From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Sep  1 11:56:41 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 17:56:41 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Killing $58 ALDL chatter
References: <238342.28247.qm@web35314.mail.mud.yahoo.com><069601c7e5de$174c3840$020101c0@gandalf><070401c7e64f$5015cf80$020101c0@gandalf>
	<09a701c7e898$28f0c810$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <0e2b01c7ecb9$6e3ffa60$020101c0@gandalf>

Been having another go at improving my PC code to kill off $58 chatter.

This time I made a 5ms timer by reprogramming the PC clock interrupt. I 
thought if I accurately timed the arrival of a chatter message, I could 
accurately time the Mode 1 message request.

Unfortunately, I can't make my code kill off the chatter messages first 
time, every time. More often than not it does it first time, but sometimes 
it takes 2 bites at the cherry.

So, the $58 ALDL code is even more picky than I thought, and a 5ms timer 
doesn't seem to be high enough resolution to get the timing bang on.

As it stands I wait for one tick of my 5ms to elapse after receipt of a 
chatter message, then bang in a Mode 1 request straight after.

If anybody's got a better way, I'd be interested to hear it.

Robin 



From davida1 at hiwaay.net  Sat Sep  1 12:45:15 2007
From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:45:15 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Project underway...
Message-ID: <008f01c7ecbf$ddcda8e0$a000a8c0@yancey.com>

  I'm working on a project with a friend, converting a 1940's Ford 255CID 
flathead V8 from carb and points to a TBI/ 1227747 setup.  The electronics 
hardware side is done.  The engine has an afermarket distributor with a 
conventional VR pickup coil.  This is connected to a standard HEI module 
that is firing an MSD box. In the pictures the advance weights are still 
present, but they have been removed and the advance bolted so the ECM can 
control the timing.
  Here's where I want you guys' thoughts.  The intake manifold has a huge 
plenum, look at pictures linked at bottom. We're using a 4.3V6 throttle body 
and injectors.  Do you think the injectors flow enough for accel enrich to 
keep from bogging when you open it?  It is a very mismatched setup on the 
engine/ cam/ manifold but this is what we have to work with.
  We'll be using Cats RT Tuner and a wideband to adjust the VE tables.  This 
has been a fun project so far, but the real fun will be making it run 
correctly. It will be an open-loop calibration, tuned for drivability first, 
power second.  Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
David

http://68.209.87.173/FlatheadEFI/



From darrenfreed at gmail.com  Sat Sep  1 19:41:12 2007
From: darrenfreed at gmail.com (Darren Freed)
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 19:41:12 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Killing $58 ALDL chatter
In-Reply-To: <0e2b01c7ecb9$6e3ffa60$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <238342.28247.qm@web35314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<069601c7e5de$174c3840$020101c0@gandalf>
	<070401c7e64f$5015cf80$020101c0@gandalf>
	<09a701c7e898$28f0c810$020101c0@gandalf>
	<0e2b01c7ecb9$6e3ffa60$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <f61eb5c30709011741s56149890oe85d448c7e6483b8@mail.gmail.com>

Do you need the chatter for other devices on the bus?  If not, disable the
chatter altogether in the code (zero out the message schedule table, sorry,
not sure where that is in $58, only $A1, $2E, $DF and others).

Darren



On 9/1/07, Rob Handley <Robin at furyworld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Been having another go at improving my PC code to kill off $58 chatter.
>
> This time I made a 5ms timer by reprogramming the PC clock interrupt. I
> thought if I accurately timed the arrival of a chatter message, I could
> accurately time the Mode 1 message request.
>
> Unfortunately, I can't make my code kill off the chatter messages first
> time, every time. More often than not it does it first time, but sometimes
> it takes 2 bites at the cherry.
>
> So, the $58 ALDL code is even more picky than I thought, and a 5ms timer
> doesn't seem to be high enough resolution to get the timing bang on.
>
> As it stands I wait for one tick of my 5ms to elapse after receipt of a
> chatter message, then bang in a Mode 1 request straight after.
>
> If anybody's got a better way, I'd be interested to hear it.
>
> Robin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Sep  2 01:04:10 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:04:10 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Killing $58 ALDL chatter
References: <238342.28247.qm@web35314.mail.mud.yahoo.com><069601c7e5de$174c3840$020101c0@gandalf><070401c7e64f$5015cf80$020101c0@gandalf><09a701c7e898$28f0c810$020101c0@gandalf><0e2b01c7ecb9$6e3ffa60$020101c0@gandalf>
	<f61eb5c30709011741s56149890oe85d448c7e6483b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0e5301c7ed29$2862e3c0$020101c0@gandalf>

No, I don't need the chatter.

I'll give it a go...

Thanks,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Darren Freed" <darrenfreed at gmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 02 September 2007 01:41
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Killing $58 ALDL chatter


> Do you need the chatter for other devices on the bus?  If not, disable the
> chatter altogether in the code (zero out the message schedule table, 
> sorry,
> not sure where that is in $58, only $A1, $2E, $DF and others).
>
> Darren
>
>
>
> On 9/1/07, Rob Handley <Robin at furyworld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Been having another go at improving my PC code to kill off $58 chatter.
>>
>> This time I made a 5ms timer by reprogramming the PC clock interrupt. I
>> thought if I accurately timed the arrival of a chatter message, I could
>> accurately time the Mode 1 message request.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I can't make my code kill off the chatter messages first
>> time, every time. More often than not it does it first time, but 
>> sometimes
>> it takes 2 bites at the cherry.
>>
>> So, the $58 ALDL code is even more picky than I thought, and a 5ms timer
>> doesn't seem to be high enough resolution to get the timing bang on.
>>
>> As it stands I wait for one tick of my 5ms to elapse after receipt of a
>> chatter message, then bang in a Mode 1 request straight after.
>>
>> If anybody's got a better way, I'd be interested to hear it.



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Sep  2 07:05:01 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 13:05:01 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector firing
Message-ID: <101d01c7ed59$7ed79b80$020101c0@gandalf>

Looking on Ludis' site, the 727 and 749 schematics are the same.

If I interpret them correctly, a single line from the U2 chip feeds two 
injector driver chips (U13 & U15) - which provide 2 pairs of injector wires 
at the connectors on the 727 (not sure about the 749). So, I understand this 
to mean that ALL injectors fire together - whether the engine is L4, V6, or 
V8. Is this right? If so, this would be 'batch' injection, no?

According to my Haynes Engine Management book, with batch injection all 
injectors are fired once every crank revolution. Could somebody tell me if 
this is how $58 does it?

Robin 



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Sep  2 18:44:22 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 00:44:22 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense
References: <101d01c7ed59$7ed79b80$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <2d2701c7edbb$e4b96110$020101c0@gandalf>

Sorry to bring up old stuff, but I've been trawling through my personal 
archives and doing Google searches for hours and haven't found a definitive 
answer.

I wanted to be sure what to do with the injector sense lines on my '727, 
when connecting 4 high impedance (saturated) injectors in parallel.

The Corvette wiring diagrams on the diy-efi site just show injectors 
connected in parallel, and have the 2 injector sense pins (that are shown on 
the quadplugecm cross-reference) listed as 'not used'. From this I deduce 
that I don't have to worry about the injector sense lines. I'd be grateful 
if somebody could confirm.

Robin 



From b.shaw at comcast.net  Sun Sep  2 20:35:25 2007
From: b.shaw at comcast.net (Bill Shaw)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:35:25 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense
In-Reply-To: <2d2701c7edbb$e4b96110$020101c0@gandalf>
References: <101d01c7ed59$7ed79b80$020101c0@gandalf>
	<2d2701c7edbb$e4b96110$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <46DB64DD.6010307@comcast.net>

Yes,  just leave them open for saturated injectors.  And yes,  the 727 
and 749 schematics are the same,  the 727 doesn't have the 2nd injector 
installed I believe.  And yes,  they're all fired at once in batch 
mode,  once per crank revolution,  plus the asynchronous pulses. 

hth,

Bill


Rob Handley wrote:
> Sorry to bring up old stuff, but I've been trawling through my 
> personal archives and doing Google searches for hours and haven't 
> found a definitive answer.
>
> I wanted to be sure what to do with the injector sense lines on my 
> '727, when connecting 4 high impedance (saturated) injectors in parallel.
>
> The Corvette wiring diagrams on the diy-efi site just show injectors 
> connected in parallel, and have the 2 injector sense pins (that are 
> shown on the quadplugecm cross-reference) listed as 'not used'. From 
> this I deduce that I don't have to worry about the injector sense 
> lines. I'd be grateful if somebody could confirm.
>
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Sep  3 04:04:29 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:04:29 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense
References: <101d01c7ed59$7ed79b80$020101c0@gandalf><2d2701c7edbb$e4b96110$020101c0@gandalf>
	<46DB64DD.6010307@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <2d5001c7ee09$71a6c660$020101c0@gandalf>

> Yes,  just leave them open for saturated injectors.

Many thanks.

> And yes,  the 727 and 749 schematics are the same,  the 727 doesn't have 
> the 2nd injector installed I believe.

Thanks. I've read that the 730 only has one; so, as the 727 and 730 are 
reputed to be identical inside, I guess this means the 727 only has one as 
well. But 2 sets of pins are used to 'spread the load'.

> And yes,  they're all fired at once in batch mode,  once per crank 
> revolution,  plus the asynchronous pulses.

This is the bit that worries me. My tests with the oscilloscope in the 
garage yesterday indicated that the injectors were being fired once every 4 
DRPs - because my (4 cyl) engine was idling at about 800 RPM, with ALDL 
correctly reporting a DRP interval of ~38 ms. The 'scope was showing ~130 ms 
between pulses - which is _roughly_ 4 x 38 (although disturbingly not close 
enough for my liking!). I would expect to see 2 x ~38 = ~76 ms if they were 
firing once per crank revolution.

I'm not _100 %_ sure that I'm reading the 'scope right as I haven't used it 
before and there's no manual (it was thrown out from work), but the same 
scope showed an idle injector pulse width which agreed with the ALDL BPW 
plus the ~0.5 ms battery offset.

BTW: My code ($58) is set for 4 cyl, I've set the max async PW to zero, and 
my MemCal has the leg of the chip at CAL56 desoldered - which I think 
selects 4 cyl TPI mode. I've read that the number of DRPs between injector 
pulses differs whether this pin selects TPI mode or TBI mode - but I'm not 
clear how many DRPs between pulses in TPI, and how many in TBI.

Have I got something wrong?

Thanks Bill,

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 03 September 2007 02:35
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense


> Yes,  just leave them open for saturated injectors.  And yes,  the 727 and 
> 749 schematics are the same,  the 727 doesn't have the 2nd injector 
> installed I believe.  And yes,  they're all fired at once in batch mode, 
> once per crank revolution,  plus the asynchronous pulses.
> hth,
>
> Bill
>
>
> Rob Handley wrote:
>> Sorry to bring up old stuff, but I've been trawling through my personal 
>> archives and doing Google searches for hours and haven't found a 
>> definitive answer.
>>
>> I wanted to be sure what to do with the injector sense lines on my '727, 
>> when connecting 4 high impedance (saturated) injectors in parallel.
>>
>> The Corvette wiring diagrams on the diy-efi site just show injectors 
>> connected in parallel, and have the 2 injector sense pins (that are shown 
>> on the quadplugecm cross-reference) listed as 'not used'. From this I 
>> deduce that I don't have to worry about the injector sense lines. I'd be 
>> grateful if somebody could confirm.
>>
>> Robin 



