haven't as yet found the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the timing
of the routine involved in sending data and the fuel routine.
It's on our "to do" list for code59.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:35:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to use
in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test
> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs)
> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs
> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the
> engine not running !
>
> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as
> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find
> the table look up code hard to follow.
>
> Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Thu Aug 23 18:34:02 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:34:02 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
References: <238342.28247.qm@web35314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <069601c7e5de$174c3840$020101c0@gandalf>

Had another look at this. I've just tried a chip where my enlarged F29 
looked up VE _overwrites_ the last value of VE - rather than setting VE to 
zero (in place of the F30 look up) and later adding on the F29 looked up VE 
value. The idea of this was so that there would be no CPU cycles when the VE 
byte had zero in it. Based on a quick engine off test, this seems to have 
done the trick; I saw no VE flicking on my ALDL monitor.

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 17:22
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


Sort of a well-known bug... The ALDL stream is reporting erroneous data.

It doesn't seem to be real; there is no corresponding fuel hit that I've 
ever observed.

I haven't as yet found the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the timing 
of the routine involved in sending data and the fuel routine.
It's on our "to do" list for code59.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:35:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to use
in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test
> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs)
> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs
> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the
> engine not running !
>
> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as
> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find
> the table look up code hard to follow.
>
> 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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Fri Aug 24 08:04:29 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:04:29 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
References: <238342.28247.qm@web35314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<069601c7e5de$174c3840$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <070401c7e64f$5015cf80$020101c0@gandalf>

Test drive log with engine speed up to over 6800 RPM showed no VE blips 
either. :-) Thanks for the pointer.

BPW still zero for 98 % of the time, so shall start investigating that 
now...

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 24 August 2007 00:34
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> Had another look at this. I've just tried a chip where my enlarged F29 
> looked up VE _overwrites_ the last value of VE - rather than setting VE to 
> zero (in place of the F30 look up) and later adding on the F29 looked up 
> VE value. The idea of this was so that there would be no CPU cycles when 
> the VE byte had zero in it. Based on a quick engine off test, this seems 
> to have done the trick; I saw no VE flicking on my ALDL monitor.
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 23 August 2007 17:22
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
>
>
> Sort of a well-known bug... The ALDL stream is reporting erroneous data.
>
> It doesn't seem to be real; there is no corresponding fuel hit that I've 
> ever observed.
>
> I haven't as yet found the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the 
> timing of the routine involved in sending data and the fuel routine.
> It's on our "to do" list for code59.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:35:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
>
> Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to 
> use
> in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
> Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
>
>
>> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test
>> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs)
>> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs
>> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the
>> engine not running !
>>
>> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as
>> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I 
>> find
>> the table look up code hard to follow.
>>
>> Robin 



From turbodig at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 24 09:46:01 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Long: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
Message-ID: <92208.73190.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Not sure this will come through right... needs a proportional font.

Anyway, the gist of the table bug is that it won't support a table larger than 256 bytes.
Maybe not so much a bug, but an acknowledged limitation.

So, as long as you stay under 256 bytes, the stock code is ok. You can go up to a 16x16
without trouble; we wanted to maintain the same table separation (~10kpa) that the original 
table had, which necessitated a bigger table.

This was the "repaired" routine that we ended up using. The meat of the problem is 
the abx instruction (commented out, here). The row start offset was being limited to a
8-bit value... we upped it to a 16-bit value. This allows for some potentially huge tables!
(Not like you 'd wanna get much larger than we have; it's a lot of data to follow)

If you wanna see how this works, you can pretty much run the whole thing within Wookie.
Step through with various values in A and B, and watch it work.

Hope that helps...

Dig


;************************************************************************
; 3D Lookup Routine, Interpolates between rows as well as columns.
;
; Enter with:
; R = number of rows in table
; Q = minimum value of columns
; RNUM = Number of Q values, (columns) Rnum must be $20!
;
; Max Value Diff between talbe entries = 255
; Call With:
; A = Row Arg; B = Col Arg
; X = Tbl Addr
;
; rtsurns with:
; ACCA = Result,                   Comments added by Dig, 5/17/06
; Revisions:               Changed ABX to addd 0,x, fixes overflow problem with large tables.
;                   Changed column size to 32        
;*************************************************************************
NLF5E6    subA    0, X            ; subtract the starting offset from RPM
    pshB                ;save map
    pshx                ;save start of table
    bcc    NLF5ED        
    clrA                ;check to see if A was less than the offset + clear if necessary
NLF5ED    subB    1, X            ;subtract the column offset from MAP
    bcc    NLF5F2        
    clrB                ;again, check to see if it's less, and clear if necessary.
NLF5F2    pshB                ;save that result
    ldaB    #$10            ;Load 16, the number of rows.
    mul                ;multiply corrected column value * number of rows.
    pshB                ;save the low (fractional part) upper part has row index?
    ldaB    2, X            ;load column length from table
    pshB                ;save column length
    mul                ;multiply column length * what's in A.. row index?
;let's try something....

