What does make an aftermarket better?

[bruce]

Originally posted by HighPSI

Perhaps we can get a chip guru to put a stock ecm and chip in one of my FAST customers car (since no-one wants to attempt putting one in my car).
It would be interesting to compare how quickly each car gets dialed in and how close to the previous performance level we can get.
Do you think this would be a valid comparison, Bruce?

I think the best is using a given tune.
Use a Spec for the PW, and Timing and see what gives.

If you don't want to give away your best tune, that's understandable, but say, I'm using X PWs, and Y timing, and see what happens. If we do other then that, then we're looking at tuner vs tuner, and that's not what this is about.

 

[baadgn]

Bruce

Nobody is doubting that a stock style ecm can't support a 8.57 1000hp gn . But what we ALL are saying is that the aftermarket ones are easier and quicker to tune. It would not be a fair comparason for you to use cal's program as a starting point as I know cal would not be downloading roy's program as a starting point for the fast. Lets use what each car runs in its existing tune and see how fast that number can be reached with the new setup. That would be a fair comparason and so its not tuner against tuner lets say get it within 50 hp.



Tony Gomes
8.53 @164 @15psi of boost! MORE TO COME!!!
TSO outlaw's fastest car

 

[HighPSI]

Originally posted by bruce
I think the best is using a given tune.
Use a Spec for the PW, and Timing and see what gives.

If you don't want to give away your best tune, that's understandable, but say, I'm using X PWs, and Y timing, and see what happens. If we do other then that, then we're looking at tuner vs tuner, and that's not what this is about.

If you have the same pulsewidth and same timing value, like I have stated previously, you should run similar ET's. Maybe we should change your thread to "Will the car run the same with the exact same tune up regardless of ecm?". Then we might come to an agreement.
You claim "I can tune an oem ecm in the same number of runs as an aftermaket, if not fewer". I would really like to see this. Unfortunatly, I don't have a single aftermarket ecm customer willing to let you try this experiment. I have had lots of stock ecm guys willing to let me experiment in putting a FAST on their combinations. Thay have always gone faster. I wonder why? Especially since it's so easy to tune with the stock ecm (your words).
FWIW: I doubt that anything I do will lead you to believe there is an advantage with the stock ecm.

Also, I know how irritated you get when someone doesn't respond to your question. Perhaps, you missed my question, asking you to explain "And if your looking for a 1/4d remember there is that ugly spur geared oil pump and those cam lobes bumping the valves open and closed adding some jitter to the timing sensors themselves".

 

[boostcreep]

And if your looking for a 1/4d remember there is that ugly spur geared oil pump and those cam lobes bumping the valves open and closed adding some jitter to the timing sensors themselves".

I don't understand this.....please explain....

Nick

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by baadgn
Bruce
Nobody is doubting that a stock style ecm can't support a 8.57 1000hp gn . But what we ALL are saying is that the aftermarket ones are easier and quicker to tune. It would not be a fair comparason for you to use cal's program as a starting point as I know cal would not be downloading roy's program as a starting point for the fast. Lets use what each car runs in its existing tune and see how fast that number can be reached with the new setup. That would be a fair comparason and so its not tuner against tuner lets say get it within 50 hp.

Have you looked at something like the MAFless R ME?.

For the really experienced guy, it's a wash. He knows both systems, and can call up stuff from memory to rough things in.

But, if you look back at the opening statement I said they should both run the same, and the purpose of this thread was for looking for some hard data about what made an aftermarket better, IGNORING the software interface. ie was there some code or something that really made them better.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by HighPSI
If you have the same pulsewidth and same timing value, like I have stated previously, you should run similar ET's. Maybe we should change your thread to "Will the car run the same with the exact same tune up regardless of ecm?". Then we might come to an agreement.
You claim "I can tune an oem ecm in the same number of runs as an aftermaket, if not fewer". I would really like to see this. Unfortunatly, I don't have a single aftermarket ecm customer willing to let you try this experiment. I have had lots of stock ecm guys willing to let me experiment in putting a FAST on their combinations. Thay have always gone faster. I wonder why? Especially since it's so easy to tune with the stock ecm (your words).
FWIW: I doubt that anything I do will lead you to believe there is an advantage with the stock ecm.