From tl34ru at yahoo.com  Mon Sep  3 10:05:22 2007
From: tl34ru at yahoo.com (terry)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 08:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense
In-Reply-To: <2d5001c7ee09$71a6c660$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <644162.1561.qm@web32503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Rob,
   From my notes you should have 2.5 to 4.0 volts on
pin 56 for 4 cyl. app. The way you have it is set for
a v8 hence the every 4 drps.
Terry
--- Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> > Yes,  just leave them open for saturated
> injectors.
> 
> Many thanks.
> 
> > And yes,  the 727 and 749 schematics are the same,
>  the 727 doesn't have 
> > the 2nd injector installed I believe.
> 
> Thanks. I've read that the 730 only has one; so, as
> the 727 and 730 are 
> reputed to be identical inside, I guess this means
> the 727 only has one as 
> well. But 2 sets of pins are used to 'spread the
> load'.
> 
> > And yes,  they're all fired at once in batch mode,
>  once per crank 
> > revolution,  plus the asynchronous pulses.
> 
> This is the bit that worries me. My tests with the
> oscilloscope in the 
> garage yesterday indicated that the injectors were
> being fired once every 4 
> DRPs - because my (4 cyl) engine was idling at about
> 800 RPM, with ALDL 
> correctly reporting a DRP interval of ~38 ms. The
> 'scope was showing ~130 ms 
> between pulses - which is _roughly_ 4 x 38 (although
> disturbingly not close 
> enough for my liking!). I would expect to see 2 x
> ~38 = ~76 ms if they were 
> firing once per crank revolution.
> 
> I'm not _100 %_ sure that I'm reading the 'scope
> right as I haven't used it 
> before and there's no manual (it was thrown out from
> work), but the same 
> scope showed an idle injector pulse width which
> agreed with the ALDL BPW 
> plus the ~0.5 ms battery offset.
> 
> BTW: My code ($58) is set for 4 cyl, I've set the
> max async PW to zero, and 
> my MemCal has the leg of the chip at CAL56
> desoldered - which I think 
> selects 4 cyl TPI mode. I've read that the number of
> DRPs between injector 
> pulses differs whether this pin selects TPI mode or
> TBI mode - but I'm not 
> clear how many DRPs between pulses in TPI, and how
> many in TBI.
> 
> Have I got something wrong?
> 
> Thanks Bill,
> 
> Rob
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bill Shaw" <b.shaw at comcast.net>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 03 September 2007 02:35
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense
> 
> 
> > Yes,  just leave them open for saturated
> injectors.  And yes,  the 727 and 
> > 749 schematics are the same,  the 727 doesn't have
> the 2nd injector 
> > installed I believe.  And yes,  they're all fired
> at once in batch mode, 
> > once per crank revolution,  plus the asynchronous
> pulses.
> > hth,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > Rob Handley wrote:
> >> Sorry to bring up old stuff, but I've been
> trawling through my personal 
> >> archives and doing Google searches for hours and
> haven't found a 
> >> definitive answer.
> >>
> >> I wanted to be sure what to do with the injector
> sense lines on my '727, 
> >> when connecting 4 high impedance (saturated)
> injectors in parallel.
> >>
> >> The Corvette wiring diagrams on the diy-efi site
> just show injectors 
> >> connected in parallel, and have the 2 injector
> sense pins (that are shown 
> >> on the quadplugecm cross-reference) listed as
> 'not used'. From this I 
> >> deduce that I don't have to worry about the
> injector sense lines. I'd be 
> >> grateful if somebody could confirm.
> >>
> >> Robin 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe:
> http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> 



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Sep  3 12:43:46 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 18:43:46 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense
References: <101d01c7ed59$7ed79b80$020101c0@gandalf><2d2701c7edbb$e4b96110$020101c0@gandalf><46DB64DD.6010307@comcast.net>
	<2d5001c7ee09$71a6c660$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <000c01c7ee51$fc055cc0$020101c0@gandalf>

>> And yes,  they're all fired at once in batch mode,  once per crank 
>> revolution,  plus the asynchronous pulses.
>
> This is the bit that worries me. My tests with the oscilloscope in the 
> garage yesterday indicated that the injectors were being fired once every 
> 4 DRPs - because my (4 cyl) engine was idling at about 800 RPM, with ALDL 
> correctly reporting a DRP interval of ~38 ms. The 'scope was showing ~130 
> ms between pulses - which is _roughly_ 4 x 38 (although disturbingly not 
> close enough for my liking!). I would expect to see 2 x ~38 = ~76 ms if 
> they were firing once per crank revolution.
>
> I'm not _100 %_ sure that I'm reading the 'scope right as I haven't used 
> it before and there's no manual (it was thrown out from work), but the 
> same scope showed an idle injector pulse width which agreed with the ALDL 
> BPW plus the ~0.5 ms battery offset.
>
> BTW: My code ($58) is set for 4 cyl, I've set the max async PW to zero, 
> and my MemCal has the leg of the chip at CAL56 desoldered - which I think 
> selects 4 cyl TPI mode. I've read that the number of DRPs between injector 
> pulses differs whether this pin selects TPI mode or TBI mode - but I'm not 
> clear how many DRPs between pulses in TPI, and how many in TBI.
>
> Have I got something wrong?

To answer myself - YES. Just tried a shiny new 'scope and this time I see 
injector pulses at twice the DRP interval. Phew!

And no sign (on the 'scope) of the big spikes that appear on the ALDL, so I 
reckon that must be another ALDL artefact.

Thanks again Bill.

Rob 



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Sep  3 13:59:14 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 19:59:14 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum
References: <101d01c7ed59$7ed79b80$020101c0@gandalf><2d2701c7edbb$e4b96110$020101c0@gandalf><46DB64DD.6010307@comcast.net><2d5001c7ee09$71a6c660$020101c0@gandalf>
	<000c01c7ee51$fc055cc0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <001b01c7ee5c$86359950$020101c0@gandalf>

Just had another go with the new 'scope.

If I read it right, when the BPW is very short (e.g. sub 1 ms) the injectors 
AREN'T fired every crank revolution, but ARE every 2 (as I thought I saw 
with the old 'scope). This makes sense. Does it stack up with anybody's 
understanding of the code?

This conclusion is based on me changing the relevant contents of the VE 
table, with the engine idling, from 30% to 99%. The ALDL-reported BPW jumps 
from just under 1 ms to about 2 ms.

Interesting.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 03 September 2007 18:43
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense


>>> And yes,  they're all fired at once in batch mode,  once per crank 
>>> revolution,  plus the asynchronous pulses.
>>
>> This is the bit that worries me. My tests with the oscilloscope in the 
>> garage yesterday indicated that the injectors were being fired once every 
>> 4 DRPs - because my (4 cyl) engine was idling at about 800 RPM, with ALDL 
>> correctly reporting a DRP interval of ~38 ms. The 'scope was showing ~130 
>> ms between pulses - which is _roughly_ 4 x 38 (although disturbingly not 
>> close enough for my liking!). I would expect to see 2 x ~38 = ~76 ms if 
>> they were firing once per crank revolution.
>>
>> I'm not _100 %_ sure that I'm reading the 'scope right as I haven't used 
>> it before and there's no manual (it was thrown out from work), but the 
>> same scope showed an idle injector pulse width which agreed with the ALDL 
>> BPW plus the ~0.5 ms battery offset.
>>
>> BTW: My code ($58) is set for 4 cyl, I've set the max async PW to zero, 
>> and my MemCal has the leg of the chip at CAL56 desoldered - which I think 
>> selects 4 cyl TPI mode. I've read that the number of DRPs between 
>> injector pulses differs whether this pin selects TPI mode or TBI mode - 
>> but I'm not clear how many DRPs between pulses in TPI, and how many in 
>> TBI.
>>
>> Have I got something wrong?
>
> To answer myself - YES. Just tried a shiny new 'scope and this time I see 
> injector pulses at twice the DRP interval. Phew!
>
> And no sign (on the 'scope) of the big spikes that appear on the ALDL, so 
> I reckon that must be another ALDL artefact.
>
> Thanks again Bill.
>
> Rob



From rgmecm at yahoo.com  Mon Sep  3 14:12:56 2007
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum
In-Reply-To: <001b01c7ee5c$86359950$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <142300.19669.qm@web35908.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

That is correct.  It doubles up on the BPW and fires half as often, because the injectors can't reliably and accurately meter fuel in such short times.

There are some values in ROM you can change to set what this switch point is.  It's called the "minimum base pulse width" or some such...  I think most binaries have it set to ~0.98ms

Ryan

Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: Just had another go with the new 'scope.

If I read it right, when the BPW is very short (e.g. sub 1 ms) the injectors 
AREN'T fired every crank revolution, but ARE every 2 (as I thought I saw 
with the old 'scope). This makes sense. Does it stack up with anybody's 
understanding of the code?

This conclusion is based on me changing the relevant contents of the VE 
table, with the engine idling, from 30% to 99%. The ALDL-reported BPW jumps 
from just under 1 ms to about 2 ms.

Interesting.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" 
To: 
Sent: 03 September 2007 18:43
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense


>>> And yes,  they're all fired at once in batch mode,  once per crank 
>>> revolution,  plus the asynchronous pulses.
>>
>> This is the bit that worries me. My tests with the oscilloscope in the 
>> garage yesterday indicated that the injectors were being fired once every 
>> 4 DRPs - because my (4 cyl) engine was idling at about 800 RPM, with ALDL 
>> correctly reporting a DRP interval of ~38 ms. The 'scope was showing ~130 
>> ms between pulses - which is _roughly_ 4 x 38 (although disturbingly not 
>> close enough for my liking!). I would expect to see 2 x ~38 = ~76 ms if 
>> they were firing once per crank revolution.
>>
>> I'm not _100 %_ sure that I'm reading the 'scope right as I haven't used 
>> it before and there's no manual (it was thrown out from work), but the 
>> same scope showed an idle injector pulse width which agreed with the ALDL 
>> BPW plus the ~0.5 ms battery offset.
>>
>> BTW: My code ($58) is set for 4 cyl, I've set the max async PW to zero, 
>> and my MemCal has the leg of the chip at CAL56 desoldered - which I think 
>> selects 4 cyl TPI mode. I've read that the number of DRPs between 
>> injector pulses differs whether this pin selects TPI mode or TBI mode - 
>> but I'm not clear how many DRPs between pulses in TPI, and how many in 
>> TBI.
>>
>> Have I got something wrong?
>
> To answer myself - YES. Just tried a shiny new 'scope and this time I see 
> injector pulses at twice the DRP interval. Phew!
>
> And no sign (on the 'scope) of the big spikes that appear on the ALDL, so 
> I reckon that must be another ALDL artefact.
>
> Thanks again Bill.
>
> Rob

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



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Mon Sep  3 15:01:22 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:01:22 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum
References: <142300.19669.qm@web35908.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002901c7ee67$11c23190$020101c0@gandalf>

Phew! That's great news. :-)

It looks like, for $58, it's address $036A 'KAPLL', and the standard Sunbird 
value is 0.793 ms.

Many thanks Ryan,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Hess" <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 03 September 2007 20:12
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum


> That is correct.  It doubles up on the BPW and fires half as often, 
> because the injectors can't reliably and accurately meter fuel in such 
> short times.
>
> There are some values in ROM you can change to set what this switch point 
> is.  It's called the "minimum base pulse width" or some such...  I think 
> most binaries have it set to ~0.98ms
>
> Ryan
>
> Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: Just had another go with 
> the new 'scope.
>
> If I read it right, when the BPW is very short (e.g. sub 1 ms) the 
> injectors
> AREN'T fired every crank revolution, but ARE every 2 (as I thought I saw
> with the old 'scope). This makes sense. Does it stack up with anybody's
> understanding of the code?
>
> This conclusion is based on me changing the relevant contents of the VE
> table, with the engine idling, from 30% to 99%. The ALDL-reported BPW 
> jumps
> from just under 1 ms to about 2 ms.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Robin



From herningg at hotmail.com  Mon Sep  3 18:02:24 2007
From: herningg at hotmail.com (Garrett Herning)
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:02:24 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Project underway...
In-Reply-To: <008f01c7ecbf$ddcda8e0$a000a8c0@yancey.com>
Message-ID: <BAY122-F368FA6E521489357C369BCD9C90@phx.gbl>

Hi David,

I think the injectors would be about the right size. Unless you are trying 
to push some large horsepower out of that flathead with a hugh compression 
increase and a turbo or blower...

I put a TBI from a 4.3L on a 78 pickup I have with a 5.7L. Since its for the 
most part a stock engine (8:1 compression or whatever 1978's best was), and 
its not a real hp monster I thought they would work ok. It runs fine and I 
haven't had any trouble with it bogging down. I used a MegaSquirt, and if I 
crank up the high throttle end of the fuel table, it moves pretty good 
(along with the gas gage..lol).

I think the biggest decision would be how to orient the TBI. The stock 
manifold seperate each bore to feed 1/2 of the cylinders... a V8 would feed 
4 with one and the other 4 with the other, 2 on each side. Since you have a 
totaly different manifold you'll have to see the best way to feed them. On 
my 78, I made an adpater for a normal Qjet type manifold and so there was a 
plenum area under the TBI where they could mix. The only thing I see on your 
pic is it appears that the runners go down toward the front and back, so 
having it sit 90 deg from normal might work better on that manifold... maybe 
even some kind of divider that helps direct the flow of air and fuel from 
each bore down to the front or back.... just a thought... I'd not an expert 
of intake design though.

Good luck, looks like a cool project!