    pshx                ;save X to stack.
    tsx                ; get the stack pointer in X
    addd    0,x            ; adds all of D to the start addr
    pshb
    psha                ;puts what's in D, in X... D 
    pulx                ;pull d back into x
    ins
    ins                ;fix our stack shennanigans
    ;aBX                ;add to x... to get a row start... ahh, but row start is in A+B! fixed 5/17/06 
    inx                
    inx    
    inx                ;add 3 to row start to account for the 3 bytes at the start of the table
    pshx                ;save the row lookup address
    tSX                ;put the stack pointer in X... we're gonna get some stuff back.
    ldaA    4, X            ;load the corrected (minimum applied) map
    ldX    0, X            ;load the correct row start address
    jsr    NLF5BC            ;do the 2D lookup
    psha                ;save the result of the 2D call
    tSX                ;move the stack pointer to X... we're getting stuff back again.
    ldaA    5, X            ;limited-applied map
    ldaB    4, X            ;fractional remainder
    staB    5, X            ;storing the remainder where limited-applied map was
    ldaB    3, X            ;column length from table
    ldX    1, X            ;This is the previous row lookup address
    aBX                ;add column length to previous lookup to get next row
    jsr    NLF5BC            ;do the second 2D lookup.
    tAB                ; a returned the second looked-up value, move it to b
    pula                ;put the previous row lookup into a
    pulx                ;x now holding row lookup address
    pulx                ;x now holding length of table in upper part
                    ;there's really no point to pulling these, the interp doesn't need them. Stack cleanup.
    jsr    NLF5CC            ;call the interpolation routine
    ins                ;manipulate the stack    
    pulx                ;restore x to what it was when we called
    pulb                ;restore b to what it was when we called
    rts                ;a is holding the looked-up data





----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:13:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

My approach was to remove the 4000 RPM check limit code and the logic which 
uses the F29E table and F30 array, and add 6 more rows to F29, to take it 
from 4000 up to 6400. This makes it 15 x 9. I didn't spot a bug in the table 
look up code, but I only worked through it with one set of values - to make 
it easier. I found it tough going!

I'd be interested to know if the bug would affect my 15 x 9 table. I note 
that F1 is 14 x 17 and F2 is 15 x 5. Are these affected? I think, given that 
my engine is N/A and I'm only using a 1 BAR MAP sensor, 9 MAP columns is 
probably not so bad. I can't imagine where you found space for a 16 x 32 
table!

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 21:47
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


The problem there becomes the size of the table. There's a bug in the 3d 
table lookup that fouls up lookups over a certain size.

Our F29x is 16x32.

Dig

-----


BTW: If I've got it right, conversion of the code to a version of _F29_ that
goes up to 6400 is just a case of NOPing out some lines and using a hex
editor to set up the extended part of _F29_. If it ever stops raining, I
hope to test this out...

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 17:22
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


Sort of a well-known bug... The ALDL stream is reporting erroneous data.

It doesn't seem to be real; there is no corresponding fuel hit that I've
ever observed.

I haven't as yet found the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the timing
of the routine involved in sending data and the fuel routine.
It's on our "to do" list for code59.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:35:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to use
in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test
> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs)
> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs
> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the
> engine not running !
>
> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as
> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find
> the table look up code hard to follow.
>
> 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 turbodig at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 24 10:38:34 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
Message-ID: <499192.48222.qm@web35311.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Interesting....  details?

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:34:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

Had another look at this. I've just tried a chip where my enlarged F29 
looked up VE _overwrites_ the last value of VE - rather than setting VE to 
zero (in place of the F30 look up) and later adding on the F29 looked up VE 
value. The idea of this was so that there would be no CPU cycles when the VE 
byte had zero in it. Based on a quick engine off test, this seems to have 
done the trick; I saw no VE flicking on my ALDL monitor.

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 17:22
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


Sort of a well-known bug... The ALDL stream is reporting erroneous data.

It doesn't seem to be real; there is no corresponding fuel hit that I've 
ever observed.