Also, I know how irritated you get when someone doesn't respond to your question. Perhaps, you missed my question, asking you to explain "And if your looking for a 1/4d remember there is that ugly spur geared oil pump and those cam lobes bumping the valves open and closed adding some jitter to the timing sensors themselves".

I did ask given identical timing and PWs which was better, it's in the opening sentence.

I can take the data from one tune, run it thru the ecm bench and get things really close for the next pass, so far the aftermarkets don't have an engine simulator to evaluate data, whereas I do. Like I said, I could, but in a sense it's because I have not so typical resources.

Repeat anything long enough and people can be brainwashed. For a decade the aftermarket avertising has been hammering on ease of tuning, and yet as time progresses they get more and more complex. It takes a min level of sophistication for EFI to really be all it can be. It also seems people are really into eye candy, the prettier the software, the more they're willing to put the time in to learn it.

It's all immaterial to me.
I can get either to work.
I was just trying to find out if there was any hard data to prove the aftermarkets were actually better.

Ain't nothing around here going to irrate me.
FWIW,
While most people are A or B personalities, I'm a C or D. My Blood Pressure is usually 90/60 and a pulse less then 70. I usually write in short and concise manner, and folks often see that as having an attitude, when it's just not the case. Mix in being not too PC, and there's more then enough room to get the wrong idea. BTW, you know we have met. At BG last year, I was in the parking lot and offered to help you with the H/G R+R. But you had more then enough volunteers.

The actual motion of a crank spinning is actually not constant. In the world of software where things can be sampled millions of times a sec.,if you look at the crank's motion in small enough intervals, it's very jerky. In the software there are bits of code for averaging, and rates of sampling. The difference between the two are going to cause an error, while small it's still there.

If you really want an eye opener, visit Comp Cams and see if you can see their Optitron in action. Things that look to be a smooth and constant motion in an engine, really aren't.

 

[HighPSI]

Originally posted by bruce
I did ask given identical timing and PWs which was better, it's in the opening sentence.

Then I agree there isn't any difference. In fact, we can probably get pretty close with a carberator and points ignition if we can somehow get the same amount of fuel going in and keep the timing the same. Although, I still believe the electronic fuel injection is better in many other ways.

Originally posted by bruce
I can take the data from one tune, run it thru the ecm bench and get things really close for the next pass, so far the aftermarkets don't have an engine simulator to evaluate data, whereas I do. Like I said, I could, but in a sense it's because I have not so typical resources.

I usually just look at the data log, make changes, and in 30 seconds, the car is ready for the next pass, no jumping from one program to the next, one computer talking to one laptop.

Originally posted by bruce
It's all immaterial to me.
I can get either to work.
I was just trying to find out if there was any hard data to prove the aftermarkets were actually better.

I'm not exactly sure what type of data I could provide over the internet vs me going to the track and showing you how quickly you can dial in a car, make changes, data log, etc.. Kind of like you testing on the bench while I tune at the track. Does the bench show you when an improvement gives you more hp (like a timeslip does)?

Originally posted by bruce
Ain't nothing around here going to irrate me.
FWIW,
While most people are A or B personalities, I'm a C or D. My Blood Pressure is usually 90/60 and a pulse less then 70. I usually write in short and concise manner, and folks often see that as having an attitude, when it's just not the case. Mix in being not too PC, and there's more then enough room to get the wrong idea. BTW, you know we have met. At BG last year, I was in the parking lot and offered to help you with the H/G R+R. But you had more then enough volunteers.

I am not trying to put this on a personal level, either. Perhaps I came across a little too strong.

Originally posted by bruce
The actual motion of a crank spinning is actually not constant. In the world of software where things can be sampled millions of times a sec.,if you look at the crank's motion in small enough intervals, it's very jerky. In the software there are bits of code for averaging, and rates of sampling. The difference between the two are going to cause an error, while small it's still there.