Garrett


>From: "David Allen" <davida1 at hiwaay.net>
>Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>To: "GM-ECM" <gmecm at diy-efi.org>, <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
>Subject: [Gmecm] Project underway...
>Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:45:15 -0500
>
>  I'm working on a project with a friend, converting a 1940's Ford 255CID 
>flathead V8 from carb and points to a TBI/ 1227747 setup.  The electronics 
>hardware side is done.  The engine has an afermarket distributor with a 
>conventional VR pickup coil.  This is connected to a standard HEI module 
>that is firing an MSD box. In the pictures the advance weights are still 
>present, but they have been removed and the advance bolted so the ECM can 
>control the timing.
>  Here's where I want you guys' thoughts.  The intake manifold has a huge 
>plenum, look at pictures linked at bottom. We're using a 4.3V6 throttle 
>body and injectors.  Do you think the injectors flow enough for accel 
>enrich to keep from bogging when you open it?  It is a very mismatched 
>setup on the engine/ cam/ manifold but this is what we have to work with.
>  We'll be using Cats RT Tuner and a wideband to adjust the VE tables.  
>This has been a fun project so far, but the real fun will be making it run 
>correctly. It will be an open-loop calibration, tuned for drivability 
>first, power second.  Any thoughts?
>Thanks in advance,
>David
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gmecm mailing list
>Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm

_________________________________________________________________
A place for moms to take a break! 
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us



From pmkls1 at yahoo.com  Mon Sep  3 23:02:44 2007
From: pmkls1 at yahoo.com (Phillip Kuhn)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] 91 s-10 tbi 4cyl .xdf or .ecu file for $94 mask id
Message-ID: <624923.14147.qm@web54603.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

I have done some searching to no avail to find the
correct definition file for this truck. If anyone has
something that will work I would greatly appreciate
it. I'm dying to do more tuning and this is the only
vehicle I have left to play with. Thanks guys,

Phil


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow  


From davida1 at hiwaay.net  Mon Sep  3 22:59:29 2007
From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 22:59:29 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Project underway...
References: <BAY122-F368FA6E521489357C369BCD9C90@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <014201c7eea8$21e969d0$a000a8c0@yancey.com>

  Thanks for the comments!  My friend is doing the fab work on the TB 
adapter.  He's got a really cool looking "bug catcher" scoop that was 
hand-made by a friend of his.  The TB will sit as you suggest, with the 
bores front to back.  It'll feed the front and rear groups of cylinders 
better that way, plus the scoop will fit over it better. Will have pictures 
as soon as it is done. We're lacking fuel lines and completion of the TBI 
adapter plate/scoop holder before starting the engine.  The rest of the car 
is lacking some of the last electrical details (gauges, exterior lights, 
etc), cooling fan, and seats.  It'll be a while before it is ready to drive 
and be real-time tuned; but the engine may run in a few days or so.
  I'm using the ECM that came with the TBI, I have a 5.0 V8 calibration to 
start with.  The flahead engine was 80 to 90 HP stock, with a tiny 
carburetor.  The bottom end is not designed for high RPM use, it only has 3 
main bearings.  It will not see over 5000 RPM; if that. The top end injector 
flow should not be a problem, but filling that cavernous manifold plenum 
with a proper A/F mixture when the throttle is bumped open, scares me!
  I have heard nothing but good success stories with Megasquirt EFI, but 
I've never used it.  For some reason I like the GM computers.  The fully 
mappable ignition timing and fuel tables; and low cost were my deciding 
factor. I've got 4 GM engines of my own (plus several outside projects) and 
the same tuning hardware works on all.
  How much tunability is in the Megasquirt ECU? How is the ignition mapped?
  Later,
David

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Herning" <herningg at hotmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Project underway...


> Hi David,
>
> I think the injectors would be about the right size. Unless you are trying 
> to push some large horsepower out of that flathead with a hugh compression 
> increase and a turbo or blower...
>
> I put a TBI from a 4.3L on a 78 pickup I have with a 5.7L. Since its for 
> the most part a stock engine (8:1 compression or whatever 1978's best 
> was), and its not a real hp monster I thought they would work ok. It runs 
> fine and I haven't had any trouble with it bogging down. I used a 
> MegaSquirt, and if I crank up the high throttle end of the fuel table, it 
> moves pretty good (along with the gas gage..lol).
>
> I think the biggest decision would be how to orient the TBI. The stock 
> manifold seperate each bore to feed 1/2 of the cylinders... a V8 would 
> feed 4 with one and the other 4 with the other, 2 on each side. Since you 
> have a totaly different manifold you'll have to see the best way to feed 
> them. On my 78, I made an adpater for a normal Qjet type manifold and so 
> there was a plenum area under the TBI where they could mix. The only thing 
> I see on your pic is it appears that the runners go down toward the front 
> and back, so having it sit 90 deg from normal might work better on that 
> manifold... maybe even some kind of divider that helps direct the flow of 
> air and fuel from each bore down to the front or back.... just a 
> thought... I'd not an expert of intake design though.
>
> Good luck, looks like a cool project!
>
> Garrett
>
>
>>From: "David Allen" <davida1 at hiwaay.net>
>>Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>>To: "GM-ECM" <gmecm at diy-efi.org>, <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
>>Subject: [Gmecm] Project underway...
>>Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:45:15 -0500
>>
>>  I'm working on a project with a friend, converting a 1940's Ford 255CID 
>> flathead V8 from carb and points to a TBI/ 1227747 setup.  The 
>> electronics hardware side is done.  The engine has an afermarket 
>> distributor with a conventional VR pickup coil.  This is connected to a 
>> standard HEI module that is firing an MSD box. In the pictures the 
>> advance weights are still present, but they have been removed and the 
>> advance bolted so the ECM can control the timing.
>>  Here's where I want you guys' thoughts.  The intake manifold has a huge 
>> plenum, look at pictures linked at bottom. We're using a 4.3V6 throttle 
>> body and injectors.  Do you think the injectors flow enough for accel 
>> enrich to keep from bogging when you open it?  It is a very mismatched 
>> setup on the engine/ cam/ manifold but this is what we have to work with.
>>  We'll be using Cats RT Tuner and a wideband to adjust the VE tables. 
>> This has been a fun project so far, but the real fun will be making it 
>> run correctly. It will be an open-loop calibration, tuned for drivability 
>> first, power second.  Any thoughts?
>>Thanks in advance,
>>David
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gmecm mailing list
>>Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>>Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>>Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> A place for moms to take a break! 
> http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> 



From turbodig at yahoo.com  Tue Sep  4 08:55:20 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 06:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Killing $58 ALDL chatter
Message-ID: <566801.64121.qm@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Guessing this won't help your connectivity much... didn't for us.

I added this little chunk of code, and it made aldl behave *much* better.

LFA18    ret
SETRX   ldx    #$4007                ;load the SCI interrupt control reg
    bset     0, x, #%00110110        ;set up for RX interrups/wakeup
    bclr    L00C3, #%01000000        ;clear "SCI recieve active" flag
    ret


Need to change this beq so that it gets called:

LF996:    ldX    #$4007                ; SCI Control Register
    bclr    0, X, #%00110110        ; Disable receives??
    brset    L0028, #%10000000, LF9DF    ; In ALDL mode, branch
    ldX    #KSCIMSG            ; SCI Message table
    ldaB    L0000                ; Minor loop counter
    andB    #%00011110            ; Mask B
    aBX                    ; Get every other location (i.e. every 
                        ; 2 bytes)
                        ; X now holds an address, of the next scheduled message to be sent.    
    ldX    0, X                ; Save the address pointed to by X in X
    beq    SETRX                ; If the result is zero, exit


Hope that helps... I've got a patcher patch to fix this for $58, as well, but it will only work in unmodified code.

Dig



----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2007 1:04:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Killing $58 ALDL chatter

No, I don't need the chatter.

I'll give it a go...

Thanks,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Darren Freed" <darrenfreed at gmail.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 02 September 2007 01:41
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Killing $58 ALDL chatter


> Do you need the chatter for other devices on the bus?  If not, disable the
> chatter altogether in the code (zero out the message schedule table, 
> sorry,
> not sure where that is in $58, only $A1, $2E, $DF and others).
>
> Darren
>
>
>
> On 9/1/07, Rob Handley <Robin at furyworld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Been having another go at improving my PC code to kill off $58 chatter.
>>
>> This time I made a 5ms timer by reprogramming the PC clock interrupt. I
>> thought if I accurately timed the arrival of a chatter message, I could
>> accurately time the Mode 1 message request.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I can't make my code kill off the chatter messages first
>> time, every time. More often than not it does it first time, but 
>> sometimes
>> it takes 2 bites at the cherry.
>>
>> So, the $58 ALDL code is even more picky than I thought, and a 5ms timer
>> doesn't seem to be high enough resolution to get the timing bang on.
>>
>> As it stands I wait for one tick of my 5ms to elapse after receipt of a
>> chatter message, then bang in a Mode 1 request straight after.
>>
>> If anybody's got a better way, I'd be interested to hear it.

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





From turbodig at yahoo.com  Tue Sep  4 09:06:07 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 07:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum
Message-ID: <913262.48025.qm@web35309.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Personally, I'd recommend shutting it off entirely.  We've found that it's somewhat tough to transition in/out of quasi-mode and maintain consistent AFRs.

Depends on what injectors you use, but there's really no need for the every-other arrangement. It's possible that TBI injectors would be an exception to this.  We've run #65 high-z with no pulse-width problems.

Simpler is good, and it seems like the fewer moving parts that the $58/9 code has, the better it runs.

Dig


----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2007 3:01:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum

Phew! That's great news. :-)

It looks like, for $58, it's address $036A 'KAPLL', and the standard Sunbird 
value is 0.793 ms.

Many thanks Ryan,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Hess" <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 03 September 2007 20:12
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum


> That is correct.  It doubles up on the BPW and fires half as often, 
> because the injectors can't reliably and accurately meter fuel in such 
> short times.
>
> There are some values in ROM you can change to set what this switch point 
> is.  It's called the "minimum base pulse width" or some such...  I think 
> most binaries have it set to ~0.98ms
>
> Ryan
>
> Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: Just had another go with 
> the new 'scope.
>
> If I read it right, when the BPW is very short (e.g. sub 1 ms) the 
> injectors
> AREN'T fired every crank revolution, but ARE every 2 (as I thought I saw
> with the old 'scope). This makes sense. Does it stack up with anybody's
> understanding of the code?
>
> This conclusion is based on me changing the relevant contents of the VE
> table, with the engine idling, from 30% to 99%. The ALDL-reported BPW 
> jumps
> from just under 1 ms to about 2 ms.
>
> Interesting.
>
> 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 rgmecm at yahoo.com  Tue Sep  4 10:56:23 2007
From: rgmecm at yahoo.com (Ryan Hess)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 08:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum
In-Reply-To: <913262.48025.qm@web35309.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <325747.63820.qm@web35915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

What kind of BPW are you running at idle?

Running smaller injectors that run static @ WOT would probably eliminate the need for it, but I think the rule of thumb is to have it run no more than 80% DC @ WOT...

Ryan

Dig <turbodig at yahoo.com> wrote: Personally, I'd recommend shutting it off entirely.  We've found that it's somewhat tough to transition in/out of quasi-mode and maintain consistent AFRs.

Depends on what injectors you use, but there's really no need for the every-other arrangement. It's possible that TBI injectors would be an exception to this.  We've run #65 high-z with no pulse-width problems.

Simpler is good, and it seems like the fewer moving parts that the $58/9 code has, the better it runs.

Dig


----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley 
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2007 3:01:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum

Phew! That's great news. :-)

It looks like, for $58, it's address $036A 'KAPLL', and the standard Sunbird 
value is 0.793 ms.

Many thanks Ryan,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Hess" 
To: 
Sent: 03 September 2007 20:12
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum


> That is correct.  It doubles up on the BPW and fires half as often, 
> because the injectors can't reliably and accurately meter fuel in such 
> short times.
>
> There are some values in ROM you can change to set what this switch point 
> is.  It's called the "minimum base pulse width" or some such...  I think 
> most binaries have it set to ~0.98ms
>
> Ryan
>
> Rob Handley  wrote: Just had another go with 
> the new 'scope.
>
> If I read it right, when the BPW is very short (e.g. sub 1 ms) the 
> injectors
> AREN'T fired every crank revolution, but ARE every 2 (as I thought I saw
> with the old 'scope). This makes sense. Does it stack up with anybody's
> understanding of the code?
>
> This conclusion is based on me changing the relevant contents of the VE
> table, with the engine idling, from 30% to 99%. The ALDL-reported BPW 
> jumps
> from just under 1 ms to about 2 ms.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Robin

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



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



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Sep  4 13:15:02 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:15:02 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum
References: <913262.48025.qm@web35309.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00ac01c7ef1f$bf23d650$020101c0@gandalf>

Thanks Dig.

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dig" <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 04 September 2007 15:06
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum


Personally, I'd recommend shutting it off entirely.  We've found that it's 
somewhat tough to transition in/out of quasi-mode and maintain consistent 
AFRs.

Depends on what injectors you use, but there's really no need for the 
every-other arrangement. It's possible that TBI injectors would be an 
exception to this.  We've run #65 high-z with no pulse-width problems.