I haven't as yet found the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the timing 
of the routine involved in sending data and the fuel routine.
It's on our "to do" list for code59.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:35:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to use
in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test
> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs)
> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs
> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the
> engine not running !
>
> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as
> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find
> the table look up code hard to follow.
>
> 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

_______________________________________________
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 Aug 24 12:51:16 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:51:16 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness
References: <92208.73190.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <08a801c7e677$5f9b79f0$020101c0@gandalf>

Many thanks. :-)

I've no plans to go over 256 bytes ATM, but you never know !

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 24 August 2007 15:46
Subject: Long: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


Not sure this will come through right... needs a proportional font.

Anyway, the gist of the table bug is that it won't support a table larger 
than 256 bytes.
Maybe not so much a bug, but an acknowledged limitation.

So, as long as you stay under 256 bytes, the stock code is ok. You can go up 
to a 16x16
without trouble; we wanted to maintain the same table separation (~10kpa) 
that the original
table had, which necessitated a bigger table.

This was the "repaired" routine that we ended up using. The meat of the 
problem is
the abx instruction (commented out, here). The row start offset was being 
limited to a
8-bit value... we upped it to a 16-bit value. This allows for some 
potentially huge tables!
(Not like you 'd wanna get much larger than we have; it's a lot of data to 
follow)

If you wanna see how this works, you can pretty much run the whole thing 
within Wookie.
Step through with various values in A and B, and watch it work.

Hope that helps...

Dig


;************************************************************************
; 3D Lookup Routine, Interpolates between rows as well as columns.
;
; Enter with:
; R = number of rows in table
; Q = minimum value of columns
; RNUM = Number of Q values, (columns) Rnum must be $20!
;
; Max Value Diff between talbe entries = 255
; Call With:
; A = Row Arg; B = Col Arg
; X = Tbl Addr
;
; rtsurns with:
; ACCA = Result,                   Comments added by Dig, 5/17/06
; Revisions:               Changed ABX to addd 0,x, fixes overflow problem 
with large tables.
;                   Changed column size to 32
;*************************************************************************
NLF5E6    subA    0, X            ; subtract the starting offset from RPM
    pshB                ;save map
    pshx                ;save start of table
    bcc    NLF5ED
    clrA                ;check to see if A was less than the offset + clear 
if necessary
NLF5ED    subB    1, X            ;subtract the column offset from MAP
    bcc    NLF5F2
    clrB                ;again, check to see if it's less, and clear if 
necessary.
NLF5F2    pshB                ;save that result
    ldaB    #$10            ;Load 16, the number of rows.
    mul                ;multiply corrected column value * number of rows.
    pshB                ;save the low (fractional part) upper part has row 
index?
    ldaB    2, X            ;load column length from table
    pshB                ;save column length
    mul                ;multiply column length * what's in A.. row index?
;let's try something....

    pshx                ;save X to stack.
    tsx                ; get the stack pointer in X
    addd    0,x            ; adds all of D to the start addr
    pshb
    psha                ;puts what's in D, in X... D
    pulx                ;pull d back into x
    ins
    ins                ;fix our stack shennanigans
    ;aBX                ;add to x... to get a row start... ahh, but row 
start is in A+B! fixed 5/17/06
    inx
    inx
    inx                ;add 3 to row start to account for the 3 bytes at the 
start of the table
    pshx                ;save the row lookup address
    tSX                ;put the stack pointer in X... we're gonna get some 
stuff back.
    ldaA    4, X            ;load the corrected (minimum applied) map
    ldX    0, X            ;load the correct row start address
    jsr    NLF5BC            ;do the 2D lookup
    psha                ;save the result of the 2D call
    tSX                ;move the stack pointer to X... we're getting stuff 
back again.
    ldaA    5, X            ;limited-applied map
    ldaB    4, X            ;fractional remainder
    staB    5, X            ;storing the remainder where limited-applied map 
was
    ldaB    3, X            ;column length from table
    ldX    1, X            ;This is the previous row lookup address
    aBX                ;add column length to previous lookup to get next row
    jsr    NLF5BC            ;do the second 2D lookup.
    tAB                ; a returned the second looked-up value, move it to b
    pula                ;put the previous row lookup into a
    pulx                ;x now holding row lookup address
    pulx                ;x now holding length of table in upper part
                    ;there's really no point to pulling these, the interp 
doesn't need them. Stack cleanup.
    jsr    NLF5CC            ;call the interpolation routine
    ins                ;manipulate the stack
    pulx                ;restore x to what it was when we called
    pulb                ;restore b to what it was when we called
    rts                ;a is holding the looked-up data





----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:13:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

My approach was to remove the 4000 RPM check limit code and the logic which
uses the F29E table and F30 array, and add 6 more rows to F29, to take it
from 4000 up to 6400. This makes it 15 x 9. I didn't spot a bug in the table
look up code, but I only worked through it with one set of values - to make
it easier. I found it tough going!

