From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 1 03:31:42 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:31:42 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000> <1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com> Message-ID: <039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> > > And a final note: It is not desirable to offset a crank position > > sensor > > -60 deg to to allow an unmodified distributor calibration to be used > > with the 7 notch DIS system. During cranking and at any time the 5V > > bypass line is held low, ignition pulses are delivered to the coils 60 > > deg. retarded from the reference pulse. These pulses will be delivered > > 60 deg ATDC with an offset crank sensor. Starting will be extremely > > difficult, requiring large amounts of fuel and quite possibly > > backfiring > > severely through the exhaust. There is no need to alter the original > > relationship between the crank sensor and notch position to convert > > between DIS and distributor calibrations. I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how a DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm missing? (I'm used to dizzy triggering.) I've never found a clear description about what a GM DIS module does. Thanks, Robin From tsokorai at minimania.org Fri Sep 1 08:36:09 2006 From: tsokorai at minimania.org (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:36:09 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <000401c6cd80$ffd25440$6400a8c0@p42000> References: <000401c6cd80$ffd25440$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <200609010936.09143.tsokorai@minimania.org> On Friday 01 September 2006 00:42, Brendan Patten wrote: > > > AT 8025 I put in AA 59.8 > AT 8026 I put in FFE4 -10 > AT 8028 I put in FF39 -70 Yes, something like that, the min & max advances get reversed and negative, and initial @60 deg. I have a BMW I6 running with GM DIS and $8D code since last week. Some other changes need: Cylinder select: obviously for the 8->6 cyl change. You'll maybe want to change the DRP counts until running for easier starts (or otherwise the ECM will take control of the ignition at 400 RPM instead of 300), and the "high RPM DRPs until running" from 8 to 6 to have nice and clean starts. Copy the fueling and spark maps from the original app. as Ryan already suggested. As my retrofit was for a very different engine, I did 1001 more changes, but it *?s* possible to get a $8D running a 6 cyl. DIS engine :) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From tsokorai at minimania.org Fri Sep 1 08:41:05 2006 From: tsokorai at minimania.org (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:41:05 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine In-Reply-To: <039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000> <1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com> <039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <200609010941.05924.tsokorai@minimania.org> On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how a > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm missing? Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), the DIS module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static timing, typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has 60deg offset. -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From tsokorai at minimania.org Fri Sep 1 08:48:44 2006 From: tsokorai at minimania.org (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine In-Reply-To: <20060901022613.58897.qmail@web35906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060901022613.58897.qmail@web35906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200609010948.44455.tsokorai@minimania.org> On Thursday 31 August 2006 22:26, Ryan Hess wrote: > The obvious question to ask, is why? Seems like a lot of work for nothing > to gain... Are you trying to find more tuning support or something? I'd Well, it's not hard at all to get the $8D to run a 6 Cyl+ DIS and it is better documented than the V6 codes. The only problem I'm still having on my $8D I6 DISed BMW, is that sometimes the idle control goes crazy on starts: it gets a 2000 RPM idle and even on the ALDL the IAC count stays on the ceiling (so it is not a stuck IAC, it is software). If I stop the engine and start it again, it gets great idle again .... weird .... -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Fri Sep 1 09:05:56 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:05:56 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] search engine for lists Message-ID: for members of the DIY list, see below for a link to the archive search engine. > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Gary Evans > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:16 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > > On Aug 31, 2006, at 6:46 PM, Brendan Patten wrote: > > > Okay, I want to run the ever popular $8D code on my 1990 > Cavalier 3.1L > > Ah, see this is where a forum format (or at least a search > function!) would be immensely helpful. This subject was just > covered in detail a while back and I spent the last 20 > minutes looking all over the place for the relevant post. . Sorry, I've dropped the ball on this several times now. There has been a search engine for some time, and while the link has been posted a few times I never put a link on the WWW page. It's there now, if you go to the diy_efi or gmecm pages and click "Browse/search the article archives" you'll get there. I don't think it's indexing automatically yet, so it doesn't have Shannen's post below, but I'm checking into that. --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 william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Fri Sep 1 12:10:27 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:10:27 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] BMW I6 DIS Message-ID: <44F86983.5080006@highspeedlink.net> I've been meaning to as for a while... how are you triggering your ECM from the BMW engine? Will > From: "Tomas J. Sokorai Sch." > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It > RUNS > > On Friday 01 September 2006 00:42, Brendan Patten wrote: >> >> AT 8025 I put in AA 59.8 >> AT 8026 I put in FFE4 -10 >> AT 8028 I put in FF39 -70 > > Yes, something like that, the min & max advances get reversed and negative, > and initial @60 deg. > > I have a BMW I6 running with GM DIS and $8D code since last week. > > Some other changes need: Cylinder select: obviously for the 8->6 cyl change. > > You'll maybe want to change the DRP counts until running for easier starts (or > otherwise the ECM will take control of the ignition at 400 RPM instead of > 300), and the "high RPM DRPs until running" from 8 to 6 to have nice and > clean starts. > Copy the fueling and spark maps from the original app. as Ryan already > suggested. > > As my retrofit was for a very different engine, I did 1001 more changes, but > it *?s* possible to get a $8D running a 6 cyl. DIS engine :) From tsokorai at minimania.org Fri Sep 1 13:41:10 2006 From: tsokorai at minimania.org (Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:41:10 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] BMW I6 DIS In-Reply-To: <44F86983.5080006@highspeedlink.net> References: <44F86983.5080006@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <200609011441.10394.tsokorai@minimania.org> On Friday 01 September 2006 13:10, William Lucke wrote: > I've been meaning to as for a while... how are you triggering your ECM > from the BMW engine? Crank triggered, from the front damper. Originally this engine had a "TDC sensor" for use by the dealership's diagnostic equipment, essentially a VR crank sensor, but with only one hole in the damper to sense. I just made other six holes in the damper to achieve the GM 6+1 trigger pattern and modified the stock sensor by adding stronger magnets to get a more powerfull signal able to trigger the DIS module. -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sat Sep 2 05:46:41 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:46:41 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000><1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com><039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> <200609010941.05924.tsokorai@minimania.org> Message-ID: <041d01c6ce7d$15b14210$020101c0@gandalf> > On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: > > > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how a > > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the > > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for > > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm missing? > > Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), the DIS > module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static timing, > typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has 60deg > offset. Sorry if I'm being dim here; when the ECM is not controlling the timing, does the DIS module fire at every pulse from the trigger wheel? How does a 6 x 60deg trigger wheel work for a 4cyl engine? Thanks, Robin From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sat Sep 2 10:48:45 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:48:45 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor Message-ID: <44F9A7DD.9030509@highspeedlink.net> I'm gathering information for an engine swap in my Pontiac 6000 AWD. It uses a version of the TH125 3 speed auto that can't be changed because of the AWD. The transmission, of course, has an electrically locked torque convertor. The engine I have in mind is a 3100 SFI V6. AFAIK, this engine was only used with electronic transmissions. I'd like to retain sequential injection for fuel economy reasons (also the reasons I'm planning for a 3100 and not a 3400 or 3500). I also intend to turbocharge the engine. What ECM/mask combo can I use for this? I'd like a pretty "robust" mask with 16 cell BLM capabilities (I've heard that some masks, like the $A1, use an abbreviated 3 cell BLM structure) and, of course, boost control. Would a Turbo 3.8 controller work? Is the early DIS compatible with the later DIS that the engine would be using? Will From bpatten at centurytel.net Sat Sep 2 11:31:26 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor In-Reply-To: <44F9A7DD.9030509@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM cells. But no sequential. There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not sure of how many blm cells there $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and boost, still no sequential. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of William Lucke Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 10:49 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6,hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor I'm gathering information for an engine swap in my Pontiac 6000 AWD. It uses a version of the TH125 3 speed auto that can't be changed because of the AWD. The transmission, of course, has an electrically locked torque convertor. The engine I have in mind is a 3100 SFI V6. AFAIK, this engine was only used with electronic transmissions. I'd like to retain sequential injection for fuel economy reasons (also the reasons I'm planning for a 3100 and not a 3400 or 3500). I also intend to turbocharge the engine. What ECM/mask combo can I use for this? I'd like a pretty "robust" mask with 16 cell BLM capabilities (I've heard that some masks, like the $A1, use an abbreviated 3 cell BLM structure) and, of course, boost control. Would a Turbo 3.8 controller work? Is the early DIS compatible with the later DIS that the engine would be using? Will _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Sep 2 13:28:18 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 19:28:18 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? References: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. Could somebody clarify? Robin From pmkls1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 18:39:05 2006 From: pmkls1 at yahoo.com (Phillip Kuhn) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <20060902233906.61212.qmail@web54614.mail.yahoo.com> Well a mask is what is used to decode the bin file. Think of the bin as a big encoded message and the mask file is a decoding device that allows you to read it. All bin files are written in hex codes and most of the editing programs we use translate that into values that we can more easily understand or rather real world values. That is where mask files come into play. The different codes used $58,$8D, etc are all coded differently and use different sets of values for the set parameters. Basically what you originally thought was right, but there are several definition files available that people have edited to make it more easy to do custom tuning. Of course this is how I understood it and I could be completely off base in which case I am sure somebody will correct me. Phil __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Sun Sep 3 12:58:07 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 Message-ID: <44FB17AF.4080407@highspeedlink.net> Conceptually, I look at it hierarchically: Hardware Code Data Hardware is the ECM... 7730, 7749, etc. Code is the mask... $8D, $8F, etc. Data is the calibration... ANHT, AUJP, etc. The code consists of instructions that tell the ECM what to with the calibration data. When the ECM executes the same code