Simpler is good, and it seems like the fewer moving parts that the $58/9 
code has, the better it runs.

Dig


----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2007 3:01:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum

Phew! That's great news. :-)

It looks like, for $58, it's address $036A 'KAPLL', and the standard Sunbird
value is 0.793 ms.

Many thanks Ryan,

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Hess" <rgmecm at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 03 September 2007 20:12
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Injector sense - addendum


> That is correct.  It doubles up on the BPW and fires half as often,
> because the injectors can't reliably and accurately meter fuel in such
> short times.
>
> There are some values in ROM you can change to set what this switch point
> is.  It's called the "minimum base pulse width" or some such...  I think
> most binaries have it set to ~0.98ms
>
> Ryan
>
> Rob Handley <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: Just had another go with
> the new 'scope.
>
> If I read it right, when the BPW is very short (e.g. sub 1 ms) the
> injectors
> AREN'T fired every crank revolution, but ARE every 2 (as I thought I saw
> with the old 'scope). This makes sense. Does it stack up with anybody's
> understanding of the code?
>
> This conclusion is based on me changing the relevant contents of the VE
> table, with the engine idling, from 30% to 99%. The ALDL-reported BPW
> jumps
> from just under 1 ms to about 2 ms.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Robin



From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com  Tue Sep  4 22:27:58 2007
From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <151134.78350.qm@web60819.mail.yahoo.com>

About 2 years ago I embarked on a project to fuel inject the 250cid 6cyl in my 78 Chev. It involved putting a 2.5L TBI on it with a 7748 ecm. It was started up for the first time in February 2006. It has been very reliable and the only things I have had to do are minor tuning adjustments.
   
  This year I purchased a newer GMC truck with an auto trans (for my left knee's sake), less rust holes, and A/C. Since I was not driving the '78 anymore I gave it to my younger brother because he needed a truck.
   
  Last week I got a call from him telling me it lost power and died on the freeway. He had it towed to my parent's house. I went over to check it out. Cranking it over just didn't sound right. Had spark and fuel coming out of the injector. No oil in the crankcase. Then another little bit of information came up. It was boiling antifreeze out when it died - overheating.
   
  I finally got it started at 3/4 throttle. It runs on two cylinders. It's finished. The engine is blown up and it's not worth fixing. What a shame. 6 months of commuting 100 miles a day and he didn't check the oil or watch the guages. Oh well, the cab was about to rust off anyway.
   
  Anybody want to fuel inject their chev straight 6?

       
---------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

From herningg at hotmail.com  Tue Sep  4 23:29:41 2007
From: herningg at hotmail.com (Garrett Herning)
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:29:41 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Project underway...
In-Reply-To: <014201c7eea8$21e969d0$a000a8c0@yancey.com>
Message-ID: <BAY122-F34A7A02FB1A6E4B608E512D9CB0@phx.gbl>

Hi David,

With only 100 hp, those injectors may be too big for that engine... you'd 
have to look up the flowrate and check it with a HP calculator and see how 
close they are. I know there was a lower flow version for the 2.8L.

Yea, you might run into some difficulties with lean spot on throttle bumping 
due to that large plenum. I have a 95 truck I upped the compression on when 
I was experimenting with some combustion enhancements to the heads... I get 
slight knock when I bump the throttle, but goes away quickly. Seems to be 
the time it takes for the fuel to get from the TBI to the cylinders... most 
noticible at low rpms and a for the most part just as you get in the 
throttle a bit. Either that or my combustion mods arent working... lol

The MS I bought was a couple years ago, just a fuel controller, so the HEI 
dist still runs the spark. The new version now has a lot of good features 
like spark control, IAC hardware for the GM type and bigger fuel tables. I 
need to get one, just too many other projects. The nce thing is that once 
you have the MS, any tuning sotware is free (all posted on the web) and even 
the source code is all open source, so if you want to get in and mess with 
the microcode, you can go ahead. Pretty much any parameter you can adjust 
and set. The hard part is probably putting together hardware and getting it 
all wired up. Most common hardware works, but I know there are some 
specifics with the distributors and a crank trigger for it. The downside is 
there is no diagnostic stream.. you do have a data stream of all sensors and 
settings, but if soemthing goes away, there is no limp home mode... Although 
after I put mine on, I did drive 1200 miles to a MS get together, so the 
durability is there... I'd have to pick up one of the V3 MS's to see how 
they map the ignition though... Overall you cant beat it for the price... 
esp when you look at what they like to get for aftermarket systems... That 
dont work 1/2 as well.

Garrett






>From: "David Allen" <davida1 at hiwaay.net>
>Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Project underway...
>Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 22:59:29 -0500
>
>  Thanks for the comments!  My friend is doing the fab work on the TB 
>adapter.  He's got a really cool looking "bug catcher" scoop that was 
>hand-made by a friend of his.  The TB will sit as you suggest, with the 
>bores front to back.  It'll feed the front and rear groups of cylinders 
>better that way, plus the scoop will fit over it better. Will have pictures 
>as soon as it is done. We're lacking fuel lines and completion of the TBI 
>adapter plate/scoop holder before starting the engine.  The rest of the car 
>is lacking some of the last electrical details (gauges, exterior lights, 
>etc), cooling fan, and seats.  It'll be a while before it is ready to drive 
>and be real-time tuned; but the engine may run in a few days or so.
>  I'm using the ECM that came with the TBI, I have a 5.0 V8 calibration to 
>start with.  The flahead engine was 80 to 90 HP stock, with a tiny 
>carburetor.  The bottom end is not designed for high RPM use, it only has 3 
>main bearings.  It will not see over 5000 RPM; if that. The top end 
>injector flow should not be a problem, but filling that cavernous manifold 
>plenum with a proper A/F mixture when the throttle is bumped open, scares 
>me!
>  I have heard nothing but good success stories with Megasquirt EFI, but 
>I've never used it.  For some reason I like the GM computers.  The fully 
>mappable ignition timing and fuel tables; and low cost were my deciding 
>factor. I've got 4 GM engines of my own (plus several outside projects) and 
>the same tuning hardware works on all.
>  How much tunability is in the Megasquirt ECU? How is the ignition mapped?
>  Later,
>David
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Herning" <herningg at hotmail.com>
>To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
>Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:02 PM
>Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Project underway...
>
>
>>Hi David,
>>
>>I think the injectors would be about the right size. Unless you are trying 
>>to push some large horsepower out of that flathead with a hugh compression 
>>increase and a turbo or blower...
>>
>>I put a TBI from a 4.3L on a 78 pickup I have with a 5.7L. Since its for 
>>the most part a stock engine (8:1 compression or whatever 1978's best 
>>was), and its not a real hp monster I thought they would work ok. It runs 
>>fine and I haven't had any trouble with it bogging down. I used a 
>>MegaSquirt, and if I crank up the high throttle end of the fuel table, it 
>>moves pretty good (along with the gas gage..lol).
>>
>>I think the biggest decision would be how to orient the TBI. The stock 
>>manifold seperate each bore to feed 1/2 of the cylinders... a V8 would 
>>feed 4 with one and the other 4 with the other, 2 on each side. Since you 
>>have a totaly different manifold you'll have to see the best way to feed 
>>them. On my 78, I made an adpater for a normal Qjet type manifold and so 
>>there was a plenum area under the TBI where they could mix. The only thing 
>>I see on your pic is it appears that the runners go down toward the front 
>>and back, so having it sit 90 deg from normal might work better on that 
>>manifold... maybe even some kind of divider that helps direct the flow of 
>>air and fuel from each bore down to the front or back.... just a 
>>thought... I'd not an expert of intake design though.
>>
>>Good luck, looks like a cool project!
>>
>>Garrett
>>
>>
>>>From: "David Allen" <davida1 at hiwaay.net>
>>>Reply-To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
>>>To: "GM-ECM" <gmecm at diy-efi.org>, <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
>>>Subject: [Gmecm] Project underway...
>>>Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:45:15 -0500
>>>
>>>  I'm working on a project with a friend, converting a 1940's Ford 255CID 
>>>flathead V8 from carb and points to a TBI/ 1227747 setup.  The 
>>>electronics hardware side is done.  The engine has an afermarket 
>>>distributor with a conventional VR pickup coil.  This is connected to a 
>>>standard HEI module that is firing an MSD box. In the pictures the 
>>>advance weights are still present, but they have been removed and the 
>>>advance bolted so the ECM can control the timing.
>>>  Here's where I want you guys' thoughts.  The intake manifold has a huge 
>>>plenum, look at pictures linked at bottom. We're using a 4.3V6 throttle 
>>>body and injectors.  Do you think the injectors flow enough for accel 
>>>enrich to keep from bogging when you open it?  It is a very mismatched 
>>>setup on the engine/ cam/ manifold but this is what we have to work with.
>>>  We'll be using Cats RT Tuner and a wideband to adjust the VE tables. 
>>>This has been a fun project so far, but the real fun will be making it 
>>>run correctly. It will be an open-loop calibration, tuned for drivability 
>>>first, power second.  Any thoughts?
>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Gmecm mailing list
>>>Gmecm at diy-efi.org
>>>Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
>>>Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>A place for moms to take a break! 
>>http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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

_________________________________________________________________
Test your celebrity IQ.? Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great prizes! 
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2



From efi at dyakron.com  Wed Sep  5 05:25:15 2007
From: efi at dyakron.com (Mike V)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 06:25:15 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Undignified death of a project :P
References: <151134.78350.qm@web60819.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001a01c7efa7$0d211fc0$0b01a8c0@IBMm>

Hi Andrew,
Sorry to hear about your loss..
It sucks when non-believers disrespect our sacred
transplant recipients and treat them like mere transportation.
Even if that's what they are.
If that was MY brother I'd give him a wedgie.
MV
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Undignified death of a project :P


> About 2 years ago I embarked on a project to fuel inject the 250cid 6cyl 
> in my 78 Chev. It involved putting a 2.5L TBI on it with a 7748 ecm. It 
> was started up for the first time in February 2006. It has been very 
> reliable and the only things I have had to do are minor tuning 
> adjustments.
>
>  This year I purchased a newer GMC truck with an auto trans (for my left 
> knee's sake), less rust holes, and A/C. Since I was not driving the '78 
> anymore I gave it to my younger brother because he needed a truck.
>
>  Last week I got a call from him telling me it lost power and died on the 
> freeway. He had it towed to my parent's house. I went over to check it 
> out. Cranking it over just didn't sound right. Had spark and fuel coming 
> out of the injector. No oil in the crankcase. Then another little bit of 
> information came up. It was boiling antifreeze out when it died - 
> overheating.
>
>  I finally got it started at 3/4 throttle. It runs on two cylinders. It's 
> finished. The engine is blown up and it's not worth fixing. What a shame. 
> 6 months of commuting 100 miles a day and he didn't check the oil or watch 
> the guages. Oh well, the cab was about to rust off anyway.
>
>  Anybody want to fuel inject their chev straight 6?
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who 
> knows.
> Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm 



From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Wed Sep  5 10:07:01 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:07:01 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Undignified death of a project :P
In-Reply-To: <151134.78350.qm@web60819.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F2939E722A@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

Andrew, sorry about your loss.  It doesn't have to be a complete loss,
though, the memory of your project can be enshrined on the wiki page so
that others contemplating a straight 6 conversion can benefit from what
you learned.  Please think about writing up an article/howto and posting
it.

I agree with Mike -- your brother probably needs a super-double wedgie.

--steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gibson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:28 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: [Gmecm] Undignified death of a project :P
> 
> About 2 years ago I embarked on a project to fuel inject the 
> 250cid 6cyl in my 78 Chev. It involved putting a 2.5L TBI on 
> it with a 7748 ecm. It was started up for the first time in 
> February 2006. It has been very reliable and the only things 
> I have had to do are minor tuning adjustments.
>    
>   This year I purchased a newer GMC truck with an auto trans 
> (for my left knee's sake), less rust holes, and A/C. Since I 
> was not driving the '78 anymore I gave it to my younger 
> brother because he needed a truck.
>    
>   Last week I got a call from him telling me it lost power 
> and died on the freeway. He had it towed to my parent's 
> house. I went over to check it out. Cranking it over just 
> didn't sound right. Had spark and fuel coming out of the 
> injector. No oil in the crankcase. Then another little bit of 
> information came up. It was boiling antifreeze out when it 
> died - overheating.
>    
>   I finally got it started at 3/4 throttle. It runs on two 
> cylinders. It's finished. The engine is blown up and it's not 
> worth fixing. What a shame. 6 months of commuting 100 miles a 
> day and he didn't check the oil or watch the guages. Oh well, 
> the cab was about to rust off anyway.
>    
>   Anybody want to fuel inject their chev straight 6?
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from 
> someone who knows.
> Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> 

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




From tsokorai at gmail.com  Wed Sep  5 10:30:00 2007
From: tsokorai at gmail.com (Tomas Sokorai)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:30:00 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Undignified death of a project :P
In-Reply-To: <151134.78350.qm@web60819.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <151134.78350.qm@web60819.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8634c6d70709050830x9494456gb0fc828410413a24@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/4/07, Andrew Gibson <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   No oil in the crankcase. Then another little bit of information came up. It was boiling antifreeze out when it died - overheating.