I'd be interested to know if the bug would affect my 15 x 9 table. I note
that F1 is 14 x 17 and F2 is 15 x 5. Are these affected? I think, given that
my engine is N/A and I'm only using a 1 BAR MAP sensor, 9 MAP columns is
probably not so bad. I can't imagine where you found space for a 16 x 32
table!

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 21:47
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


The problem there becomes the size of the table. There's a bug in the 3d
table lookup that fouls up lookups over a certain size.

Our F29x is 16x32.

Dig

-----


BTW: If I've got it right, conversion of the code to a version of _F29_ that
goes up to 6400 is just a case of NOPing out some lines and using a hex
editor to set up the extended part of _F29_. If it ever stops raining, I
hope to test this out...

Thanks,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 23 August 2007 17:22
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


Sort of a well-known bug... The ALDL stream is reporting erroneous data.

It doesn't seem to be real; there is no corresponding fuel hit that I've
ever observed.

I haven't as yet found the cause, but I suspect it has to do with the timing
of the routine involved in sending data and the fuel routine.
It's on our "to do" list for code59.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:35:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness

Tried it with a code modification to provide a hard-wired 'MAP' value to use
in the F29 look up, and the look up routine still regularly returned zero!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 22 August 2007 09:03
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> I've been looking at VE for the last few days and, after putting test
> values in F29, F29E, and F30 I spotted the VE regularly (every ~6 secs)
> reverting to the F30 only value. Looking back at one of last year's logs
> this was happening then too. It also happens with the ignition on and the
> engine not running !
>
> Has anybody seen this or have any suggestions why the table look up (as
> used for F29 and F29E) should be returning zero every now and then? I find
> the table look up code hard to follow.
>
> Robin



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Aug 25 10:28:17 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:28:17 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] 68HC11 assembler help needed
References: <92208.73190.qm@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<08a801c7e677$5f9b79f0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <091e01c7e72c$91f26e30$020101c0@gandalf>

Aargh. My brain hurts. Been bashing it against the $58 code at $F650 - which 
appears to be a routine to multiply a 16 bit number by an 8 bit number. But 
my worked example doesn't work - so my understanding of the code must be 
wrong.

In my worked example, I set the 16 bit number (pointed to by X register) to: 
571 (MSB = 2, LSB = 59), and the 8 bit (stored in A register) to: 45.

Here's the code, with my worked example in [square brackets]:

; start of routine

F650:  PSHX
F651:  PSHA

F652:  LDAB 1,X     ; (8 bit) B = contents of (X+1) = LSB of incoming 16 bit 
quantity [B = 59]
F654:  MUL            ; (16 bit) D = A * B [D = 45 * 59 = 2655 = $0A5F so 
MSB(A) = 10 & LSB(B) = 95]
F655:  ADCA #$00  ; A = A + 0 + carry [A = 10 + 0 + 0 = 10]

In D, we now have the 1st of the 2 part calculation - the result of the LSB 
of the 16 bit quantity multiplied by the 8 bit quantity. The MSB (A) is now 
saved (on the stack), but the LSB (B) seems to be lost (this can't be 
right):

F657:  PSHA          ; Copy (8 bit) A to stack [10]

F658:  LDAA 0,X     ; (8 bit) A = contents of (X+0) = MSB of incoming 16 bit 
quantity [A = 2]
F65A:  TSX             ; (16 bit) X = stack pointer+1 (so X is address of 
last byte on stack)
F65B:  LDAB 1,X     ; B = contents of (X+1) i.e. last but one byte on stack 
= incoming value of A [B = 45]
F65D:  MUL            ; (16 bit) D = A * B [D = 2 * 45 = 90 so MSB(A) = 0 & 
LSB(B) = 90]
F65E:  ADDB 0,X     ; B = B + contents of (X+0) i.e. relative stack address 
(-3) = earlier value of A [B = 90 + 10 = 100]
F660:  ADCA #$00   ; A = A + 0 + carry [A = 0 + 0 + 0 = 0]

At this point we should have 100 in A and 95 in B, to make D = 25695 = 571 * 
45, but I make the above: 0 in A and 100 in B. Help!