instructions on different data sets, you get different outputs. Thus there can be multiple sets of calibration data for each code mask, because, for example, the speedometer data would have to be different for each axle ratio offered in a RWD car, or the calibration data for a 305 is different than that for a 350, even though they are run by the same ECM and code mask. The term "mask" is a little obtuse in that it stems from old school computer speak. If you printed out the .bin file you could theoretically cut holes in another piece of paper to lay over top of the printout so that you only looked at what you were interested in... you could then label each hole "0xAAAA - 0xAAAF: data so-and-so" and the piece of paper with the holes would become a "mask" for understanding your .bin. This is exactly what a definition file does in your PC's memory. Because each version of Code may put critical tables in different locations in the .bin, you need a different mask for each different code, and thus the term mask has come to be synonymous with the specific program used. Will > Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 19:28:18 +0100 > From: "Robin Handley" > Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? > > I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a > clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a > 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in > different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. > ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. > Could somebody clarify? > > Robin From davida1 at hiwaay.net Sun Sep 3 13:05:40 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 13:05:40 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: [Diy_efi] Mopar Small Block EFI Project References: <000c01c6cf7d$0dcc6b00$6501a8c0@davis> Message-ID: <004001c6cf83$9669a850$16ce5245@yancey.com> Thanks for the pictures! That clears up my confusion, I had thought you had somehow adapted a small-block Chevy intake manifold to a Mopar engine! You'll not be disappointed with it- every swap I have done has done nothing but improve the engine's reliability and performance. With full control over the engine, you'll definately have an easy time exceeding the stock carb'ed power level. Oh, the joys of real-time tuning! It looks like the Mopar TB uses the same stepping-motor IAC valve as Rochester did. That will be a blessing for your retrofit. Is the throttle position sensor also adaptable to the Delco computer? That's a fine looking car, by the way. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clair Davis" To: "diy_efi" Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:19 PM Subject: [Diy_efi] Mopar Small Block EFI Project > For a brief recap on the project, I'll include some links to photos I've > collected over the last couple of years. No formal web page yet, I've only > gotten as far as uploading the photos. Goal is to have a fun daily driver > with old-school style and modern reliability and handling. She'll also see > a few autocrosses every year. > > Here's the car, a 1969 Plymouth Valiant 2-door post sedan: > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/69sedan/In_The_Park2-PS-Clipped.JPG > > Engine is a low-compression 340ci/5.6L V-8 from the early 70's, freshened up > by me in the late 90's. In carbureted form, it makes 260 hp and 290 lb-ft > of torque at the rear wheels. Runs just fine on 89 octane, and might > tolerate 87, but I haven't tried. > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/340/72tweaked340-Chassis-640.jpg > > The nuts and bolts are that I've got a '730 ECM & wiring harness, a pile of > GM sensors, a pile of Mopar sensors, and a pile of Mopar hard parts, and > I've been working to make those three piles in to one coherent package. > > Mopar Performance makes, or made, an EFI-ready single plane intake for the > Magnum V-8 trucks to replace the restrictive beer-barrel intake manifold, > using all the OEM Magnum fuel goodies - rails, injectors, sensors, throttle > body, etc. This is the intake I have: > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/69sedan/upgrades/efi/M1_Magnum_Intake-01.JPG > > Distributor is a no-advance unit from a late-1980's "Lean Burn" carbureted > small block: > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/69sedan/upgrades/efi/Reluctor_Pickup-01.JPG > > Throttle body is also a Mopar Performance piece, 1000cfm 4V, billet > aluminum, all the Magnum sensors (TPS, MAP, IAC). > http://users2.ev1.net/~clairdavis/webimages/69sedan/upgrades/efi/Throttle%20Body.JPG > > I still have to wire up the coil & mount the 8-pin HEI ignition control > unit, but that's about it for wiring. That's also where I've got a couple > remaining questions, but I'll get to those later. I'm really looking > forward to getting the old girl back on the road, and then seeing how far I > can tune the EFI to improve the package. > > Clair > Fort Worth, TX > > _______________________________________________ > Diy_efi mailing list > Diy_efi at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/diy_efi > From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk Sun Sep 3 13:52:39 2006 From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Robin Handley) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 19:52:39 +0100 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 - What really is a 'mask'? References: <44FB17AF.4080407@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <052f01c6cf8a$22fab510$020101c0@gandalf> > Because each version of Code may put critical tables in different > locations in the .bin, you need a different mask for each different > code, and thus the term mask has come to be synonymous with the specific > program used. This is the bit which does not marry completely with my previous understanding, and I realise that my original description was amibiguous in this respect, but I think clear and concise otherwise. So, in an attempt to be absolutely clear, is it true that, for a given code 'mask': - The algorithms in the executable code are identical for all instantiations (and, in fact, all executable code, aside from lookup vectors, is identical). - The calibration (lookup) data values will (obviously) vary between applications to cope with different engine configurations etc. etc. - The size and scaling etc. of all the calibration (lookup) data are identical for all instantiations. - The vector memory location of any given element (scalar/array/table) of calibration data may vary between instantiations. Is the above a necessary and sufficient description? Robin P.S. My school teachers used to have a paper 'mask' for marking multiple choice questions (a piece of paper with holes punched in). Having programmed in assembler for over 20 years, I'm also familiar with the concept of masking bits. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lucke" To: Sent: 03 September 2006 18:58 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 > Conceptually, I look at it hierarchically: > Hardware > Code > Data > > Hardware is the ECM... 7730, 7749, etc. > Code is the mask... $8D, $8F, etc. > Data is the calibration... ANHT, AUJP, etc. > > The code consists of instructions that tell the ECM what to with the > calibration data. When the ECM executes the same code instructions on > different data sets, you get different outputs. Thus there can be > multiple sets of calibration data for each code mask, because, for > example, the speedometer data would have to be different for each axle > ratio offered in a RWD car, or the calibration data for a 305 is > different than that for a 350, even though they are run by the same ECM > and code mask. > > The term "mask" is a little obtuse in that it stems from old school > computer speak. If you printed out the .bin file you could theoretically > cut holes in another piece of paper to lay over top of the printout so > that you only looked at what you were interested in... you could then > label each hole "0xAAAA - 0xAAAF: data so-and-so" and the piece of paper > with the holes would become a "mask" for understanding your .bin. This > is exactly what a definition file does in your PC's memory. > > Because each version of Code may put critical tables in different > locations in the .bin, you need a different mask for each different > code, and thus the term mask has come to be synonymous with the specific > program used. > > > Will > > > > Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 19:28:18 +0100 > > From: "Robin Handley" > > Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? > > > > I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a > > clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a > > 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in > > different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. > > ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. > > Could somebody clarify? > > > > 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 davida1 at hiwaay.net Sun Sep 3 17:59:10 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:59:10 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] 2732 direct EEPROM / Flash replacement Message-ID: <005e01c6cfac$95f16e70$16ce5245@yancey.com> Hey, does anyone know what chip (if any) is a pin-compatible EEPROM or Flash chip to replace a 2732 EPROM used in a 7747 ECM? I have searched the archive (thanks for getting this feature woking!!) and only found more confusion and conflicting information. I'm looking to replace it with something that will not need to be UV erased, and will not require any funky adapter to fit into my ECM. Thanks, David From jlg-sep at comcast.net Sun Sep 3 19:18:33 2006 From: jlg-sep at comcast.net (Scott Peitzsch) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:18:33 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 2732 direct EEPROM / Flash replacement References: <005e01c6cfac$95f16e70$16ce5245@yancey.com> Message-ID: <000c01c6cfb7$a843ac90$6601a8c0@HPDESKTOP> Craig's G2 and G2X are great solutions to your problem. http://www.moates.net/adapters-and-chipkits-gm-adapters-c-25_36.html -Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Allen" To: "GM-ECM" ; Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 6:59 PM Subject: [Gmecm] 2732 direct EEPROM / Flash replacement Hey, does anyone know what chip (if any) is a pin-compatible EEPROM or Flash chip to replace a 2732 EPROM used in a 7747 ECM? I have searched the archive (thanks for getting this feature woking!!) and only found more confusion and conflicting information. I'm looking to replace it with something that will not need to be UV erased, and will not require any funky adapter to fit into my ECM. Thanks, David From ssealander at Stny.rr.com Sun Sep 3 19:25:11 2006 From: ssealander at Stny.rr.com (Scot Sealander) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:25:11 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 - What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <052f01c6cf8a$22fab510$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <200609040025.k840P9Co012242@ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com> >So, in an attempt to be absolutely clear, is it true that, for a >given code 'mask': >- The algorithms in the executable code are identical for all > instantiations (and, in fact, all executable code, aside from lookup > vectors, is identical). No. I have seen at least 3 different slight code variations of the $8D. The changes aren't large, and none of the cal data area is changed. >- The calibration (lookup) data values will (obviously) vary between >applications to cope with different engine configurations etc. etc. >- The size and scaling etc. of all the calibration (lookup) data are >identical for all instantiations. >- The vector memory location of any given element (scalar/array/table) >of calibration data may vary between instantiations. >Is the above a necessary and sufficient description? It seems that nothing is absolute. But that is a pretty good idea of what is going on. Scot From bpatten at centurytel.net Sun Sep 3 23:10:47 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 23:10:47 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <200609010936.09143.tsokorai@minimania.org> Message-ID: <000001c6cfd8$1a6a0880$6400a8c0@p42000> I have been unsuccessful to get this to work on my 3.1L. It goes into limp mode, laptop won't communicate via ALDL port with computer. Thomas, would you be willing to share your bin you are using, so that I could compare ??? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS On Friday 01 September 2006 00:42, Brendan Patten wrote: > > > AT 8025 I put in AA 59.8 > AT 8026 I put in FFE4 -10 > AT 8028 I put in FF39 -70 Yes, something like that, the min & max advances get reversed and negative, and initial @60 deg. I have a BMW I6 running with GM DIS and $8D code since last week. Some other changes need: Cylinder select: obviously for the 8->6 cyl change. You'll maybe want to change the DRP counts until running for easier starts (or otherwise the ECM will take control of the ignition at 400 RPM instead of 300), and the "high RPM DRPs until running" from 8 to 6 to have nice and clean starts. Copy the fueling and spark maps from the original app. as Ryan already suggested. As my retrofit was for a very different engine, I did 1001 more changes, but it *?s* possible to get a $8D running a 6 cyl. DIS engine :) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From bpatten at centurytel.net Mon Sep 4 00:38:41 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:38:41 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <000001c6cfd8$1a6a0880$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <000101c6cfe4$649e0ad0$6400a8c0@p42000> Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Patten Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:11 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS I have been unsuccessful to get this to work on my 3.1L. It goes into limp mode, laptop won't communicate via ALDL port with computer. Thomas, would you be willing to share your bin you are using, so that I could compare ??? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS On Friday 01 September 2006 00:42, Brendan Patten wrote: > > > AT 8025 I put in AA 59.8 > AT 8026 I put in FFE4 -10 > AT 8028 I put in FF39 -70 Yes, something like that, the min & max advances get reversed and negative, and initial @60 deg. I have a BMW I6 running with GM DIS and $8D code since last week. Some other changes need: Cylinder select: obviously for the 8->6 cyl change. You'll maybe want to change the DRP counts until running for easier starts (or otherwise the ECM will take control of the ignition at 400 RPM instead of 300), and the "high RPM DRPs until running" from 8 to 6 to have nice and clean starts. Copy the fueling and spark maps from the original app. as Ryan already suggested. As my retrofit was for a very different engine, I did 1001 more changes, but it *?s* possible to get a $8D running a 6 cyl. DIS engine :) -- Tomas J. Sokorai Sch. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From davesnothereman at netscape.net Mon Sep 4 06:41:50 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:41:50 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> References: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C89E2E3F13531E-1230-39EB@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> From what I understand, the mask ID is a calculated number. I believe the table locations and sizes as well as code length are the main contributors to the ID. Ludis Langens wrote a program several years ago which would look at a calibration and calculate the mask ID, as well as determine whether the file was stock or modified, and if stock would return the BCC. The BCC is the broadcast code, an identifier used to pick out specific calibrations as mandated by US law. While the mask can be thought of as the "table location and code template," the various BCC's associated with a certain mask represent different calibration variables. The mask ID system does not guarantee a unique identifier for every variation of code and table. Ludis had mentioned once that there are different codes which will generate the same mask ID. Since a similar question has come up on another list, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if the term "mask" has a historical reference to the early days of prom production. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 2:28 PM Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. Could somebody clarify? 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Mon Sep 4 06:51:56 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine In-Reply-To: <041d01c6ce7d$15b14210$020101c0@gandalf> References: <000201c6cd68$76bb0a20$6400a8c0@p42000><1272054b5f6f0cc63529c0dff225f022@garyandliz.com><039801c6cda1$1022c260$020101c0@gandalf> <200609010941.05924.tsokorai@minimania.org> <041d01c6ce7d$15b14210$020101c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <8C89E2FA8449C45-1230-3A09@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> On a 4 cylinder engine the "double notch" of the 7x crank wheel indicates synch. The module fires on the next signal from the crank wheel. Two pulses are counted and the module fires on the third. One pulse is counted, then the double notch to indicate synch, and the cycle begins again. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine > On Friday 01 September 2006 04:31, Robin Handley wrote: > > > > I hadn't thought about the cranking situation, but I'm now wondering how a > > DIS based ignition system can actually get an engine to start (when the > > 'static' advance is so far away from something you'd want to use for > > cranking). Does the DIS module do something clever here, that I'm missing? > > Nope, when cranked (when the ECM is *not* controlling the timing), the DIS > module just fires the coils at the crank mark timing (the static timing, > typically of 0deg), and only the signal it gives back to the ECM has 60deg > offset. Sorry if I'm being dim here; when the ECM is not controlling the timing, does the DIS module fire at every pulse from the trigger wheel? How does a 6 x 60deg trigger wheel work for a 4cyl engine? Thanks, 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Mon Sep 4 07:15:44 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 08:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor In-Reply-To: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <8C89E32FB17471A-1230-3A83@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Stock $58 has 2 BLM cells, idle and off idle. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 12:31 PM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and boost, still no sequential. ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From davesnothereman at netscape.net Mon Sep 4 07:36:04 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 08:36:04 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <000101c6cfe4$649e0ad0$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <8C89E35D2329FAB-1230-3AF7@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Changing calibration values does not generally cause communication failures. Changing spark reference angles may cause engine failure, but does not cause ECM comms failure. Timing values for max and min work like number line. Look at absolute value for conversion to degrees. For negative ($FFXX) values, use difference between $10000 and value in question. Sign for "advance" or "retard" depends on spark reference angle and sign of spark typically encountered after reference angle is subtracted from desired angle. $10000 -$ FFE3 =$ 1D $1D = d29 d29 * .35163 = 10.195 Generally speaking, for DIS calibration, typical spark angle has negative sign. More negative values indicate more advance. For distributor calibration typical spark angle has positive sign. More positive spark values indicate more advance. The $88 data posted indicates 60 deg maximum advance and negative 10 deg minimum advance. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon Sep 4 08:05:35 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:05:35 -0000 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: What, really, is a 'mask'? Message-ID: <451FBD81.4090003@highspeedlink.net> > From: "Robin Handley" > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Gmecm Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 - What really > is a 'mask'? > >> Because each version of Code may put critical tables in different >> locations in the .bin, you need a different mask for each different >> code, and thus the term mask has come to be synonymous with the specific >> program used. > > This is the bit which does not marry completely with my previous > understanding, and I realise that my original description was amibiguous in > this respect, but I think clear and concise otherwise. > > So, in an attempt to be absolutely clear, is it true that, for a given code > 'mask': > > - The algorithms in the executable code are identical for all instantiations > (and, in fact, all executable code, aside from lookup vectors, is > identical). As was said, maybe or maybe not. FUNCTIONALLY, the program should be the same for all instances of a particular program ID. > - The calibration (lookup) data values will (obviously) vary between > applications to cope with different engine configurations etc. etc. > - The size and scaling etc. of all the calibration (lookup) data are > identical for all instantiations. These two coincide with my understanding. > - The vector memory location of any given element (scalar/array/table) of > calibration data may vary between instantiations. The memory locations of each piece of data should remain constant for a given program... after all, that is what lets us write definition files for a specific program ID. As for the program ID being a calculated and not assigned value and multiple programs with the same ID possible... I don't know... I'll leave that to the experts. Will From donsauman at cythera.net Mon Sep 4 10:50:01 2006 From: donsauman at cythera.net (Don Sauman) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:50:01 +0800 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <8C89E2E3F13531E-1230-39EB@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> References: <000001c6cead$3cc40060$6400a8c0@p42000> <04bf01c6cebd$91c2ee90$020101c0@gandalf> <8C89E2E3F13531E-1230-39EB@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <44FC4B29.4020400@cythera.net> My understanding is that the mask is that part a program on a ROM that is created during manufacture for a specific purpose and cannot be erased. I.e. non-volatile memory. Don davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: > From what I understand, the mask ID is a calculated number. I believe the table locations and sizes as well as code length are the main contributors to the ID. Ludis Langens wrote a program several years ago which would look at a calibration and calculate the mask ID, as well as determine whether the file was stock or modified, and if stock would return the BCC. > >The BCC is the broadcast code, an identifier used to pick out specific calibrations as mandated by US law. While the mask can be thought of as the "table location and code template," the various BCC's associated with a certain mask represent different calibration variables. > >The mask ID system does not guarantee a unique identifier for every variation of code and table. Ludis had mentioned once that there are different codes which will generate the same mask ID. > >Since a similar question has come up on another list, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if the term "mask" has a historical reference to the early days of prom production. > >Zaphod > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk >To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >Sent: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 2:28 PM >Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? > > >I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never having seen a >clear definition of it. I had been beginning to think, of late, that a >'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular version of GM code, which is used in >different applications (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. >ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm not so sure. >Could somebody clarify? > >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 >________________________________________________________________________ >Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. >_______________________________________________ >Gmecm mailing list >Gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm >Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > -- Don Sauman Cythera Communication 35 Asteroid Way Carlisle 6101 Western Australia P: 08 9361 0337 F: 08 9361 0581 M: 0427 389 547 From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Mon Sep 4 12:50:27 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:50:27 -0000 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission, with lockup convertor Message-ID: <45200044.7050306@highspeedlink.net> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have functioning EGR? I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. Gearing changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, I want it. I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's certainly more responsive to boost. Will From: "Brendan Patten" Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM cells. But no sequential. There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not sure of how many blm cells there $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and boost, still no sequential. From rwhughe at oplink.net Mon Sep 4 14:33:14 2006 From: rwhughe at oplink.net (Robert W Hughes) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:33:14 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <20060904170042.53A29620854@mail.oplnk.net> References: <20060904170042.53A29620854@mail.oplnk.net> Message-ID: <44FC7F7A.1000508@oplink.net> The warly C3 ECMs had most of the software in an on board ROM (mask programmed) with some small parts in the removable PROM along with the calibration parameters. There were links in the ROM down to the PROM to execute the extra routines. -- 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 jryan at caminofx.org Mon Sep 4 14:43:55 2006 From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:43:55 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <44FC7F7A.1000508@oplink.net> References: <20060904170042.53A29620854@mail.oplnk.net> <44FC7F7A.1000508@oplink.net> Message-ID: <8d7b9500161015b185981a8d8d8886b5@caminofx.org> Are such things as the gear ratio and tire size stored in the ROM (calpack?) of a C3 ECM? I don't see any mention of them in the PROM tables. I'm referencing specifically the 1227747 and 1228746. ---> Jared Ryan <--- jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org -- from Houston, TX as well. On Sep 4, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Robert W Hughes wrote: > The warly C3 ECMs had most of the software in an on board ROM (mask > programmed) with some small parts in the removable PROM along with the > calibration parameters. There were links in the ROM down to the PROM > to execute the extra routines. > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 bpatten at centurytel.net Mon Sep 4 19:44:00 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <8C89E35D2329FAB-1230-3AF7@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000001c6d084$6455e890$6400a8c0@p42000> Okay, I've had the car running fine and timing seems to be right on track. I do have one thing happening. It is setting a code 41 after about 10 seconds of running. This is cylinder select error. I do have the number of cylinders set to 192. Other then that I don't know where else to look Anyone else encounter code 41 ? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of davesnothereman at netscape.net Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Changing calibration values does not generally cause communication failures. Changing spark reference angles may cause engine failure, but does not cause ECM comms failure. Timing values for max and min work like number line. Look at absolute value for conversion to degrees. For negative ($FFXX) values, use difference between $10000 and value in question. Sign for "advance" or "retard" depends on spark reference angle and sign of spark typically encountered after reference angle is subtracted from desired angle. $10000 -$ FFE3 =$ 1D $1D = d29 d29 * .35163 = 10.195 Generally speaking, for DIS calibration, typical spark angle has negative sign. More negative values indicate more advance. For distributor calibration typical spark angle has positive sign. More positive spark values indicate more advance. The $88 data posted indicates 60 deg maximum advance and negative 10 deg minimum advance. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From rgmecm at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 20:31:57 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 18:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <000001c6d084$6455e890$6400a8c0@p42000> Message-ID: <20060905013157.60227.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Your memcal has a netres chip that is the "backup" should the prom fail. In otherwords, the prom and netres need to match (V6 or V8 or whatever) or that code is set. Brendan Patten wrote: Okay, I've had the car running fine and timing seems to be right on track. I do have one thing happening. It is setting a code 41 after about 10 seconds of running. This is cylinder select error. I do have the number of cylinders set to 192. Other then that I don't know where else to look Anyone else encounter code 41 ? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of davesnothereman at netscape.net Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Changing calibration values does not generally cause communication failures. Changing spark reference angles may cause engine failure, but does not cause ECM comms failure. Timing values for max and min work like number line. Look at absolute value for conversion to degrees. For negative ($FFXX) values, use difference between $10000 and value in question. Sign for "advance" or "retard" depends on spark reference angle and sign of spark typically encountered after reference angle is subtracted from desired angle. $10000 -$ FFE3 =$ 1D $1D = d29 d29 * .35163 = 10.195 Generally speaking, for DIS calibration, typical spark angle has negative sign. More negative values indicate more advance. For distributor calibration typical spark angle has positive sign. More positive spark values indicate more advance. The $88 data posted indicates 60 deg maximum advance and negative 10 deg minimum advance. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. From dvfagan at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 22:37:36 2006 From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <8d7b9500161015b185981a8d8d8886b5@caminofx.org> Message-ID: <20060905033736.40143.qmail@web30307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jared, Tire size and gear ratio are handled by a device called a DRAC. It is a little board wrapped in foam adjacent to the ECM. It divides tailshaft RPM by a jumper selected code to generate speedometer drive and VSS to the computer. Dennis --- Jared Ryan wrote: > Are such things as the gear ratio and tire size > stored in the ROM > (calpack?) of a C3 ECM? I don't see any mention of > them in the PROM > tables. I'm referencing specifically the 1227747 > and 1228746. > > ---> Jared Ryan <--- > jryan at caminofx.org | http://www.caminofx.org > > -- from Houston, TX as well. > > On Sep 4, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Robert W Hughes wrote: > > > The warly C3 ECMs had most of the software in an > on board ROM (mask > > programmed) with some small parts in the removable > PROM along with the > > calibration parameters. There were links in the > ROM down to the PROM > > to execute the extra routines. > > -- > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dvfagan at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 23:21:53 2006 From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? In-Reply-To: <44FC4B29.4020400@cythera.net> Message-ID: <20060905042153.92763.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The term "mask" is used to identify a pattern of bits stored in a mask programmed ROM. In the C3 ECM arena the term is misunderstood, as a "mask" portion of the program resides on the CPU chip while a part of the program as well as the data constants (spark timing tables, fuel vs manifold pressure tables, etc.) are stored on a PROM chip. This chip, an obsolete 2732A on the C3 ECMs, could be replaced with any compatible device. Craig Moates and others offer adapters to use currently available 27C256 or 27C512 devices to enable storage and driver selection of multiple sets of data constants. The size, location and scaling of each element of the data constants is fixed by the program "mask" stored in the CPU and is non-alterable. This is why a $9A PROM cannot be used with a $A4 CPU board. An addon board by Bowling and Grippo disables the "mask" ROM on the C3 CPU and substitutes an entirely new program complete with variables for the ones that GM engineers created and can be used to control 4 barrel TBI or TPI motors. Dennis --- Don Sauman wrote: > My understanding is that the mask is that part a > program on a ROM that > is created during manufacture for a specific purpose > and cannot be > erased. I.e. non-volatile memory. > > Don > > davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: > > > From what I understand, the mask ID is a > calculated number. I believe the table locations > and sizes as well as code length are the main > contributors to the ID. Ludis Langens wrote a > program several years ago which would look at a > calibration and calculate the mask ID, as well as > determine whether the file was stock or modified, > and if stock would return the BCC. > > > >The BCC is the broadcast code, an identifier used > to pick out specific calibrations as mandated by US > law. While the mask can be thought of as the "table > location and code template," the various BCC's > associated with a certain mask represent different > calibration variables. > > > >The mask ID system does not guarantee a unique > identifier for every variation of code and table. > Ludis had mentioned once that there are different > codes which will generate the same mask ID. > > > >Since a similar question has come up on another > list, I have been thinking about this. I wonder if > the term "mask" has a historical reference to the > early days of prom production. > > > >Zaphod __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmkls1 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 00:24:43 2006 From: pmkls1 at yahoo.com (Phillip Kuhn) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? Message-ID: <20060905052443.87209.qmail@web54604.mail.yahoo.com> I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in the editing software to program for an auto or manual trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and the bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all to "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how they worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been obsolete but I have still been under the hood of plenty older cars. Anyhow if somebody could answer that question for me I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Phil __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From davida1 at hiwaay.net Tue Sep 5 10:37:31 2006 From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:37:31 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Allison transmission code reader Message-ID: <014e01c6d101$3f4978f0$16ce5245@yancey.com> Hey, all I've got a 2006 model off-highway vehicle, with a 6-speed Allison transmission. This has a stand-alone transmission controller. Anyone have any code-reading advice, or know of a commercially-available tool for reading the trouble codes on this unit. Thanks, David From ne14roxcj at gmail.com Tue Sep 5 10:59:59 2006 From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:59:59 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Allison transmission code reader In-Reply-To: <014e01c6d101$3f4978f0$16ce5245@yancey.com> Message-ID: <44fd9f0e.4b90cc2a.47cd.ffffb570@mx.gmail.com> >>> I've got a 2006 model off-highway vehicle, with a 6-speed Allison transmission. <<< Really??! What kind of OHV do you have that uses an Allison?? I'd like to see a rock-crawler that needs such a HD trans. Sorry, I'm of no help on this one, just amazed that a BIG TRUCK trans made it into a toy (if that is what you consider YOUR OHV). Must be nice. Beau From Steve.Ravet at arm.com Tue Sep 5 11:47:43 2006 From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? Message-ID: It has to do with editing images. Imagine that you "mask" out the code and only leave the data tables. This is what mask refers to. It's a specification of tables, their location and purpose. A mask ID is assigned to all applications that have the same mask. There can be many different calibrations for the same mask, and possibly different code versions, although the code would have to be substantially the same. --steve > -----Original Message----- > From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org > [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Robin Handley > Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 1:28 PM > To: gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subject: [Gmecm] What really is a 'mask'? > > I've never really known what a GM software 'mask' is - never > having seen a clear definition of it. I had been beginning to > think, of late, that a 'mask' (e.g. $58, $8D) is a particular > version of GM code, which is used in different applications > (and given different 4-latter designations e.g. > ANHT/AUJP) by changing the calibration data only. But now I'm > not so sure. > Could somebody clarify? > > Robin > The 2006 ARM Developers' Conference, October 3-5, Santa Clara, US Join ARM and its technology and tools Partners from around the world at the only industry event for developers of ARM PoweredR solutions. http://www.arm.com/developersconference/ -- 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 matthew10_5 at netzero.net Tue Sep 5 14:19:39 2006 From: matthew10_5 at netzero.net (matthew10_5 at netzero.net) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:19:39 GMT Subject: [Gmecm] What is Asynchronous BTW Message-ID: <20060905.122013.15449.636349@webmail33.lax.untd.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.diy-efi.org/pipermail/gmecm/attachments/20060905/93885562/attachment.pl From Rexdina at aol.com Tue Sep 5 18:38:37 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:38:37 EDT Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e Message-ID: <4ab.456dbf6.322f647d@aol.com> Hope I don't offend anyone, but I have a 4L60e question which probably affects the ECM. I have a '94 GMC Van 4L60e that needs rebuilt. I also have a good '96 4L60e out of a '96 Chev. pickup. Both are 2 wheel drive, full sized vehicles. The '96 trans has a black box connected to the shift arm on the trans, while the '94 does not. What is the purpose of the '96 black box and it's wiring? Can it be discarded and can the '96 trans. be a bolt in replacement for the '94? Thanks in advance. RC From bpatten at centurytel.net Tue Sep 5 18:41:18 2006 From: bpatten at centurytel.net (Brendan Patten) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:41:18 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS In-Reply-To: <20060905013157.60227.