:( I'm sorry for your loss. I know what it is like, as my project
truck (1975 F100, 302, w/1227747 + 350 TBI GM ECM) was stolen about a
month ago...

- Morality of the story for you: Don't trust loved projects to anyone
but you or another real gearhead.
- Morality of the story for me: Don't get the ECM calibration
driveability so good that anyone can start it and drive away like a
modern car.

-- 
Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.


From tsokorai at gmail.com  Wed Sep  5 10:30:33 2007
From: tsokorai at gmail.com (Tomas Sokorai)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:30:33 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Undignified death of a project :P
In-Reply-To: <001a01c7efa7$0d211fc0$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
References: <151134.78350.qm@web60819.mail.yahoo.com>
	<001a01c7efa7$0d211fc0$0b01a8c0@IBMm>
Message-ID: <8634c6d70709050830l3bb3aeach92ac9362fca38d6f@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/5/07, Mike V <efi at dyakron.com> wrote:
> If that was MY brother I'd give him a wedgie.

Yup, but if it had a working temp gauge: *atomic* wedgie.

-- 
Tomas J. Sokorai Sch.


From captain_krill at yahoo.com  Wed Sep  5 13:45:37 2007
From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P 
Message-ID: <250501.55916.qm@web34302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

A Timely thread.  I was just thinking of giving my
2bbl,2.8l to MPFI,3.4l conversion project to my
brother in law for a 6 month stint.  It doesn't use
any oil or overheat, but... I think I'll reconsider
anyway!

Strange how a large investment of time and ingenuity
can generate an emotional attachment.  I'd be very sad
if he blew up "Mabel!"

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


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/


From pmkls1 at yahoo.com  Wed Sep  5 16:36:00 2007
From: pmkls1 at yahoo.com (Phillip Kuhn)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] 91 s-10 tbi 4cyl .xdf or .ecu file for $94 mask id
In-Reply-To: <624923.14147.qm@web54603.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <235595.92310.qm@web54601.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

I did more looking and the correct mask id was $83a
which I found. I already did some tuning and will see
how it works later. Thanks,

Phil



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


From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com  Wed Sep  5 20:26:35 2007
From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 18:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <370326.10315.qm@web60811.mail.yahoo.com>

Giving my brother an atomic wedgie my be in order as the truck has the full battery of guages. Temp, oil pressure, voltage and a check engine light.

       
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

From davida1 at hiwaay.net  Wed Sep  5 20:32:33 2007
From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:32:33 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
References: <370326.10315.qm@web60811.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003101c7f025$ce1ece10$5000a8c0@yancey.com>

Man I hate to hear about this - Your brother deserves an Atomic Wedgie daily 
for the next 6 months or until he rebuilds the engine successfully...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:26 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P


> Giving my brother an atomic wedgie my be in order as the truck has the 
> full battery of guages. Temp, oil pressure, voltage and a check engine 
> light.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
> Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> 



From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Wed Sep  5 22:23:35 2007
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <334736.1629.qm@web80514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ya know what, Honda small engines (and various others) goof proofed their product with a simple addition of a low oil shutdown that I'm sure was driven by the need to reduce waranty claims by those that ignore maintenance. Maybe we as a hobyist community need to develop a similar system, maybe one that gets extremely obnoxious (I'd hate to have it die in the middle of an intersection) in the event of such problems, it would give a lot of peace of mind when we need to loan the prized steed to a family or friend.

Any one think of a reason not to create such a feature?


----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew Gibson <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 8:26:35 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P


Giving my brother an atomic wedgie my be in order as the truck has the full battery of guages. Temp, oil pressure, voltage and a check engine light.

       
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
_______________________________________________
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  Thu Sep  6 06:35:22 2007
From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:35:22 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
References: <334736.1629.qm@web80514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005401c7f07a$14223150$5000a8c0@yancey.com>

  One illiterate (literally - she could not read) lady had blown several 
engines and melted 2 or 3 other heads on a Chevy Corsica 4 cyl due to 
overheating. (they were too cheap to rebuild it and put in junkyard core 
engines).
   I hooked up a timed relay to a temp switch.  A 90 decibel buzzer would 
sound in the car for 30 seconds then the injectors were shut off by the 
timer.
  Next time she lost a belt, she called in saying the car was going "dead" 
on her.  No mention of the alarm.  Sure enough, it was overheating and 
shutting down. Engine saved (but fool really should heave deserved to pay 
for another engine)
David

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rick McLeod" <dunvegan at sbcglobal.net>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P


> Ya know what, Honda small engines (and various others) goof proofed their 
> product with a simple addition of a low oil shutdown that I'm sure was 
> driven by the need to reduce waranty claims by those that ignore 
> maintenance. Maybe we as a hobyist community need to develop a similar 
> system, maybe one that gets extremely obnoxious (I'd hate to have it die 
> in the middle of an intersection) in the event of such problems, it would 
> give a lot of peace of mind when we need to loan the prized steed to a 
> family or friend.
>
> Any one think of a reason not to create such a feature?
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrew Gibson <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 8:26:35 PM
> Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
>
>
> Giving my brother an atomic wedgie my be in order as the truck has the 
> full battery of guages. Temp, oil pressure, voltage and a check engine 
> light.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
> Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mwilson at bwarch.com  Thu Sep  6 10:22:02 2007
From: mwilson at bwarch.com (Mike Wilson)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:22:02 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
In-Reply-To: <334736.1629.qm@web80514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c7f099$ad066b10$1500010a@bwarch.com>

A couple different GM cars I have owned have had oil level sensors in the
oil pan that light up an idiot light when you run low. It should be pretty
simple to tie that light into a buzzer.

95 Formula Firebird, 93 Olds 88 & 95 Buick Park Ave all had the lights. The
Formula even had a low coolant level sensor and light system. I know it
wasn't tied into the PCM because they are problematic and about $65 to
replace so the common fix is to disconnect them. The PCM never knows. It
should be pretty easy to put the setup into another vehicle since it is
independent of the PCM.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Rick McLeod
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:24 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P

Ya know what, Honda small engines (and various others) goof proofed their
product with a simple addition of a low oil shutdown that I'm sure was
driven by the need to reduce waranty claims by those that ignore
maintenance. Maybe we as a hobyist community need to develop a similar
system, maybe one that gets extremely obnoxious (I'd hate to have it die in
the middle of an intersection) in the event of such problems, it would give
a lot of peace of mind when we need to loan the prized steed to a family or
friend.

Any one think of a reason not to create such a feature?


----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew Gibson <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 8:26:35 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P


Giving my brother an atomic wedgie my be in order as the truck has the full
battery of guages. Temp, oil pressure, voltage and a check engine light.




From captain_krill at yahoo.com  Thu Sep  6 13:16:59 2007
From: captain_krill at yahoo.com (Cowen)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <16201.28852.qm@web34304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I think that there are already "Low Oil Shutdown"
systems in place.  For instance, the Fiero MPFI I'm
using in my Jeep runs the Fuel Pump power through an
on/off switch in the Oil Pressure Sender.  I elected
not to use it because the sender was smashed...

I understand that the 4.0l Jeep engines often require
a number of cranks to start because they won't turn on
the injectors below a minimum oil pressure (which can
take a few cranks to build).  People bypass this for
instant starting.

So, in either case, a simple Idiot Light Sender
(on/off with pressure) will work for either temp or
oil pressure.  If your car has guages (with variable
resistors for senders), then find a sender from a
lower trim level car and you're set, then run your
injector power through it.

Or, never lend your car to anyone! :)

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


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow  


From 9jim30 at charter.net  Thu Sep  6 13:42:44 2007
From: 9jim30 at charter.net (James Panter)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:42:44 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
References: <16201.28852.qm@web34304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <008e01c7f0b5$b7a88550$6401a8c0@COMPY>

Same with TPI, LT 1 and LT4.  A relay for instant starting turned on by the 
ECM and a redundant fuel pump power supply through the oil pressure switch. 
This, however, was not to shut the engine down because of no oil pressure 
but as a back-up should the fuel pump relay fail.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cowen" <captain_krill at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P


>I think that there are already "Low Oil Shutdown"
> systems in place.  For instance, the Fiero MPFI I'm
> using in my Jeep runs the Fuel Pump power through an
> on/off switch in the Oil Pressure Sender.  I elected
> not to use it because the sender was smashed...
>
> I understand that the 4.0l Jeep engines often require
> a number of cranks to start because they won't turn on
> the injectors below a minimum oil pressure (which can
> take a few cranks to build).  People bypass this for
> instant starting.
>
> So, in either case, a simple Idiot Light Sender
> (on/off with pressure) will work for either temp or
> oil pressure.  If your car has guages (with variable
> resistors for senders), then find a sender from a
> lower trim level car and you're set, then run your
> injector power through it.
>
> Or, never lend your car to anyone! :)
>
> **********************END TRANSMISSION**********************
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated 
> for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
> http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> 




From turbodig at yahoo.com  Thu Sep  6 16:45:51 2007
From: turbodig at yahoo.com (Dig)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <40102.277.qm@web35301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Murphy switches (Switchgauge) have been around for years in the diesel community.
Gotta hold a button down to get the engine to start, but once you have oil pressure, you can let the button go.

Generally, by the time pressure is gone, it's too late.  As you say, a level sensor would be better, but they tend to be problematic.
Some sort of optical detector above the pickup in the oil pan would be a good idea...

Dig


----- Original Message ----
From: Rick McLeod <dunvegan at sbcglobal.net>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 10:23:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P

Ya know what, Honda small engines (and various others) goof proofed their product with a simple addition of a low oil shutdown that I'm sure was driven by the need to reduce waranty claims by those that ignore maintenance. Maybe we as a hobyist community need to develop a similar system, maybe one that gets extremely obnoxious (I'd hate to have it die in the middle of an intersection) in the event of such problems, it would give a lot of peace of mind when we need to loan the prized steed to a family or friend.

Any one think of a reason not to create such a feature?


----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew Gibson <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 8:26:35 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P


Giving my brother an atomic wedgie my be in order as the truck has the full battery of guages. Temp, oil pressure, voltage and a check engine light.

       
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
_______________________________________________
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 bcroe at juno.com  Thu Sep  6 19:06:08 2007
From: bcroe at juno.com (bcroe at juno.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:06:08 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <20070906.190632.1480.3.bcroe@juno.com>

Unbelievable!  A dipstick has to be backed by an 
electronic system, because some drivers are idiots.  

Bruce Roe

6 Sep 07  "Mike Wilson" <mwilson at bwarch.com> writes:
> A couple different GM cars I have owned have had oil level sensors in 
> the
> oil pan that light up an idiot light when you run low. It should be 
> pretty
> simple to tie that light into a buzzer.
> 
> 95 Formula Firebird, 93 Olds 88 & 95 Buick Park Ave all had the 
> lights. The
> Formula even had a low coolant level sensor and light system. I know 
> it
> wasn't tied into the PCM because they are problematic and about $65 
> to
> replace so the common fix is to disconnect them. The PCM never 
> knows. It
> should be pretty easy to put the setup into another vehicle since it 
> is
> independent of the PCM.
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] 
> On Behalf
> Of Rick McLeod
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:24 PM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
> 
> Ya know what, Honda small engines (and various others) goof proofed 
> their
> product with a simple addition of a low oil shutdown that I'm sure 
> was
> driven by the need to reduce waranty claims by those that ignore
> maintenance. 


From md4etal at netzero.net  Thu Sep  6 19:57:00 2007
From: md4etal at netzero.net (md4etal at netzero.net)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:57:00 GMT
Subject: [Gmecm] Great job to those who restored the archives.
Message-ID: <20070906.195700.21165.2@webmail01.dca.untd.com>

Total, one off note:
Thanks to all of you who worked to restore the file archives.  It has been awhile since I visited the FTP, and my memory correlated with what was there.  Bravo and keep up the good work.
Mike D.


From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Thu Sep  6 20:43:23 2007
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <22855.15004.qm@web80510.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

In my experience, low levels is discoverable due to starvation of the pump causing a pulsing of the oil pressure, so that should be detectable. (I would'nt want to field test it though, unless on a heap destined for the scrapper) and reportable. I've seen starvation in hard cornering also when low on oil but not seriously yet.

food for thought or the garbage can, you choose

cheers


----- Original Message ----
From: Dig <turbodig at yahoo.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2007 4:45:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P


Murphy switches (Switchgauge) have been around for years in the diesel community.
Gotta hold a button down to get the engine to start, but once you have oil pressure, you can let the button go.