Interesting. I wonder how much timing error we would see on a Buick.

 

[BoostKillsStres]

Could CAL or someone with a FAST post a link to a screenshot of a good pass so us non FAST prople could get a look at some data and see what you guys see?

 

[Glen]

If I get you right, Bruce, what you are asking is the sampling rates and processing rates of the two aftermarket ECM's in question?

Given the correct mapping of each, they should equal the other out. The only thing that would change that is the "acurate" sampling rate and the processing rate the corrections are made, given all can correct on the fly.

That, I think, should bring up the question of ' why hasn't anyone used a later model ECM with it much faster processing rate', perhaps one from a supercharged buick?

Or, how fast does fast really have to be?

As for the cranking whipping back and forth, 'ain't that somethin'?
OBDII can actually sense the crank stopping during a miss fire and log the cylinder.

Was at Smokey Yunicks 'Best Damn Garage' one year during SpeedWeeks and he showed us how a valve bounces off it's seat @ 4000 rpm due to bad guides and seat wear.
You know he was an originater of the spintron many, many years ago?

 

[baadgn]

Bruce

Since some of the pro guys (duttweiler) (moran) (conley) and some of us slower guys all use the aftermarket systems I guess the processor speed being slower according to your findings is not a factor in the decision. What appears to be the deciding factor is the ease of tuning and getting to the final result quicker. bruce you will have to convince me and many others that the stock style ecm can be tuned in just as quick AT THE TRACK then an aftermarket system can be. Call it brainwash or what you will but these racers can't all be wrong you need to prove to us your theory will work.Its up to you bruce the ball is in your court.


P.S. To answer the original question from post # 1 ease of tuning is why aftermarket is better thats it its that simple.


Tony Gomes
8.53 @164 @15psi of boost! MORE TO COME!!!
TSO outlaw's fastest car

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Glen

That, I think, should bring up the question of ' why hasn't anyone used a later model ECM with it much faster processing rate', perhaps one from a supercharged buick?

Or, how fast does fast really have to be?

As for the cranking whipping back and forth, 'ain't that somethin'?
OBDII can actually sense the crank stopping during a miss fire and log the cylinder.

Was at Smokey Yunicks 'Best Damn Garage' one year during SpeedWeeks and he showed us how a valve bounces off it's seat @ 4000 rpm due to bad guides and seat wear.
You know he was an originater of the spintron many, many years ago?

I've run a later ecm. The P4 is 2x as fast as the C3 as far as processor speed. Other then the faster ALDL data stream the improvement, there really isn't much difference.

I didn't mention the miss fire detection, just to limit the tangents possible.

I think I've read everything Smokey had ever written to include the old Popular Mechanics article.

 

[Laterrr]

Originally posted by bruce
I did ask given identical timing and PWs which was better, it's in the opening sentence.

Okay, I maintain that at a given pulse width and amount of timing at a given engine condition, I can build a hardwired electronic circuit that will have the same electrical characteristics as a stock ECM or an aftermarket ECM. A couple of 555's and some basic glue logic. Or, for more accuracy, an oscillator and some
counters instead of the 555's. Getting to the right pulse width and timing is a different issue.

I think everybody tried to ignore the simplistic phraseology of the initial statement here and tried to address the intent clarified in the text following.

What aftermarket advantages have we seen mentioned so far in this thread?
1. -WB feedback.
2. -3,4, and 5 BAR boost sensing.
3. -Easy data logging.
4. -Overlay a run on VE tables.
5. -Real time programming/updating no burning chips.
6. -Support from the ECM manufacturer.
7. -All this integrated in a single package.

True, with enough cables, switching back and forth from this package to that one, you can approximate most of this using an OEM ECM and a bunch of aftermarket stuff. Integrating data logs
from multiple sources - assuming you're logging a WB O2. A Romulator to avoid burning chips. The learning curve for that stuff is a lot higher. All to save maybe $500.

Of course, you can't get manufacturer (GM) support for the OEM ECM either.