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000201c6d144$cc4827e0$6400a8c0@p42000> Memcal is original for my 90 cavalier z24. I have chipped it. -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hess Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 8:32 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Your memcal has a netres chip that is the "backup" should the prom fail. In otherwords, the prom and netres need to match (V6 or V8 or whatever) or that code is set. Brendan Patten wrote: Okay, I've had the car running fine and timing seems to be right on track. I do have one thing happening. It is setting a code 41 after about 10 seconds of running. This is cylinder select error. I do have the number of cylinders set to 192. Other then that I don't know where else to look Anyone else encounter code 41 ? -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of davesnothereman at netscape.net Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:36 AM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Changing calibration values does not generally cause communication failures. Changing spark reference angles may cause engine failure, but does not cause ECM comms failure. Timing values for max and min work like number line. Look at absolute value for conversion to degrees. For negative ($FFXX) values, use difference between $10000 and value in question. Sign for "advance" or "retard" depends on spark reference angle and sign of spark typically encountered after reference angle is subtracted from desired angle. $10000 -$ FFE3 =$ 1D $1D = d29 d29 * .35163 = 10.195 Generally speaking, for DIS calibration, typical spark angle has negative sign. More negative values indicate more advance. For distributor calibration typical spark angle has positive sign. More positive spark values indicate more advance. The $88 data posted indicates 60 deg maximum advance and negative 10 deg minimum advance. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: bpatten at centurytel.net To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 1:38 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Modify $8D to work on MPFI 3.1L DIS engine - It RUNS Here is what I have found. 1990 CAVALIER Z24 ATMF5241 $88 location hex value Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 AA 59.77 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 used for two above Max Adv 1D FF E4 -19.69 Max Retard 1F FF 39 -139.92 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 used for two above All this data looks correct for a DIS v6 engine. I looked at my Tunerpro XDF definitions and the A1, 8F, 88 all have the exact same values for those 4 constants. Now here is the 88 mask 3.1L Camaro distributor AZTY1407 FBODY 3.1L $88 Initial SA: 13 1A 9.14 Spark Ref Angle 15 1C 9.84 Equation: 0.351563 * X + 0 same equation as above DIS motor, same values seems logical. Max Adv 1D 00 AB -45956.77 Max Retard 1F FF E3 -20.39 Equation: 0.703125 * X + -46080.000000 same as used above. Now what happened to the Max Advance???? If you use the 0.351563 equation, you get a number that makes more sense. 60.12 Degrees. So what is going on here??? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm From wopontour at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 18:59:46 2006 From: wopontour at hotmail.com (WopOnTour) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:59:46 -0600 Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e References: <4ab.456dbf6.322f647d@aol.com> Message-ID: AFAIK that switch mounted on the shift shaft of the 4L60E (on the 95 or newer models) is merely for the digital PRNDL readout on the cluster which wouldn't be required on the older dash.However there may be other electronic differences in the 96 model (e.g. solenoids?) that might not be totally compatible with the 93 PCM . I don't have those details in front of me, but some else here may know. Something about a different Pressure Control Solenoid PWM frequency rings a bell???... HTH WopOnTour ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:38 PM Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e > Hope I don't offend anyone, but I have a 4L60e question which probably > affects the ECM. I have a '94 GMC Van 4L60e that needs rebuilt. I also > have a good > '96 4L60e out of a '96 Chev. pickup. Both are 2 wheel drive, full sized > vehicles. The '96 trans has a black box connected to the shift arm on the > trans, > while the '94 does not. What is the purpose of the '96 black box and it's > wiring? Can it be discarded and can the '96 trans. be a bolt in > replacement for > the '94? Thanks in advance. > RC > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Sep 5 19:09:13 2006 From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:09:13 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission, with lockup convertor In-Reply-To: <45200044.7050306@highspeedlink.net> References: <45200044.7050306@highspeedlink.net> Message-ID: <44FE11A9.8090600@vessels-clan.com> Hi there! Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282 5-speed manual. Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24 convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from his '93 Z24 convertible ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent fuel economy (30 MPG highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd recommend tuning with a wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to maximize the benefit of whatever system you choose. As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code for a non-V8? Is there a V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? Jay Vessels 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) William Lucke wrote: > I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have > functioning EGR? > I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. Gearing > changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, I want it. > I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine > than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's > certainly more responsive to boost. > > > Will > > > From: "Brendan Patten" > Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission > with lockup convertor > > I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode > fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) > > I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM > cells. But no sequential. > > There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not > sure of how many blm cells there > > $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and > boost, still no sequential. > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > > > From dvfagan at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 19:19:27 2006 From: dvfagan at yahoo.com (DV Fagan) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In-Reply-To: <20060905052443.87209.qmail@web54604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060906001927.27169.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Phillip, There is a single bit within the first ten bytes of the PROM which specifies manual or auto. Look at the disassemblies of your code set to find it. Dennis --- Phillip Kuhn wrote: > I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in > the > editing software to program for an auto or manual > trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and > the > bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were > all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all > to > "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle > has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how > they > worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I > have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited > than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most > of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been > obsolete but I have still been under the hood of > plenty older cars. Anyhow if somebody could answer > that question for me I would greatly appreciate it. > Thanks, > > Phil > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Gmecm mailing list > Gmecm at diy-efi.org > Subscribe: > http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm > Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Rexdina at aol.com Tue Sep 5 19:34:12 2006 From: Rexdina at aol.com (Rexdina at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:34:12 EDT Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e Message-ID: <2d9.1a8b7500.322f7184@aol.com> Thanks for that info. I kind of thought it had something to do with the shift indicator, but I'm leery that the solenoids may be different. RC From hotrodder at mindspring.com Tue Sep 5 21:46:57 2006 From: hotrodder at mindspring.com (Dave Jones) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:46:57 -0500 Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e References: <4ab.456dbf6.322f647d@aol.com> Message-ID: <002801c6d15e$b9207180$8bf59118@NANW> At least on the F- and B-bodies, '95 and up got the PWM version of the 4L60E. PCM code is different between PWM and non-PWM. GM cast the letters "PWM" into the face of the front pump, if you need to verify what you have. You can make a PWM valvebody function as a non-PWM by staking the TCC regulated apply valve in the full open position. Alternatively, there's a TransGo valvebody reprogramming kit that will accomplish the same thing. I'm not a tranny guy, nor have I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately, but I'm fairly certain that if you do either mod to the valvebody of your '96 trans, so it function as a non-PWM, you can bolt it in and be good to go, with no other wiring or programming changes needed. HTH, Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "WopOnTour" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 4L60e > AFAIK that switch mounted on the shift shaft of the 4L60E (on the 95 or > newer models) is merely for the digital PRNDL readout on the cluster which > wouldn't be required on the older dash.However there may be other > electronic differences in the 96 model (e.g. solenoids?) that might not be > totally compatible with the 93 PCM . I don't have those details in front > of me, but some else here may know. Something about a different Pressure > Control Solenoid PWM frequency rings a bell???... > HTH > WopOnTour > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > >> Hope I don't offend anyone, but I have a 4L60e question which probably >> affects the ECM. I have a '94 GMC Van 4L60e that needs rebuilt. I also >> have a good '96 4L60e out of a '96 Chev. pickup. Both are 2 wheel drive, >> full sized vehicles. The '96 trans has a black box connected to the >> shift arm on the trans, while the '94 does not. What is the purpose of >> the '96 black box and it's wiring? Can it be discarded and can the '96 >> trans. be a bolt in replacement for the '94? Thanks in advance. >> RC From herningg at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 21:48:03 2006 From: herningg at hotmail.com (Garrett Herning) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e In-Reply-To: <2d9.1a8b7500.322f7184@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi RC, Yes, the solenoids are different. The EPC is pulsed at a different frequency (293.5Hz up to 94 and 614 in the 95 and later). It really doesnt affect the operation. Someone posted here that the lower frequency caused interferece on the AM radio band and thats why it was changed. The big difference is the lockup. Up to 1994 there was only a single lockup solenoid, 95 and later has 2 solenoids, the normal lockup and a PWM lockup apply that can regulate the lockup pressure. If this second one isnt working (since your older PCM doesnt have the hardware to control it) you wont get lockup. I'm not sure off the top of my head, but you may be able to swap in a 94 or earlier valve body into the later trans to get it to work... don't hold me to it though... Garrett >From: Rexdina at aol.com >Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >To: gmecm at diy-efi.org >Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 4L60e >Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:34:12 EDT > >Thanks for that info. I kind of thought it had something to do with the >shift indicator, but I'm leery that the solenoids may be different. >RC >_______________________________________________ >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 donsauman at cythera.net Tue Sep 5 22:27:58 2006 From: donsauman at cythera.net (Don Sauman) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:27:58 +0800 Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e In-Reply-To: References: <4ab.456dbf6.322f647d@aol.com> Message-ID: <44FE403E.8040906@cythera.net> The part about the pressure control solenoid is right at least as far as a 4L80E is concerned. The force motor up to to '93 worked on a freq of 292.5Hz '94 on used 614Hz.. They not changeable in the trans. I have the same problem in that my controller is 1993, but the trans is 1996. Can get little info on either effect of using the cross configuration or the later controller with a NA diesel. I am looking at designing my own Tiptronics style shift. Don WopOnTour wrote: > AFAIK that switch mounted on the shift shaft of the 4L60E (on the 95 > or newer models) is merely for the digital PRNDL readout on the > cluster which wouldn't be required on the older dash.However there may > be other electronic differences in the 96 model (e.g. solenoids?) that > might not be totally compatible with the 93 PCM . I don't have those > details in front of me, but some else here may know. Something about a > different Pressure Control Solenoid PWM frequency rings a bell???... > HTH > WopOnTour > ----- Original