Generally, by the time pressure is gone, it's too late.  As you say, a level sensor would be better, but they tend to be problematic.
Some sort of optical detector above the pickup in the oil pan would be a good idea...

Dig


----- Original Message ----
From: Rick McLeod <dunvegan at sbcglobal.net>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 10:23:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P

Ya know what, Honda small engines (and various others) goof proofed their product with a simple addition of a low oil shutdown that I'm sure was driven by the need to reduce waranty claims by those that ignore maintenance. Maybe we as a hobyist community need to develop a similar system, maybe one that gets extremely obnoxious (I'd hate to have it die in the middle of an intersection) in the event of such problems, it would give a lot of peace of mind when we need to loan the prized steed to a family or friend.

Any one think of a reason not to create such a feature?


----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew Gibson <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 8:26:35 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P


Giving my brother an atomic wedgie my be in order as the truck has the full battery of guages. Temp, oil pressure, voltage and a check engine light.

       
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm



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

From dunvegan at sbcglobal.net  Thu Sep  6 20:54:44 2007
From: dunvegan at sbcglobal.net (Rick McLeod)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] RANT was Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <973303.62494.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

years ago when I was in high school, drivers education taught some things we take for common knowledge. Now that budget crunches have hit, there barely is any of that taught. I remember some critical pass/fail items:
parallel parking
backing straight for a distance
changing a tire
checking tire pressure
checking underhood criticals
and a few others

I liken some of this to other things like you used to get your oil checked every fill up for free, tires if you wanted, windshield cleaned, etc at the local filling station. Now with the advent of self service fuel outlets the responsibility has shifted. But no one is teaching that anywhere to my knowledge.

I also liken it to the introduction of (or proliferation of) these traffic circles aka round-a-bouts for our across the pond buddies, without any user education. They just starting popping up like mushrooms, and most folks have no idea of the 'protocol' to use them. It's a pet peave right up there with those drivers that stop dead at the end of a merge ramp to the expressway, when there is an opening that the accelerator would have nicely blended them in. Going back to my DE rant, that was another thing they taught, that the brake is not necessarily the only control to use for safety but sometimes it works better to accelerate out of a situation than to brake into one.

and, yes I feel better for the rant, I'll now return you to your normally boring threads

cheers

From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com  Sat Sep  8 19:50:28 2007
From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson)
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <403401.73847.qm@web60820.mail.yahoo.com>

Since this is the GM-ECM area I will add some info I hope everyone will find useful. You can challenge me on it if you want but having been a diagnostic tech for 10 years, I know. If you still don't think I know anything check www.nadiauto.com , yes that's my new ride.
   
  Low oil shutdown on GM products: Been there for years. Yes I had it on the truck. It works by the ECM powering a fuel pump relay on initial key on and cranking. Then the oil pressure switch takes over. The switch may directly power the pump or drive the fuel pump relay. Either way you have to have below 7 psi oil pressure for the amount of time it takes for the engine to burn off the residual fuel pressure. Works good if you flip the car upside down. Doesn't work so well to save the engine. :(
   
  Bypassing the Jeep fuel pump drive strategy: Jeep and all Chrysler products do not use a low oil pressure shut down. They use an Automatic Shut Down relay (I like automatic self destruct myself) which powers the fuel pump, ign coil, and injectors. The ECM turns the ASD relay on after it sees the cam and crank signals and properly indexes the engine for timing. After the indexing it commands the relay on so you still get a delay in building fuel pressure. Which is why a Chrysler product has to turn two full revolutions before starting when a GM only has to rotate 1/4 turn. I'll keep my GMC truck.

       
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not web links. 

From davida1 at hiwaay.net  Sun Sep  9 00:21:04 2007
From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen)
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 00:21:04 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
References: <403401.73847.qm@web60820.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <011b01c7f2a1$3af1cc90$0b0111ac@yancey.com>

  Congratulations on the award, nice ride...  Hard to beat that candy-apple 
red!
  One comment for you though.  I have 3 GM engines with the following ECM's, 
1228746, 1226869, and 1227137.  Two are TBI and one MPFI.  All are retrofits 
into different year cars (and a boat).  None have an oil pressure switch. 
The only control for the fuel pump is the ECM's "fuel pump relay drive" 
output.  On these ECM's that output goes high (+12V) breifly when the key is 
turned on; and stays high for as long as the ECM is seeing ignition 
reference pulses.
  The only thing keeping the pump on is the ECM fuel pump relay drive 
signal.  If the engine stalls with the key still ON, the pump stops about 3 
seconds after the engine stops turning. To keep from setting a code, the 
ECM's "fuel pump relay drive" and "fuel pump signal" lines are tied together 
and both go to the relay's coil.
  I've never had the ECM shut down the pump while the engine is running.
  All the schematics show the oil pressure switch as you describe, in 
parallel with the ECM-controlled relay.  Because it is a parallel circuit, 
either the ECM-controlled relay, or the oil pressure switch can keep the 
pump running. Since (at least on my 3 engines) the ECM keeps the relay 
pulled in as long as the engine is turning, the oil pressure switch can open 
and it will not make any difference. The fuel pump current will still have a 
complete circuit through the relay.
  I see the oil pressure switch would be a redundant feature to allow the 
engine to keep running if the relay failed but other than that it is just 
added parts and wiring that are not necessary.
  Boy I agree a 7 psi shutdown on an engine under load will not save the 
engine even if the ECM didn't keep the relay on!
  My expertise is older GM stuff and off-highway diesels (work for 
Caterpillar dealer).  I'm not challenging your expertise but I want to 
mention that not all ECM's turn off the fuel pump relay after the engine is 
running.
  In real-world experience I'd expect more no-run problems due to shorted/ 
grounded wiring to the oil pressure switch, than I would due to failed 
relays on an ecm-only setup.  IMHO, I would leave the oil pressure switch on 
a factory setup, but it's not worth the trouble to install on a retrofit.
  On the newer big diesels, there is a table in the ECM "oil PSI Vs temp Vs 
RPM."  It has a pressure transducer telling the ECM oil PSI, and an oil temp 
sensor.  The ECM will detect the engine loosing oil pressure at any RPM. It 
will derate the engine (reduce engine power), activate warnings, and 
eventually (depending on the safety/ liability concerns) shut the engine 
off.  Some of the calibrations (particularly on trucks) never shut off. 
They derate to the degree that you can only just creep in low gears; this is 
to keep from creating a traffic accident liability due to "intentional 
avoidable shutdown."
  Some older stationary engines had 2 oil pressure switches, one at 10 PSI 
and one at 40 or 50. The starter would begin turning the engine, and when 
the 10 PSI switch closed, the fuel solenoid would activate.  After the 
engine was running, a timer would change to the high-pressure oil switch 
several seconds after startup (giving the engine time to rev up to operating 
speed).  If the engine dropped below 40 or 50 at operating speed, an 
automatic shutdown would happen.
  Just my two cents worth!!
Thanks,
David




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Gibson" <andrewsharyn at yahoo.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 7:50 PM
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P


> Since this is the GM-ECM area I will add some info I hope everyone will 
> find useful. You can challenge me on it if you want but having been a 
> diagnostic tech for 10 years, I know. If you still don't think I know 
> anything check www.nadiauto.com , yes that's my new ride.
>
>  Low oil shutdown on GM products: Been there for years. Yes I had it on 
> the truck. It works by the ECM powering a fuel pump relay on initial key 
> on and cranking. Then the oil pressure switch takes over. The switch may 
> directly power the pump or drive the fuel pump relay. Either way you have 
> to have below 7 psi oil pressure for the amount of time it takes for the 
> engine to burn off the residual fuel pressure. Works good if you flip the 
> car upside down. Doesn't work so well to save the engine. :(
>
>  Bypassing the Jeep fuel pump drive strategy: Jeep and all Chrysler 
> products do not use a low oil pressure shut down. They use an Automatic 
> Shut Down relay (I like automatic self destruct myself) which powers the 
> fuel pump, ign coil, and injectors. The ECM turns the ASD relay on after 
> it sees the cam and crank signals and properly indexes the engine for 
> timing. After the indexing it commands the relay on so you still get a 
> delay in building fuel pressure. Which is why a Chrysler product has to 
> turn two full revolutions before starting when a GM only has to rotate 1/4 
> turn. I'll keep my GMC truck.



From jay at vessels-clan.com  Sun Sep  9 07:00:28 2007
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 08:00:28 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
In-Reply-To: <403401.73847.qm@web60820.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <403401.73847.qm@web60820.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <46E3E05C.9020002@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

Andrew Gibson wrote:
> Low oil shutdown on GM products: Been there for years. Yes I had it
> on the truck. It works by the ECM powering a fuel pump relay on
> initial key on and cranking. Then the oil pressure switch takes over.

There is some tech literature that claims this is how it works, but it 
is not true on any TBI or TPI GM engine I've touched.  It's an easy 
experiment -- unplug the oil pressure switch and start the vehicle.  It 
will keep running.  I proved this to myself on a 1227429 TBI engine.

I'm not sure why GM didn't trust the relay (especially since it added 
cost), but I assume their legal team was involved...

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


From jryan at caminofx.org  Sun Sep  9 09:06:37 2007
From: jryan at caminofx.org (Jared Ryan)
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:06:37 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
In-Reply-To: <46E3E05C.9020002@vessels-clan.com>
References: <403401.73847.qm@web60820.mail.yahoo.com>
	<46E3E05C.9020002@vessels-clan.com>
Message-ID: <8496702fc583d7dadca228cab0a43468@caminofx.org>

I also found this out.  I forgot to plug in the oil pressure switch 
connector, and the vehicle started right up.  In fact, I drove it 
across town and back before I realized that it was not connected.

This was on a 1228746 TBI vehicle.

I'm glad it isn't a miswiring on my part or some other weirdness.  I 
didn't know that the feature was useless.

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

On Sep 9, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Jay Vessels wrote:

> There is some tech literature that claims this is how it works, but it 
> is not true on any TBI or TPI GM engine I've touched.  It's an easy 
> experiment -- unplug the oil pressure switch and start the vehicle.  
> It will keep running.  I proved this to myself on a 1227429 TBI 
> engine.



From ne14roxcj at gmail.com  Sun Sep  9 11:26:54 2007
From: ne14roxcj at gmail.com (Beau Blankenship)
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:26:54 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
In-Reply-To: <8496702fc583d7dadca228cab0a43468@caminofx.org>
Message-ID: <46e41ed6.4ee2220a.2bd8.fffffc20@mx.google.com>

I too have proven this to myself on my 7747 TBI and 7730 TPI setups. The oil
pressure switch is just a backup for the fuel pump relay that the ECM
drives. Only if you loose both current feeds (the ECM controlled relay AND
the oil pressure switch) will the fuel pump shut off. Now, if you didn't
connect the ECM controlled relay, then the oil switch would shut the pump
down if oil pressure dropped. But you would have a long cranking time before
the engine built oil pressure and activated the pump circuit. Just my
experience.

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Jared Ryan
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:07 AM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P

I also found this out.  I forgot to plug in the oil pressure switch 
connector, and the vehicle started right up.  In fact, I drove it 
across town and back before I realized that it was not connected.

This was on a 1228746 TBI vehicle.

I'm glad it isn't a miswiring on my part or some other weirdness.  I 
didn't know that the feature was useless.

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

On Sep 9, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Jay Vessels wrote:

> There is some tech literature that claims this is how it works, but it 
> is not true on any TBI or TPI GM engine I've touched.  It's an easy 
> experiment -- unplug the oil pressure switch and start the vehicle.  
> It will keep running.  I proved this to myself on a 1227429 TBI 
> engine.

_______________________________________________
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  Sun Sep  9 13:05:07 2007
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 14:05:07 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
In-Reply-To: <46e41ed6.4ee2220a.2bd8.fffffc20@mx.google.com>
References: <46e41ed6.4ee2220a.2bd8.fffffc20@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <46E435D3.8060402@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

> Now, if you didn't
> connect the ECM controlled relay, then the oil switch would shut the pump
> down if oil pressure dropped. But you would have a long cranking time before
> the engine built oil pressure and activated the pump circuit. Just my
> experience.

On vehicles with both the relay and oil pressure switch, that's a pretty 
good telltale that the relay has failed.