F662:  PULX
F663:  PULX
F664:  RTS

; end of routine

Can someone please tell me where I'm going wrong!

Robin 



From ssealander at Stny.rr.com  Sat Aug 25 18:12:58 2007
From: ssealander at Stny.rr.com (Scot Sealander)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:12:58 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 68HC11 assembler help needed
In-Reply-To: <091e01c7e72c$91f26e30$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <200708252312.l7PNCrH8021454@ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com>

You are trying to make the code fit what you think it does, not what it
actually does.  You haven't considered the radix point of the numbers.  ACC
A is a fraction in this case.  In your example, ACC A = 45 decimal.  So
45/256 is 0.176.  The other number in the INDEX is 571.  So 0.176 times 571
is 100.4, so it looks like you did the math just fine.

Scot

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Rob Handley
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 11:28 AM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: [Gmecm] 68HC11 assembler help needed

Aargh. My brain hurts. Been bashing it against the $58 code at $F650 - which

appears to be a routine to multiply a 16 bit number by an 8 bit number. But 
my worked example doesn't work - so my understanding of the code must be 
wrong.

In my worked example, I set the 16 bit number (pointed to by X register) to:

571 (MSB = 2, LSB = 59), and the 8 bit (stored in A register) to: 45.

Here's the code, with my worked example in [square brackets]:

; start of routine

F650:  PSHX
F651:  PSHA

F652:  LDAB 1,X     ; (8 bit) B = contents of (X+1) = LSB of incoming 16 bit

quantity [B = 59]
F654:  MUL            ; (16 bit) D = A * B [D = 45 * 59 = 2655 = $0A5F so 
MSB(A) = 10 & LSB(B) = 95]
F655:  ADCA #$00  ; A = A + 0 + carry [A = 10 + 0 + 0 = 10]

In D, we now have the 1st of the 2 part calculation - the result of the LSB 
of the 16 bit quantity multiplied by the 8 bit quantity. The MSB (A) is now 
saved (on the stack), but the LSB (B) seems to be lost (this can't be 
right):

F657:  PSHA          ; Copy (8 bit) A to stack [10]

F658:  LDAA 0,X     ; (8 bit) A = contents of (X+0) = MSB of incoming 16 bit

quantity [A = 2]
F65A:  TSX             ; (16 bit) X = stack pointer+1 (so X is address of 
last byte on stack)
F65B:  LDAB 1,X     ; B = contents of (X+1) i.e. last but one byte on stack 
= incoming value of A [B = 45]
F65D:  MUL            ; (16 bit) D = A * B [D = 2 * 45 = 90 so MSB(A) = 0 & 
LSB(B) = 90]
F65E:  ADDB 0,X     ; B = B + contents of (X+0) i.e. relative stack address 
(-3) = earlier value of A [B = 90 + 10 = 100]
F660:  ADCA #$00   ; A = A + 0 + carry [A = 0 + 0 + 0 = 0]

At this point we should have 100 in A and 95 in B, to make D = 25695 = 571 *

45, but I make the above: 0 in A and 100 in B. Help!

F662:  PULX
F663:  PULX
F664:  RTS

; end of routine

Can someone please tell me where I'm going wrong!

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 Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Aug 26 04:00:13 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:00:13 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] 68HC11 assembler help needed
References: <200708252312.l7PNCrH8021454@ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <095101c7e7bf$9f6dc710$020101c0@gandalf>

Many thanks Scot. :-) It hadn't occurred to me that one number might be a 
fraction - but it does make the calling code make more sense!

R

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scot Sealander" <ssealander at Stny.rr.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 26 August 2007 00:12
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] 68HC11 assembler help needed