Message ----- From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:38 PM > Subject: [Gmecm] 4L60e > > >> Hope I don't offend anyone, but I have a 4L60e question which probably >> affects the ECM. I have a '94 GMC Van 4L60e that needs rebuilt. I >> also have a good >> '96 4L60e out of a '96 Chev. pickup. Both are 2 wheel drive, full sized >> vehicles. The '96 trans has a black box connected to the shift arm on >> the trans, >> while the '94 does not. What is the purpose of the '96 black box and >> it's >> wiring? Can it be discarded and can the '96 trans. be a bolt in >> replacement for >> the '94? Thanks in advance. >> RC >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Don Sauman Cythera Communication 35 Asteroid Way Carlisle 6101 Western Australia P: 08 9361 0337 F: 08 9361 0581 M: 0427 389 547 From william.lucke at highspeedlink.net Tue Sep 5 23:20:14 2006 From: william.lucke at highspeedlink.net (William Lucke) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:20:14 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission with lockup convertor Message-ID: <44FE4C7E.6030509@highspeedlink.net> A 6000 is a larger, heavier car than Cavlier, is all wheel drive and this particular one is running reasonably sticky 245 tires on the front (205's on back) that already cost me 1.5-2 mpg compared to cheap 195's all around. If I can hit 25 mpg with the chain ratio change (24 is more likely), the best that a 16.5 AFR could theoretically do for me is 28 mpg. I won't see that because the real world isn't theoretical ideal (the real world has hills that will cause me to get into PE and convertor unlock with a 2.39 final drive). As I said before, I can do better than I am, but if sequential is worth anything at all, I want it. Since my engine will come with sequential sensors & wiring, actually running that way sounds as simple as picking the right computer. Would a turbo Buick unit accomplish this? A '93 Z24 has the TH125? WTF? The shutter wheel in the opti-spark distributor used on the LT1's is quite 8 cylinder specific. I can see code that interprets that signal being difficult to convert to 6 cylinder operation. Will > From: Jay Vessels > Subject: Re: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic > transmission, with lockup convertor > > Hi there! > > Production 3.1V6 Cavalier had either the THM125 or the Getrag 282 > 5-speed manual. > > Comparing fuel economy numbers across cars and drivers is almost > impossible, but considering the mileage I got from my '94 Z24 > convertible ($A1/5-speed) and what Dad gets from his '93 Z24 convertible > ($A1/auto), I will second the notion that decent fuel economy (30 MPG > highway) can be had from multiport systems. I'd recommend tuning with a > wideband O2 sensor, regardless of system, to maximize the benefit of > whatever system you choose. > > As an aside, has anyone used LT1 ('8051) code for a non-V8? Is there a > V6 or 4-cylinder version that is as flexible? > > Jay Vessels > 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Sport, 2.8V6 TBI > 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Sport, 2.8V6 (TBI pending) > > William Lucke wrote: >> I assume that your Cavalier has a 4 speed transmission? Do you have >> functioning EGR? >> I'm stuck with a 3 speed AWD that currently gets 22 hwy/19 city. Gearing >> changes might push me to 24-25. If sequential is worth 0.5 mpg, I want it. >> I also think the 3100 is a fundamentally better/more efficient engine >> than the 3.1. With the roller cam and better heads/intake, it's >> certainly more responsive to boost. >> >> >> Will >> >> >> From: "Brendan Patten" >> Subject: RE: [Gmecm] ECM Choice: Sequential V6, hydraulic transmission >> with lockup convertor >> >> I'm getting over 30mph highway with my 3.1L $A1 Cavalier. Highway mode >> fuel AFR 16.5:1 and a bunch of timing added. (still no knock) >> >> I'm trying to convert to $8D mask on my 3.1L right now for more BLM >> cells. But no sequential. >> >> There was also the Turbo Grand Pri in 1989 with a 3.1L, $8F mask. Not >> sure of how many blm cells there >> >> $58 mask could be adopted to a DIS engine, you'll get 16 cells and >> boost, still no sequential. From info at jenkinseng.com Wed Sep 6 01:38:47 2006 From: info at jenkinseng.com (Peter Jenkins) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:38:47 +1000 Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? Message-ID: <000601c6d17f$5ead1110$6501a8c0@PETER> the ecu can only determine manual or auto from the park/neutral switch . as a manual trans does not have one. and most of the programs can be written for just manual just auto or both so there is something there in the code but it only matters if you want to run an auto with a manual program > Peter Jenkins > 10336 Murray River Rd Pine Mountain Vic. 3709 > Australia. > PH 0425 705764 > Email. info at jenkinseng.com > web. www.jenkinseng.com DISCLAIMER > * This email and any attachment may contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to copy > or disclose all or any part of it without the prior written consent > of Jenkins Engineering. > * Opinions expressed in this email and any attachment are those of the > sender and not necessarily the opinions of Jenkins Engineering. > * Please scan this email and any attachment for viruses. Jenkins > Engineering does > not accept responsibility for problems caused by viruses, whether > it is Jenkins Engineering's fault or not!!! From b.shaw at comcast.net Wed Sep 6 06:37:19 2006 From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill - Comcast) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In-Reply-To: <20060906001927.27169.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060906001927.27169.qmail@web30306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44FEB2EF.5090601@comcast.net> In addition, both Tunercat and Promgrammer let you edit this bit. Bill DV Fagan wrote: > Phillip, > There is a single bit within the first ten bytes of > the PROM which specifies manual or auto. Look at the > disassemblies of your code set to find it. > Dennis > > --- Phillip Kuhn wrote: > > >> I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in >> the >> editing software to program for an auto or manual >> trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and >> the >> bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were >> all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all >> to >> "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle >> has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how >> they >> worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I >> have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited >> than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most >> of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been >> obsolete but I have still been under the hood of >> plenty older cars. Anyhow if somebody could answer >> that question for me I would greatly appreciate it. >> Thanks, >> >> Phil >> >> _______________________________________________ >> From robert.sjodin at scania.com Wed Sep 6 08:58:52 2006 From: robert.sjodin at scania.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sj=F6din_Robert?=) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:58:52 +0200 Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In-Reply-To: <44FEB2EF.5090601@comcast.net> Message-ID: <02A3C863F485574985DC489CE97DA40C02542C4F@sesoexmb02.scania.se> Perhaps the $58 is different but in my case ($8D) there are quite a few tables and constants that will differ. Eg compare main SA table for low RPM and high MAP you will see that auto has much more spark advance due to converter. My Corvette came with an ANHT-based (auto) "custom" chip but it should have been AXCN (manual). When I started to compare those two I found that several hundred bytes calibration data were different. I would be surprised if it was only one bit differece between auto and manual gearbox for the $58 since there are so may differences in case of the $8D. Rob -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Bill - Comcast Sent: den 6 september 2006 13:37 To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In addition, both Tunercat and Promgrammer let you edit this bit. Bill DV Fagan wrote: > Phillip, > There is a single bit within the first ten bytes of > the PROM which specifies manual or auto. Look at the disassemblies of > your code set to find it. Dennis > > --- Phillip Kuhn wrote: > > >> I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in >> the >> editing software to program for an auto or manual >> trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and >> the >> bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were >> all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all >> to >> "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle >> has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how >> they >> worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I >> have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited >> than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most >> of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been obsolete but I >> have still been under the hood of plenty older cars. Anyhow if >> somebody could answer that question for me I would greatly appreciate >> it. Thanks, >> >> Phil >> >> _______________________________________________ >> _______________________________________________ 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 ahuxtable at sola.com.au Wed Sep 6 21:16:07 2006 From: ahuxtable at sola.com.au (Andrew Huxtable) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:46:07 +0930 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum Message-ID: <000001c6d223$94a90130$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Well, I'm willing to give it a try.... I am willing to offer web space, bandwidth and my time to get a forum going. I have been watching this list for years but I don't post too much because most of it does not relate to me or my cars (mainly because I'm an aussie). I am no mechanic, nor do I regularly do conversions to efi or constantly tinker (although I have done it quite a bit) BUT I am a very competent network engineer/administrator willing to donate for a cause. That's right - I am offering to host and maintain a specific GM-ECM forum. This is not 'backyard' hosting, it's real hosting on a dedicated beefy server living in a proper diesel power backed server room and decent internet connection. Now, to try and keep everyone happy, I'm going to try for the 'forum with email' approach as discussed going back a few months. The idea is also to keep graphics and other bandwidth hungry stuff to an absolute minimum. That way those people on dialup/slow connections should not be too concerned. I think email lists have their place but I think GM-ECM has matured too much for a list. People are afraid of change but I encourage you to give it a try and see how it feels. **To get this up and running, I need to get some suggestions of categories that would be appropriate for the forum and other constructive input to make it the forum YOU want** Please do not comment if you do not have any positive input in moving to a forum. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Doug Chase Sent: Thursday, 31 August 2006 4:30 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum I've seen this discussion come up on many mailing lists and what usually happens is this: 1) Somebody suggests moving to a forum 2) Lots of debate, with a large contingent (usually including the list owner) wanting to stay as a mailing list. 3) Eventually somebody on the forum side of the debate goes ahead and starts a forum on their own. 4a) People migrate to the forum. or 4b) The forum never really catches on and most people stay on the list. I've seen both 4a) and 4b) happen. The only way to find out is for somebody to start a forum. I've never seen a "let's switch to a forum" discussion actually end up in an official switch of a mailing list into a forum (but that doesn't mean it's never happened). Doug Chase www.chaserace.com 425-269-5636 -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Hess Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:28 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum Data is lost? I'm on probably 20 forums for everything from v6's to engineering. Of those 20, one forum has a problem with going down occasionally. There has NEVER been a loss of data or posts on ANY of the forums in the 10+ years I've been on them. Never. Conversely, I have had emails get lost. I have no idea how that happens, but apparently it does. It might be 1/100th of 1%, but it's there. Who's going to mind it? Whoever wants to. Nominate a couple admins. I'll do it without hesitation. It's no surprise thirdgen gets soooo many people from other backgrounds. "How do I tune my $DF code?" "I'm running an MG with a 3.4DOHC, which binary do I need?" Probably 20% of the posts there are not thirdgen related, which I think goes to show the number of people who want a general GM tuning/PROM/ECM/EFI forum. What I was sort of surprised of, was the number of people who have heard of this list, but don't sign up because they hate "spam". In that case, emails they'd rather not receive. Everybody is happy now only because it's no work to keep it the way it is, and to be honest I think everybody is afraid of change. _______________________________________________ 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 davesnothereman at netscape.net Thu Sep 7 05:42:15 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:42:15 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In-Reply-To: <02A3C863F485574985DC489CE97DA40C02542C4F@sesoexmb02.scania.se> Message-ID: <8C8A0816B3E595F-11E0-1DF@mblk-d40.sysops.aol.com> This is the case with most manual vs automatic trans calibrations. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: robert.sjodin at scania.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 9:58 AM Subject: RE: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? Perhaps the $58 is different but in my case ($8D) there are quite a few tables and constants that will differ. Eg compare main SA table for low RPM and high MAP you will see that auto has much more spark advance due to converter. My Corvette came with an ANHT-based (auto) "custom" chip but it should have been AXCN (manual). When I started to compare those two I found that several hundred bytes calibration data were different. I would be surprised if it was only one bit differece between auto and manual gearbox for the $58 since there are so may differences in case of the $8D. Rob -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Bill - Comcast Sent: den 6 september 2006 13:37 To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: Re: [Gmecm] How does the ecm "know" if it is an auto or manual trans ? In addition, both Tunercat and Promgrammer let you edit this bit. Bill DV Fagan wrote: > Phillip, > There is a single bit within the first ten bytes of > the PROM which specifies manual or auto. Look at the disassemblies of > your code set to find it. Dennis > > --- Phillip Kuhn wrote: > > >> I am curious about this as I dont see anywhere in >> the >> editing software to program for an auto or manual >> trans. I plan on using a $58 code in my 240sx and >> the >> bin I downloaded is for a sy/ty which of course were >> all autos. I still have yet to see anywhere at all >> to >> "tell" the computer what type of trans the vehicle >> has. I thought I knew a lot about GM cars and how >> they >> worked as I was a GM tech for 6 years but lately I >> have found that my knowledge was a lot more limited >> than I thought. Of course over the last 6 years most >> of the ecm's used for ecm conversions have long been obsolete but I >> have still been under the hood of plenty older cars. Anyhow if >> somebody could answer that question for me I would greatly appreciate >> it. Thanks, >> >> Phil >> >> _______________________________________________ >> _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From rgmecm at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 18:18:45 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <000001c6d223$94a90130$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Message-ID: <20060907231845.41633.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks!!! Wow, that's awesome! I really think we only need two categories- 1) ECM Hardware and wiring 2) ECM Software and tuning Maybe another catchall category like "other automotive topics" I don't know... I really don't care what you have, I'm just glad you'll have it! I'll be sure to point some people on other forums your way. Ryan Andrew Huxtable wrote: Well, I'm willing to give it a try.... I am willing to offer web space, bandwidth and my time to get a forum going. I have been watching this list for years but I don't post too much because most of it does not relate to me or my cars (mainly because I'm an aussie). I am no mechanic, nor do I regularly do conversions to efi or constantly tinker (although I have done it quite a bit) BUT I am a very competent network engineer/administrator willing to donate for a cause. That's right - I am offering to host and maintain a specific GM-ECM forum. This is not 'backyard' hosting, it's real hosting on a dedicated beefy server living in a proper diesel power backed server room and decent internet connection. Now, to try and keep everyone happy, I'm going to try for the 'forum with email' approach as discussed going back a few months. The idea is also to keep graphics and other bandwidth hungry stuff to an absolute minimum. That way those people on dialup/slow connections should not be too concerned. I think email lists have their place but I think GM-ECM has matured too much for a list. People are afraid of change but I encourage you to give it a try and see how it feels. **To get this up and running, I need to get some suggestions of categories that would be appropriate for the forum and other constructive input to make it the forum YOU want** Please do not comment if you do not have any positive input in moving to a forum. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Doug Chase Sent: Thursday, 31 August 2006 4:30 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum I've seen this discussion come up on many mailing lists and what usually happens is this: 1) Somebody suggests moving to a forum 2) Lots of debate, with a large contingent (usually including the list owner) wanting to stay as a mailing list. 3) Eventually somebody on the forum side of the debate goes ahead and starts a forum on their own. 4a) People migrate to the forum. or 4b) The forum never really catches on and most people stay on the list. I've seen both 4a) and 4b) happen. The only way to find out is for somebody to start a forum. I've never seen a "let's switch to a forum" discussion actually end up in an official switch of a mailing list into a forum (but that doesn't mean it's never happened). Doug Chase www.chaserace.com 425-269-5636 -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Hess Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:28 PM To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum Data is lost? I'm on probably 20 forums for everything from v6's to engineering. Of those 20, one forum has a problem with going down occasionally. There has NEVER been a loss of data or posts on ANY of the forums in the 10+ years I've been on them. Never. Conversely, I have had emails get lost. I have no idea how that happens, but apparently it does. It might be 1/100th of 1%, but it's there. Who's going to mind it? Whoever wants to. Nominate a couple admins. I'll do it without hesitation. It's no surprise thirdgen gets soooo many people from other backgrounds. "How do I tune my $DF code?" "I'm running an MG with a 3.4DOHC, which binary do I need?" Probably 20% of the posts there are not thirdgen related, which I think goes to show the number of people who want a general GM tuning/PROM/ECM/EFI forum. What I was sort of surprised of, was the number of people who have heard of this list, but don't sign up because they hate "spam". In that case, emails they'd rather not receive. Everybody is happy now only because it's no work to keep it the way it is, and to be honest I think everybody is afraid of change. _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. From gary at garyandliz.com Thu Sep 7 18:49:57 2006 From: gary at garyandliz.com (Gary Evans) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:49:57 -0700 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <20060907231845.41633.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060907231845.41633.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <799CFA10-9E65-4064-B7D7-3AC0D3EAC3CB@garyandliz.com> Yes, agreed this is a great offer. I vote for just one category. I don't think there is a great need to subdivide the forum into multiple of categories. We are all talking about the same thing here; it's easier to follow what's going on if all of the discussion is happening in one place. Perhaps the need for categories will become evident later, but for now I think one monolithic forum would be fantastic. -Gary On Sep 7, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Ryan Hess wrote: > Thanks!!! Wow, that's awesome! > > I really think we only need two categories- > > 1) ECM Hardware and wiring > 2) ECM Software and tuning > > Maybe another catchall category like "other automotive topics" > > I don't know... I really don't care what you have, I'm just glad > you'll have it! I'll be sure to point some people on other forums > your way. > > Ryan > > Andrew Huxtable wrote: Well, I'm willing to > give it a try.... > > > > I am willing to offer web space, bandwidth and my time to get a > forum going. > > > > I have been watching this list for years but I don't post too much > because > most of it does not relate to me or my cars (mainly because I'm an > aussie). > > > > I am no mechanic, nor do I regularly do conversions to efi or > constantly > tinker (although I have done it quite a bit) BUT I am a very competent > network engineer/administrator willing to donate for a cause. > > > > That's right - I am offering to host and maintain a specific GM-ECM > forum. > This is not 'backyard' hosting, it's real hosting on a dedicated beefy > server living in a proper diesel power backed server room and decent > internet connection. > > > > Now, to try and keep everyone happy, I'm going to try for the > 'forum with > email' approach as discussed going back a few months. The idea is > also to > keep graphics and other bandwidth hungry stuff to an absolute > minimum. That > way those people on dialup/slow connections should not be too > concerned. > > > > I think email lists have their place but I think GM-ECM has matured > too much > for a list. People are afraid of change but I encourage you to > give it a > try and see how it feels. > > > > **To get this up and running, I need to get some suggestions of > categories > that would be appropriate for the forum and other constructive > input to make > it the forum YOU want** > > > > Please do not comment if you do not have any positive input in > moving to a > forum. > > > > Andrew From rgmecm at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 19:55:14 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 17:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Message-ID: <20060908005514.49247.qmail@web35902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. From rgmecm at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 20:37:17 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <20060908005514.49247.qmail@web35902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060908013717.69956.qmail@web35908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Wait, what are these: Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is cut? Does that mean it defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? What's the point of that? If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would surely kill the motor? Second, there is: RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering [KSFILRPM] - 800 I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 lower than stock, should that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock 3.1 idle I believe is 900) Thanks in advance, Ryan Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com From ttownsley at sprynet.com Thu Sep 7 22:48:29 2006 From: ttownsley at sprynet.com (Tyler Townsley) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <799CFA10-9E65-4064-B7D7-3AC0D3EAC3CB@garyandliz.com> References: <20060907231845.41633.qmail@web35904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <799CFA10-9E65-4064-B7D7-3AC0D3EAC3CB@garyandliz.com> Message-ID: <4500E80D.4030800@sprynet.com> The forum software used by the Megasquirt forum allows you to subscribe to the general topics and get all posts as emails just like you get them as a listservice. This satisfied all parties. Its " Powered by phpBB ? 