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


From andrewsharyn at yahoo.com  Sun Sep  9 20:43:31 2007
From: andrewsharyn at yahoo.com (Andrew Gibson)
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 18:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gmecm] Re: Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <619552.29118.qm@web60813.mail.yahoo.com>

Very interesting that so many on you have had systems with the sending unit as a backup switch. My 88 gmc runs until you unplug it. Same with the FI setup my brother just toasted. Maybe I have had vehicles with the sending unit as a backup that just have not had a failure so I don't have to diag them. Regardless I still check the oil level on vehicles with an intermittent stall when stopped. It's been the cause more than once.
   
  Have a good night guys!

       
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 

From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Mon Sep 10 09:59:28 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:59:28 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F293A321DC@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

A note from JW regarding the fuel pump relay and oil pressure switch.
 
--steve

The Oil Pressure Switch that runs the fuel pump isn't about backing up
the Fuel Pump relay, which it does as a side benefit.  It is about the
Backup Fuel function of the older (pre early '90s) ECMs.  If the digital
core fails in these boxes, the distributor or DIS is put in BYPASS mode,
allowing the engine to run on the base spark, the Fuel Injectors are run
by the Backup Fuel Device in the ECM (analog fuel injection, what the
calibration resistors are for), and the Oil Pressure Switch runs the
pump.  The BFD was removed later when it became untenable to have
redundancy like this and confidence in the controllers increased.  It
would be cheaper to use a more reliable relay then add in a parallel
switch for the Fuel Pump. 

JW 

-- 
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 davida1 at hiwaay.net  Mon Sep 10 18:16:15 2007
From: davida1 at hiwaay.net (David Allen)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:16:15 -0500
Subject: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P
References: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F293A321DC@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <054501c7f400$97cd4ce0$2000a8c0@yancey.com>

  Steve, thanks for the real story on this!  On my recalibrated systems I 
bet the backup fuel device calibration would be so far off it would not even 
run.
  Later,
David

---------

>A note from JW regarding the fuel pump relay and oil pressure switch.
>
> --steve
>
> The Oil Pressure Switch that runs the fuel pump isn't about backing up
> the Fuel Pump relay, which it does as a side benefit.  It is about the
> Backup Fuel function of the older (pre early '90s) ECMs.  If the digital
> core fails in these boxes, the distributor or DIS is put in BYPASS mode,
> allowing the engine to run on the base spark, the Fuel Injectors are run
> by the Backup Fuel Device in the ECM (analog fuel injection, what the
> calibration resistors are for), and the Oil Pressure Switch runs the
> pump.  The BFD was removed later when it became untenable to have
> redundancy like this and confidence in the controllers increased.  It
> would be cheaper to use a more reliable relay then add in a parallel
> switch for the Fuel Pump.
>
> JW 



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Thu Sep 13 03:46:22 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:46:22 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P (ECM control of
	fuel pump)
References: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F293A321DC@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <016101c7f5e2$9192f5d0$020101c0@gandalf>

I haven't looked at this area of code but, on the assumption that software 
running in the ECM can turn the fuel pump on and off via the relay, then 
presumably it would be possible to add some code which turned off the fuel 
pump if the engine stopped running - providing a useful safety feature(?)

Have I missed something?

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 10 September 2007 15:59
Subject: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P


A note from JW regarding the fuel pump relay and oil pressure switch.

--steve

The Oil Pressure Switch that runs the fuel pump isn't about backing up
the Fuel Pump relay, which it does as a side benefit.  It is about the
Backup Fuel function of the older (pre early '90s) ECMs.  If the digital
core fails in these boxes, the distributor or DIS is put in BYPASS mode,
allowing the engine to run on the base spark, the Fuel Injectors are run
by the Backup Fuel Device in the ECM (analog fuel injection, what the
calibration resistors are for), and the Oil Pressure Switch runs the
pump.  The BFD was removed later when it became untenable to have
redundancy like this and confidence in the controllers increased.  It
would be cheaper to use a more reliable relay then add in a parallel
switch for the Fuel Pump.

JW



From Steve.Ravet at arm.com  Thu Sep 13 22:22:58 2007
From: Steve.Ravet at arm.com (Steve Ravet)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:22:58 -0700
Subject: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P (ECM control offuel
	pump)
In-Reply-To: <016101c7f5e2$9192f5d0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F293A6EB27@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>

That's what it does.  No ignition ref pulses, the computer shuts off the
fuel pump.

--steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org 
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rob Handley
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:46 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P 
> (ECM control offuel pump)
> 
> I haven't looked at this area of code but, on the assumption 
> that software running in the ECM can turn the fuel pump on 
> and off via the relay, then presumably it would be possible 
> to add some code which turned off the fuel pump if the engine 
> stopped running - providing a useful safety feature(?)
> 
> Have I missed something?
> 
> Robin
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
> To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: 10 September 2007 15:59
> Subject: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P
> 
> 
> A note from JW regarding the fuel pump relay and oil pressure switch.
> 
> --steve
> 
> The Oil Pressure Switch that runs the fuel pump isn't about backing up
> the Fuel Pump relay, which it does as a side benefit.  It is about the
> Backup Fuel function of the older (pre early '90s) ECMs.  If 
> the digital
> core fails in these boxes, the distributor or DIS is put in 
> BYPASS mode,
> allowing the engine to run on the base spark, the Fuel 
> Injectors are run
> by the Backup Fuel Device in the ECM (analog fuel injection, what the
> calibration resistors are for), and the Oil Pressure Switch runs the
> pump.  The BFD was removed later when it became untenable to have
> redundancy like this and confidence in the controllers increased.  It
> would be cheaper to use a more reliable relay then add in a parallel
> switch for the Fuel Pump.
> 
> JW
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gmecm mailing list
> Gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
> Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm
> 

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




From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Fri Sep 14 02:26:57 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:26:57 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P (ECM control
	offuelpump)
References: <F2C29ABA4D75714AAFC89187D9D8F293A6EB27@THUNDERBIRD.usa.Arm.com>
Message-ID: <01fa01c7f6a0$a8715b70$020101c0@gandalf>

Thanks Steve.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Ravet" <Steve.Ravet at arm.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 14 September 2007 04:22
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P (ECM control 
offuelpump)


That's what it does.  No ignition ref pulses, the computer shuts off the
fuel pump.

--steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org
> [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf Of Rob Handley
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:46 AM
> To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Gmecm] FW: Undignified death of a project :P
> (ECM control offuel pump)
>
> I haven't looked at this area of code but, on the assumption
> that software running in the ECM can turn the fuel pump on
> and off via the relay, then presumably it would be possible
> to add some code which turned off the fuel pump if the engine
> stopped running - providing a useful safety feature(?)
>
> Have I missed something?
>
> Robin 



From spees at iquest.net  Fri Sep 14 16:28:47 2007
From: spees at iquest.net (T & J Spees)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:28:47 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS Question
Message-ID: <mailman.46.1191376431.4273.gmecm@diy-efi.org>

 

 

Hello All,

 

I am new to the group and I am hoping I might be able to get some help.  I
have installed a TPI system running with a 727 ECM.  I have just connected a
VSS in an attempt to get rid of code 24.  I am using a stealth conversion 4
pulse sensor that allows the connection of the mechanical speedo cable to
the car.  The ecm does not appear to be reading the signal from the VSS.  I
connected the VSS to the ECM via a twisted wire pair to pins for the VSS on
the ECM according to the schematics.  Everything else works, but I still get
a code 24.  Also when I attempt to view the data stream with Tunerpro, the
vehicle speed shows as zero.  I have manually checked the VSS by spinning
with a drill, and it was producing AC voltage.  So, I expect the VSS is
working.

 

Can anyone provide some suggestions?  Any help would be appreciated.



From jay at vessels-clan.com  Fri Sep 14 17:10:26 2007
From: jay at vessels-clan.com (Jay Vessels)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:10:26 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS Question
Message-ID: <46EB06D2.1060201@vessels-clan.com>

Hi there!

I don't know what MEMCAL (chip) you're using (please mention the BCC -- 
broadcast code -- which is a 3 or 4 letter string on the MEMCAL label 
like AUJP), but does it expect a magnetic VSS (4000 PPM, AC signal) or 
an optical one (2000 PPM, 5V square wave)?  The 727 and 730 can use 
either, but the MEMCAL has to be programmed to look for one versus the 
other.  It's an easy programming change (one 1-bit flag determines which 
VSS input it monitors).  If you're burning your own chips, this should 
be easy to check and change.

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

T & J Spees wrote:
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Hello All,
> 
>  
> 
> I am new to the group and I am hoping I might be able to get some help.  I
> have installed a TPI system running with a 727 ECM.  I have just connected a
> VSS in an attempt to get rid of code 24.  I am using a stealth conversion 4
> pulse sensor that allows the connection of the mechanical speedo cable to
> the car.  The ecm does not appear to be reading the signal from the VSS.  I
> connected the VSS to the ECM via a twisted wire pair to pins for the VSS on
> the ECM according to the schematics.  Everything else works, but I still get
> a code 24.  Also when I attempt to view the data stream with Tunerpro, the
> vehicle speed shows as zero.  I have manually checked the VSS by spinning
> with a drill, and it was producing AC voltage.  So, I expect the VSS is
> working.
> 
>  
> 
> Can anyone provide some suggestions?  Any help would be appreciated.


From stefan at engh.com  Sat Sep 15 03:40:16 2007
From: stefan at engh.com (Stefan Engh)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:40:16 +0200
Subject: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?
Message-ID: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com>

Hello everyone,
This is my first post to the list. I hit myself daily for not having woken up to this EFI stuff at least ten years ago! Playing catch-up is reeking havoc with my beauty sleep ;-)
 
It all started about two years ago when I bought a 1995 6.5TD Suburban (ECM 16212488) and found out there where no PC scan tools available. I started developing one for myself. It's called GMTDScan and has been out for almost a year now. The last couple of days I've been playing with adding a ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dump feature to it. I figured it would be a good way to harvest stock bins from the 1994-95 6.5TD. Here's where I am having problems...
 
I can only get it to dump addresses $4000-$FFFF. Trying to dump anything above $4000 only returns the value of last byte ($FFFF).
Could someone please shed some light on why it works that way?
What type of information is stored in the $0000-$3FFF address range?
 
/Stefan
 
 
 


From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Sep 15 04:09:29 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:09:29 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?
References: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com>
Message-ID: <025c01c7f778$2194bb00$020101c0@gandalf>

Are you sure that your MemCal is 64 K?

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefan Engh" <stefan at engh.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 15 September 2007 09:40
Subject: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?


Hello everyone,
This is my first post to the list. I hit myself daily for not having woken 
up to this EFI stuff at least ten years ago! Playing catch-up is reeking 
havoc with my beauty sleep ;-)

It all started about two years ago when I bought a 1995 6.5TD Suburban (ECM 
16212488) and found out there where no PC scan tools available. I started 
developing one for myself. It's called GMTDScan and has been out for almost 
a year now. The last couple of days I've been playing with adding a ALDL 
MODE2/MODE3 bin dump feature to it. I figured it would be a good way to 
harvest stock bins from the 1994-95 6.5TD. Here's where I am having 
problems...

I can only get it to dump addresses $4000-$FFFF. Trying to dump anything 
above $4000 only returns the value of last byte ($FFFF).
Could someone please shed some light on why it works that way?
What type of information is stored in the $0000-$3FFF address range?

/Stefan



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



From Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk  Sat Sep 15 07:17:51 2007
From: Terminal_Crazy at sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk (Terminal Crazy)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:17:51 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?
In-Reply-To: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com>
References: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com>
Message-ID: <4f22b5a96eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk>

On 15 Sep, Stefan Engh <stefan at engh.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I can help directly, but as a programmer these statemnents
sound odd....

> I can only get it to dump addresses $4000-$FFFF. Trying to dump anything
> above $4000 only returns the value of last byte ($FFFF). 
I presume you mean you can only dump out $0000 to $3fff (16k )

> Could someone please shed some light on why it works that way? 
Not really unless you can only address the 16k  like Rob said.
Most stuff that I've seen usually maps higher address over the same range
unless it addressable or just not available.

> What type of information is stored in the $0000-$3FFF address range?
No Idea.

Where did you get your ALDL info from? Was it the lists in the archives
off the 'net, I can't remember where I got them from without looking at
my notes.

-- 
Terminal_Crazy

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



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Sep 15 10:15:46 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:15:46 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] Natural gas law
References: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com>
	<4f22b5a96eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <028d01c7f7ab$4d7f5fd0$020101c0@gandalf>

I've been trying to match the $58 BPW calculation with a hand made BPW 
calculation spreadsheet - which is based on the natural gas law.

What's confusing me ATM is that, in $58, the inverse air temperature 
correction factor (array F31M) does not change when the MAT value is >23.5 
C.

Since gas mass is inversely proportional to gas temperature (if pressure and 
volume are constant), the MAT contribution should have an effect at all 
temperatures, and this effect IS significant above 23.5 C.

What am I missing?