> You are trying to make the code fit what you think it does, not what it
> actually does.  You haven't considered the radix point of the numbers. 
> ACC
> A is a fraction in this case.  In your example, ACC A = 45 decimal.  So
> 45/256 is 0.176.  The other number in the INDEX is 571.  So 0.176 times 
> 571
> is 100.4, so it looks like you did the math just fine.
>
> Scot
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On 
> Behalf
> Of Rob Handley
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 11:28 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] 68HC11 assembler help needed
>
> Aargh. My brain hurts. Been bashing it against the $58 code at $F650 - 
> which
>
> appears to be a routine to multiply a 16 bit number by an 8 bit number. 
> But
> my worked example doesn't work - so my understanding of the code must be
> wrong.
>
> In my worked example, I set the 16 bit number (pointed to by X register) 
> to:
>
> 571 (MSB = 2, LSB = 59), and the 8 bit (stored in A register) to: 45.
>
> Here's the code, with my worked example in [square brackets]:
>
> ; start of routine
>
> F650:  PSHX
> F651:  PSHA
>
> F652:  LDAB 1,X     ; (8 bit) B = contents of (X+1) = LSB of incoming 16 
> bit
>
> quantity [B = 59]
> F654:  MUL            ; (16 bit) D = A * B [D = 45 * 59 = 2655 = $0A5F so
> MSB(A) = 10 & LSB(B) = 95]
> F655:  ADCA #$00  ; A = A + 0 + carry [A = 10 + 0 + 0 = 10]
>
> In D, we now have the 1st of the 2 part calculation - the result of the 
> LSB
> of the 16 bit quantity multiplied by the 8 bit quantity. The MSB (A) is 
> now
> saved (on the stack), but the LSB (B) seems to be lost (this can't be
> right):
>
> F657:  PSHA          ; Copy (8 bit) A to stack [10]
>
> F658:  LDAA 0,X     ; (8 bit) A = contents of (X+0) = MSB of incoming 16 
> bit
>
> quantity [A = 2]
> F65A:  TSX             ; (16 bit) X = stack pointer+1 (so X is address of
> last byte on stack)
> F65B:  LDAB 1,X     ; B = contents of (X+1) i.e. last but one byte on 
> stack
> = incoming value of A [B = 45]
> F65D:  MUL            ; (16 bit) D = A * B [D = 2 * 45 = 90 so MSB(A) = 0 
> &
> LSB(B) = 90]
> F65E:  ADDB 0,X     ; B = B + contents of (X+0) i.e. relative stack 
> address
> (-3) = earlier value of A [B = 90 + 10 = 100]
> F660:  ADCA #$00   ; A = A + 0 + carry [A = 0 + 0 + 0 = 0]
>
> At this point we should have 100 in A and 95 in B, to make D = 25695 = 571 
> *
>
> 45, but I make the above: 0 in A and 100 in B. Help!
>
> F662:  PULX
> F663:  PULX
> F664:  RTS
>
> ; end of routine
>
> Can someone please tell me where I'm going wrong!
>
> 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 kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net  Sun Aug 26 09:48:08 2007
From: kctobyjoe1 at verizon.net (kctobyjoe1)
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:48:08 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 92 riv help
In-Reply-To: <095101c7e7bf$9f6dc710$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <200708252312.l7PNCrH8021454@ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com>
	<095101c7e7bf$9f6dc710$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <46D192A8.3060507@verizon.net>

I went thru the HELM? 4" thick manual
It mentions'1' computer
Behind the glove box is an assembly that seems to be 2 computers wide
IF the BCM chip is bad is securing one difficult?
EVERYTHING works on my car but the odometer it SAYS ERROR
IF I change mileage type (E/M) works fine
switch from digital readout of speed to just bar works fine
runs great too
about 31 mpg after its major tune up 3 months ago

HELP!



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Aug 27 05:50:59 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:50:59 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] $58 ALDL-reported BPW jumping (when it should be constant)
References: <238342.28247.qm@web35314.mail.mud.yahoo.com><069601c7e5de$174c3840$020101c0@gandalf>
	<070401c7e64f$5015cf80$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <09a701c7e898$28f0c810$020101c0@gandalf>

Yay! Found the cause of the ALDL-reported BPW being mostly stuck at zero. (I 
had set all the F77 values to 0 instead of 1.) :-)

However, with the engine sitting at idle, using fixed values of (in the 
notation of the P4 Turbo doc): BPC, MAPP, MAT', VE, F33C, BLM, DFCO, CLT, 
and F77, the ALDL-reported BPW still occasionally jumps up to a higher 
value - e.g. 24 ms.

I can't find a value of A/F' to display (in my home-brew ALDL monitor 
program), but desired A/F is very slowly changing (due to warm up).

Nor can I find a value of DE to display, but I've done my best to turn this 
OFF.

I haven't yet put a 'scope on the injector line (next job...) to see if the 
hardware tells the same story as the ALDL, but if anybody's got any ideas as 
to the cause of the jumping ALDL-reported BPW, I'd be very interested to 
hear them!

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 24 August 2007 14:04
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] $58 F29/F29E VE lookup weirdness


> Test drive log with engine speed up to over 6800 RPM showed no VE blips 
> either. :-) Thanks for the pointer.
>
> BPW still zero for 98 % of the time, so shall start investigating that 
> now...
>
> Robin