2001, 2005 phpBB Group" and having that option made the difference. When you log on the first time you go in and edit your profile to sign up for the catagories you want coming as email. Tyler Gary Evans wrote: > Yes, agreed this is a great offer. > > I vote for just one category. > > I don't think there is a great need to subdivide the forum into > multiple of categories. We are all talking about the same thing here; > it's easier to follow what's going on if all of the discussion is > happening in one place. > > Perhaps the need for categories will become evident later, but for > now I think one monolithic forum would be fantastic. > > -Gary > > > On Sep 7, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Ryan Hess wrote: > >> Thanks!!! Wow, that's awesome! >> >> I really think we only need two categories- >> >> 1) ECM Hardware and wiring >> 2) ECM Software and tuning >> >> Maybe another catchall category like "other automotive topics" >> >> I don't know... I really don't care what you have, I'm just glad >> you'll have it! I'll be sure to point some people on other forums >> your way. >> >> Ryan >> >> Andrew Huxtable wrote: Well, I'm willing to >> give it a try.... >> >> >> >> I am willing to offer web space, bandwidth and my time to get a >> forum going. >> >> >> >> I have been watching this list for years but I don't post too much >> because >> most of it does not relate to me or my cars (mainly because I'm an >> aussie). >> >> >> >> I am no mechanic, nor do I regularly do conversions to efi or >> constantly >> tinker (although I have done it quite a bit) BUT I am a very competent >> network engineer/administrator willing to donate for a cause. >> >> >> >> That's right - I am offering to host and maintain a specific GM-ECM >> forum. >> This is not 'backyard' hosting, it's real hosting on a dedicated beefy >> server living in a proper diesel power backed server room and decent >> internet connection. >> >> >> >> Now, to try and keep everyone happy, I'm going to try for the 'forum >> with >> email' approach as discussed going back a few months. The idea is >> also to >> keep graphics and other bandwidth hungry stuff to an absolute >> minimum. That >> way those people on dialup/slow connections should not be too >> concerned. >> >> >> >> I think email lists have their place but I think GM-ECM has matured >> too much >> for a list. People are afraid of change but I encourage you to give >> it a >> try and see how it feels. >> >> >> >> **To get this up and running, I need to get some suggestions of >> categories >> that would be appropriate for the forum and other constructive input >> to make >> it the forum YOU want** >> >> >> >> Please do not comment if you do not have any positive input in >> moving to a >> forum. >> >> >> >> Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ahuxtable at sola.com.au Thu Sep 7 23:23:42 2006 From: ahuxtable at sola.com.au (Andrew Huxtable) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:53:42 +0930 Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum Message-ID: <000001c6d2fe$916cf180$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> It is my intention to use phpBB for that exact reason (other than the fact that it's free!) I was intending on using the 'Minimalistic' interface (See http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php to see what it looks like) The advantage is that it makes a nice sleek interface that is not all 'ricey'. Might throw a bit of colour in there tho. I have been working on the server today and should have something to show you by mid next week. Some Categories I have come up with: Announcements Getting Started Board/site discussion Electronics and Wiring Software and Datalogging BIN request/info ECM/U model Specific Aussie ECM specific What/Where to buy For sale/Trade Help - Urgent! The pub (general off topic discussion) Totally open for discussion of course, this is just what I have come up with so far. Some may be sub topics Of other topics. Sales and trades will be limited to private sales only, I do not want this to be a commercial site. This may mean that No NEW items will be able to be sold. I may provide an option for people that contribute to the site for commercial sales. Not sure on domain name yet. I was hoping to be able to get a subdomain of diy-efi.org if that is at all possible (without wanting to step on toes) but not sure who to talk to about that yet. Other than that, if anyone has a suggestion.. If I can't get a sub of diy-efi I might just (in the short term) use a Dyndns domain name eg http://gmecm.mine.nu or something to that effect. Please - Your feedback is IMPORTANT. The more feedback I get, the more I will be able to make it YOUR forum. I don't want to make a forum that no one visits because it's not what they want - this is your chance to speak up!! Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- The forum software used by the Megasquirt forum allows you to subscribe to the general topics and get all posts as emails just like you get them as a listservice. This satisfied all parties. Its " Powered by phpBB C 2001, 2005 phpBB Group" and having that option made the difference. When you log on the first time you go in and edit your profile to sign up for the catagories you want coming as email. Tyler From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 05:44:25 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 03:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <000001c6d2fe$916cf180$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Message-ID: <20060908104425.44842.qmail@web35913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I like it. I'd only change 2 things - I'd delete the ECM and aussie categories (so like was said before, we don't have too many categories), and change the titles a bit so people know instinctively where to go.. Announcements Getting Started Board/site discussion Hardware, Electronics and Wiring Software, Tuning, Programming BIN request/info What/Where to buy For sale/Trade Help - Urgent! The pub (general off topic discussion) I think that's perfect right there ^^^ Andrew Huxtable wrote: It is my intention to use phpBB for that exact reason (other than the fact that it's free!) I was intending on using the 'Minimalistic' interface (See http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php to see what it looks like) The advantage is that it makes a nice sleek interface that is not all 'ricey'. Might throw a bit of colour in there tho. I have been working on the server today and should have something to show you by mid next week. Some Categories I have come up with: Announcements Getting Started Board/site discussion Electronics and Wiring Software and Datalogging BIN request/info ECM/U model Specific Aussie ECM specific What/Where to buy For sale/Trade Help - Urgent! The pub (general off topic discussion) Totally open for discussion of course, this is just what I have come up with so far. Some may be sub topics Of other topics. Sales and trades will be limited to private sales only, I do not want this to be a commercial site. This may mean that No NEW items will be able to be sold. I may provide an option for people that contribute to the site for commercial sales. Not sure on domain name yet. I was hoping to be able to get a subdomain of diy-efi.org if that is at all possible (without wanting to step on toes) but not sure who to talk to about that yet. Other than that, if anyone has a suggestion.. If I can't get a sub of diy-efi I might just (in the short term) use a Dyndns domain name eg http://gmecm.mine.nu or something to that effect. Please - Your feedback is IMPORTANT. The more feedback I get, the more I will be able to make it YOUR forum. I don't want to make a forum that no one visits because it's not what they want - this is your chance to speak up!! Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- The forum software used by the Megasquirt forum allows you to subscribe to the general topics and get all posts as emails just like you get them as a listservice. This satisfied all parties. Its " Powered by phpBB C 2001, 2005 phpBB Group" and having that option made the difference. When you log on the first time you go in and edit your profile to sign up for the catagories you want coming as email. Tyler _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com From davesnothereman at netscape.net Fri Sep 8 06:18:00 2006 From: davesnothereman at netscape.net (davesnothereman at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:18:00 -0400 Subject: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <20060908013717.69956.qmail@web35908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C8A14F93FEB3E6-278-2DBE@WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com> These are conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine RPM should not be dropping to 300. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Wait, what are these: Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is cut? Does that mean it defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? What's the point of that? If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would surely kill the motor? Second, there is: RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering [KSFILRPM] - 800 I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 lower than stock, should that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock 3.1 idle I believe is 900) Thanks in advance, Ryan Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new 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 -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 09:02:17 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 07:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] Surging Idle, was: Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? In-Reply-To: <8C8A14F93FEB3E6-278-2DBE@WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20060908140217.47367.qmail@web35914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Well, it is. I posted this on TGO, but here it is again: If I burn a chip that runs in open loop, it will run all day with a rock solid idle. My P/N switch isn't hooked up (workign on it ), but when I put it from P to D, the rpm dips a very tiny amount, but it catches it just fine. Now, enter the closed loop chip. BLM's are pretty darn good at 126, INT about the same. You let it sit for a while in park, and it will start surging. Desired idle is 700, and it starts bouncing up and down, usually getting more severe each time, till eventually it hits 300rpm and either stalls or revs to 1200+ and stalls the next time. Additionally, when in closed loop, if I put it from P to D, it instantly stalls. So it's like it has no torque or momentum when in closed loop idle. Or it can't deal with any sudden changes in rpm fast enough?? Oh - no surging in drive. It handles itself just fine there... I don't understand what is causing this. How can taking out 1.6% fuel can make that much difference? There has to be some other idle constant that is being "enabled" during CL that causes these things to happen..... Any ideas? TIA, Ryan davesnothereman at netscape.net wrote: These are conditions to enable EST after startup. Your engine RPM should not be dropping to 300. Zaphod -----Original Message----- From: rgmecm at yahoo.com To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Does $a1 have a "stall saver" algorithm? Wait, what are these: Low RPM thresh to disable EST [KESTRPMD] - 300 RPM High MAP thresh to disable EST [KMAPSTAL] - 70 kpa Both must be true at the same time, then the EST is cut? Does that mean it defaults to the DIS module's advance of 10 degrees? What's the point of that? If idle advance is 16-20, dropping it to 10 would surely kill the motor? Second, there is: RPM thresh to stop Spark Advance Filtering [KSFILRPM] - 800 I don't know what that does, but my RPM is about 200 lower than stock, should that be lowered too? (my idle is about 700, stock 3.1 idle I believe is 900) Thanks in advance, Ryan Ryan Hess wrote: I can't seem to find any minimum RPM constants listed anywhere.... Any ideas? Ryan --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new 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 -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. _______________________________________________ Gmecm mailing list Gmecm at diy-efi.org Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. From rgmecm at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 09:28:39 2006 From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 07:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] What is the "Idle Spark Multiplier"s function? Message-ID: <20060908142839.86567.qmail@web35908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In 8D, there is an idle spark multiplier vs MAP table, that is filled with 0.996 all the way. In other codes - eg $A1, and $DF, they are filled like so: 20kpa - 0.625 26kpa - 0.625 32kpa - 0.617 38kpa - 0.602 44kpa - 0.5 49kpa - 0.5 55kpa - 0.5 61kpa - 0.375 The question is, why would there be a need to change the spark advance by MAP? Or specifically the way they did it? It would make sense that an increasing load would need more spark advance to keep the RPM the same, but isn't that taken care of with the idle advance/retard tables? Besides that, this table seems to take OUT timing with increasing load. Ryan --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 8 09:42:42 2006 From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 07:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum In-Reply-To: <000001c6d2fe$916cf180$ca00a00a@ap.sola.com> Message-ID: <20060908144242.14578.qmail@web80508.mail.yahoo.com> I'd suggest one more pertinent category, fuel supply ----- Original Message ---- From: Andrew Huxtable To: gmecm at diy-efi.org Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 11:23:42 PM Subject: [Gmecm] re: Digest v. Forum It is my intention to use phpBB for that exact reason (other than the fact that it's free!) I was intending on using the 'Minimalistic' interface (See http://www.phpbb.com/styles/demo.php to see what it looks like) The advantage is that it makes a nice sleek interface that is not all 'ricey'. Might throw a bit of colour in there tho. I have been working on the server today and should have something to show you by mid next week. Some Categories I have come up with: Announcements Getting Started Board/site discussion Electronics and Wiring Software and Datalogging BIN request/info ECM/U model Specific Aussie ECM specific What/Where to buy For sale/Trade Help - Urgent! The pub (general off topic discussion) Totally open for discussion of course, this is just what I have come up with so far. Some may be sub topics Of other topics. Sales and trades will be limited to private sales only, I do not want this to be a commercial site. This may mean that No NEW items will be able to be sold. I may provide an option for people that contribute to the site for commercial sales. Not sure on domain name yet. I was hoping to be able to get a subdomain of diy-efi.org if that is at all possible (without wanting to s