Rob 



From spees at iquest.net  Sat Sep 15 13:49:25 2007
From: spees at iquest.net (T & J Spees)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:49:25 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS Question
In-Reply-To: <46EB06D2.1060201@vessels-clan.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.47.1191376431.4273.gmecm@diy-efi.org>

Thanks for the suggestion.  I am using an AXXD chip.  I checked the bit for
the VSS and it appears to be set correctly - 0 for the magnetic 4k sensor.
Just for grins, I tried it with the bit set to 1, and it didn't work.  Any
other ideas?

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Jay Vessels
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:10 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] VSS Question

Hi there!

I don't know what MEMCAL (chip) you're using (please mention the BCC -- 
broadcast code -- which is a 3 or 4 letter string on the MEMCAL label 
like AUJP), but does it expect a magnetic VSS (4000 PPM, AC signal) or 
an optical one (2000 PPM, 5V square wave)?  The 727 and 730 can use 
either, but the MEMCAL has to be programmed to look for one versus the 
other.  It's an easy programming change (one 1-bit flag determines which 
VSS input it monitors).  If you're burning your own chips, this should 
be easy to check and change.

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

T & J Spees wrote:
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Hello All,
> 
>  
> 
> I am new to the group and I am hoping I might be able to get some help.  I
> have installed a TPI system running with a 727 ECM.  I have just connected
a
> VSS in an attempt to get rid of code 24.  I am using a stealth conversion
4
> pulse sensor that allows the connection of the mechanical speedo cable to
> the car.  The ecm does not appear to be reading the signal from the VSS.
I
> connected the VSS to the ECM via a twisted wire pair to pins for the VSS
on
> the ECM according to the schematics.  Everything else works, but I still
get
> a code 24.  Also when I attempt to view the data stream with Tunerpro, the
> vehicle speed shows as zero.  I have manually checked the VSS by spinning
> with a drill, and it was producing AC voltage.  So, I expect the VSS is
> working.
> 
>  
> 
> Can anyone provide some suggestions?  Any help would be appreciated.
_______________________________________________
Gmecm mailing list
Gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subscribe: http://lists.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/gmecm
Main WWW page: http://www.diy-efi.org/gmecm



From stefan at engh.com  Sat Sep 15 14:35:27 2007
From: stefan at engh.com (Stefan Engh)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:35:27 +0200
Subject: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?
References: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com>
	<4f22b5a96eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743982@speedshop.engh.com>

Sorry about getting above/below messed up... I was looking at the bin in a hex editor.
 
I can only dump $4000-$FFFF. When trying to dump something in the $0000-$3FFF range every address gets the value of the $FFFF byte. From what I know the tables are located in the $4000-$FFFF range... $4000-$4001 Scan ID, $4006-$4007 Checksum, $4008 Mask ID and so on. Haven't got a clue what's in the $0000-$3FFF range and why it refuses to dump. I was hoping I would be able to read the entire EPROM as if it was sitting in a programmer.
 
/Stefan

________________________________

From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org on behalf of Terminal Crazy
Sent: Sat 2007-09-15 14:17
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?



On 15 Sep, Stefan Engh <stefan at engh.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I can help directly, but as a programmer these statemnents
sound odd....

> I can only get it to dump addresses $4000-$FFFF. Trying to dump anything
> above $4000 only returns the value of last byte ($FFFF).
I presume you mean you can only dump out $0000 to $3fff (16k )

> Could someone please shed some light on why it works that way?
Not really unless you can only address the 16k  like Rob said.
Most stuff that I've seen usually maps higher address over the same range
unless it addressable or just not available.

> What type of information is stored in the $0000-$3FFF address range?
No Idea.

Where did you get your ALDL info from? Was it the lists in the archives
off the 'net, I can't remember where I got them from without looking at
my notes.

--
Terminal_Crazy

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

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



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sat Sep 15 15:39:30 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:39:30 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?
References: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com><4f22b5a96eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk>
	<45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743982@speedshop.engh.com>
Message-ID: <02bd01c7f7d8$85a5ca20$020101c0@gandalf>

I can read an entire 32K EPROM from my ECM, via ALDL, as if it was sitting 
in a programmer. The EPROM is in the address range $8000-$FFFF.

As I said, how big is your EPROM?

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefan Engh" <stefan at engh.com>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 15 September 2007 20:35
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?


Sorry about getting above/below messed up... I was looking at the bin in a 
hex editor.

I can only dump $4000-$FFFF. When trying to dump something in the 
$0000-$3FFF range every address gets the value of the $FFFF byte. From what 
I know the tables are located in the $4000-$FFFF range... $4000-$4001 Scan 
ID, $4006-$4007 Checksum, $4008 Mask ID and so on. Haven't got a clue what's 
in the $0000-$3FFF range and why it refuses to dump. I was hoping I would be 
able to read the entire EPROM as if it was sitting in a programmer.

/Stefan

________________________________

From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org on behalf of Terminal Crazy
Sent: Sat 2007-09-15 14:17
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?



On 15 Sep, Stefan Engh <stefan at engh.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I can help directly, but as a programmer these statemnents
sound odd....

> I can only get it to dump addresses $4000-$FFFF. Trying to dump anything
> above $4000 only returns the value of last byte ($FFFF).
I presume you mean you can only dump out $0000 to $3fff (16k )

> Could someone please shed some light on why it works that way?
Not really unless you can only address the 16k  like Rob said.
Most stuff that I've seen usually maps higher address over the same range
unless it addressable or just not available.

> What type of information is stored in the $0000-$3FFF address range?
No Idea.

Where did you get your ALDL info from? Was it the lists in the archives
off the 'net, I can't remember where I got them from without looking at
my notes.

--
Terminal_Crazy

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




From ssealander at Stny.rr.com  Sat Sep 15 15:52:17 2007
From: ssealander at Stny.rr.com (Scot Sealander)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:52:17 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?
In-Reply-To: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743982@speedshop.engh.com>
Message-ID: <200709152052.l8FKq8V1010312@ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com>

GM puts address restrictions in the ALDL code to keep you from reading
things that could cause problems.  You should be able to read the RAM ok
though. 

Scot

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Stefan Engh
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 3:35 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?

Sorry about getting above/below messed up... I was looking at the bin in a
hex editor.
 
I can only dump $4000-$FFFF. When trying to dump something in the
$0000-$3FFF range every address gets the value of the $FFFF byte. From what
I know the tables are located in the $4000-$FFFF range... $4000-$4001 Scan
ID, $4006-$4007 Checksum, $4008 Mask ID and so on. Haven't got a clue what's
in the $0000-$3FFF range and why it refuses to dump. I was hoping I would be
able to read the entire EPROM as if it was sitting in a programmer.
 
/Stefan





From stefan at engh.com  Sat Sep 15 16:14:40 2007
From: stefan at engh.com (Stefan Engh)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:14:40 +0200
Subject: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?
References: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com><4f22b5a96eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk><45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743982@speedshop.engh.com>
	<02bd01c7f7d8$85a5ca20$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743983@speedshop.engh.com>

It is 64K (27C512).
Scot's comment about address restrictions confirms my suspicions... bummer.
 
/Stefan

________________________________

From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org on behalf of Rob Handley
Sent: Sat 2007-09-15 22:39
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] 16212488 ALDL MODE2/MODE3 bin dumping?



I can read an entire 32K EPROM from my ECM, via ALDL, as if it was sitting
in a programmer. The EPROM is in the address range $8000-$FFFF.

As I said, how big is your EPROM?

Rob



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Sep 16 05:34:33 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:34:33 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] BPC
References: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com><4f22b5a96eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk>
	<028d01c7f7ab$4d7f5fd0$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <039f01c7f84d$2ea31b40$020101c0@gandalf>

Has anybody looked in detail at the BPC value in $58 array F28?

If my calculations are correct, the standard BPC value is computed using the 
same value of injector flow rate that is stored at KDISFS, a litres/cyl 
value of 0.5, and a multiplicative factor of 0.5 (to compensate for the fact 
that the injectors are firing twice per cylinder firing).

Does this match others' understanding?

If so, then values for F28 for a new application can be directly computed 
from the standard ones, based on the new litres/cyl and injector flow rate.

Apologies if this is old news, but all the references that I've seen seem to 
consider the F28 values as something that you have to 'fiddle' with. I'm 
trying to get F28 set 'right' before mapping the VE table for my engine - so 
that a theoretical VE table computed from peak engine power/RPM will be a 
good starting point and then only the VE table will need to be adjusted. 
That's the plan, anyway!

Rob

P.S. I'm making progress in matching the coded BPW calculation with the 
ideal gas law, but still don't understand why the MAT' contribution should 
plateau at temperatures above 23.5 C. I've verified my understanding of the 
code by twiddling a pot on the MAT lines and displaying the F31M looked-up 
value via ALDL. Is there another place in the code where MAT is used, that 
I've missed? 



From Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk  Sun Sep 16 06:57:51 2007
From: Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk (Rob Handley)
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:57:51 +0100
Subject: [Gmecm] BPC
References: <45FDDB5673D1FC4DBC019249E16917743981@speedshop.engh.com><4f22b5a96eTerminal_Crazy@sand-hill.freeserve.co.uk><028d01c7f7ab$4d7f5fd0$020101c0@gandalf>
	<039f01c7f84d$2ea31b40$020101c0@gandalf>
Message-ID: <03bb01c7f859$7ad07c90$020101c0@gandalf>

Typical! I work this BPC stuff out for myself then find it on thirdgen.org.

Now trying to find confirmation that the standard Sunbird injectors are
rated at: 4.5 US liquid gallons / hour...

Rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Handley" <Robin at FuryWorld.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <gmecm at diy-efi.org>
Sent: 16 September 2007 11:34
Subject: [Gmecm] BPC


> Has anybody looked in detail at the BPC value in $58 array F28?
>
> If my calculations are correct, the standard BPC value is computed using
> the same value of injector flow rate that is stored at KDISFS, a
> litres/cyl value of 0.5, and a multiplicative factor of 0.5 (to compensate
> for the fact that the injectors are firing twice per cylinder firing).
>
> Does this match others' understanding?
>
> If so, then values for F28 for a new application can be directly computed
> from the standard ones, based on the new litres/cyl and injector flow
> rate.
>
> Apologies if this is old news, but all the references that I've seen seem
> to consider the F28 values as something that you have to 'fiddle' with.
> I'm trying to get F28 set 'right' before mapping the VE table for my
> engine - so that a theoretical VE table computed from peak engine
> power/RPM will be a good starting point and then only the VE table will
> need to be adjusted. That's the plan, anyway!
>
> Rob
>
> P.S. I'm making progress in matching the coded BPW calculation with the
> ideal gas law, but still don't understand why the MAT' contribution should
> plateau at temperatures above 23.5 C. I've verified my understanding of
> the code by twiddling a pot on the MAT lines and displaying the F31M
> looked-up value via ALDL. Is there another place in the code where MAT is
> used, that I've missed?



From spees at iquest.net  Sun Sep 16 15:33:20 2007
From: spees at iquest.net (T & J Spees)
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:33:20 -0400
Subject: [Gmecm] VSS Question
Message-ID: <mailman.48.1191376431.4273.gmecm@diy-efi.org>

Hey, I thought I would let you know that I got my ECM to read the VSS.  It
works a lot better when you change the correct bit.  It is now working
correctly thanks to your suggestion.

-----Original Message-----
From: T & J Spees [mailto:spees at iquest.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 2:49 PM
To: 'gmecm at diy-efi.org'
Subject: RE: [Gmecm] VSS Question

Thanks for the suggestion.  I am using an AXXD chip.  I checked the bit for
the VSS and it appears to be set correctly - 0 for the magnetic 4k sensor.
Just for grins, I tried it with the bit set to 1, and it didn't work.  Any
other ideas?

-----Original Message-----
From: gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:gmecm-bounces at diy-efi.org] On Behalf
Of Jay Vessels
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:10 PM
To: gmecm at diy-efi.org
Subject: Re: [Gmecm] VSS Question

Hi there!

I don't know what MEMCAL (chip) you're using (please mention the BCC -- 
broadcast code -- which is a 3 or 4 letter string on the MEMCAL label 
like AUJP), but does it expect a magnetic VSS (4000 PPM, AC signal) or 
an optical one (2000 PPM, 5V square wave)?  The 727 and 730 can use 
either, but the MEMCAL has to be programmed to look for one versus the 
other.  It's an easy programming change (one 1-bit flag determines which 
VSS input it monitors).  If you're burning your own chips, this should 
be easy to check and change.

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

T & J Spees wrote:
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Hello All,
> 
>  
> 
> I am new to the group and I am hoping I might be able to get some help.  I
> have installed a TPI system running with a 727 ECM.  I have just connected
a
> VSS in an attempt to get rid