BTW, someone should have pointed out that the WB feedback is a redundant safety feature in the FAST. The primary settings are from the tables and the WB correction is limited to a use-specified percentage (in case the WB dies). This is a great feature (I wish I had) not something to be discounted as a single point of failure. I think the Gen vii+ was mentioned to do something similiar.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that the aftermarket ECMs offer some interfaces to other aftermarket systems (NOS, two-step, shift lights, ign systems, etc) that aren't really there on the stock ECM. If you want that feature, you can add other independent boxes to monitor things, and maybe a code patch, but the FAST and DFI's have controllable nterfaces built in. Incidentally, one of Bruce's responses was slightly in error. My old DFI has an interface I used for TCC before I went to a non-lockup converter. It wasn't as good as the stock ECM TCC control, but it did work. From what I understand, the new stuff
is better. The one I have missed is the AC input for stalling control. I have heard that the Gen vii+ does monitor this.

All the above is factual, not opinions. These are differences between stock OEM and aftermarket ECM's. I tried to get Bruce to give us real specs for the stock ECM. He didn't want to play. I provided info for the aftermarket ECM I have used. Steve Y gave us the only other performance data. Bruce you haven't contributed any. You always harp on people not answering your
questions, but you consistently ignore specific questions directed to you.

Incidentally, I got curious. That 0.25 degree and 0.3 degree of timing adjustment? They're are talking about .003 in of piston travel in the 20* BTDC area. I think most of us will accept that
vibrations in the engine can make 3 thousandth of an inch of jitter in a piston. Of course, we won't see all the jitter that has been alluded to. The Buick crankshaft sensor only produces
3 pulses per revolution and they are all lined up with piston activity. BTW, this jitter isn't really making the crankshaft
jerk back and forth. It doesn't stop and go backwards. It is small uneven variations in the RPM. When you use a synchronous strobe light it sure looks like it's jerking back and forth though..

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Laterrr


What aftermarket advantages have we seen mentioned so far in this thread?
1. -WB feedback.
2. -3,4, and 5 BAR boost sensing.
3. -Easy data logging.
4. -Overlay a run on VE tables.
5. -Real time programming/updating no burning chips.
6. -Support from the ECM manufacturer.
7. -All this integrated in a single package.

True, with enough cables, switching back and forth from this package to that one, you can approximate most of this using an OEM ECM and a bunch of aftermarket stuff. Integrating data logs
from multiple sources - assuming you're logging a WB O2. A Romulator to avoid burning chips. The learning curve for that stuff is a lot higher. All to save maybe $500.

Of course, you can't get manufacturer (GM) support for the OEM ECM either.

BTW, someone should have pointed out that the WB feedback is a redundant safety feature in the FAST. The primary settings are from the tables and the WB correction is limited to a use-specified percentage (in case the WB dies). This is a great feature (I wish I had) not something to be discounted as a single point of failure. I think the Gen vii+ was mentioned to do something similiar.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that the aftermarket ECMs offer some interfaces to other aftermarket systems (NOS, two-step, shift lights, ign systems, etc) that aren't really there on the stock ECM. If you want that feature, you can add other independent boxes to monitor things, and maybe a code patch, but the FAST and DFI's have controllable nterfaces built in. Incidentally, one of Bruce's responses was slightly in error. My old DFI has an interface I used for TCC before I went to a non-lockup converter. It wasn't as good as the stock ECM TCC control, but it did work. From what I understand, the new stuff
is better. The one I have missed is the AC input for stalling control. I have heard that the Gen vii+ does monitor this.

All the above is factual, not opinions. These are differences between stock OEM and aftermarket ECM's. I tried to get Bruce to give us real specs for the stock ECM. He didn't want to play. I provided info for the aftermarket ECM I have used. Steve Y gave us the only other performance data. Bruce you haven't contributed any. You always harp on people not answering your
questions, but you consistently ignore specific questions directed to you.

Incidentally, I got curious. That 0.25 degree and 0.3 degree of timing adjustment? They're are talking about .003 in of piston travel in the 20* BTDC area. I think most of us will accept that
vibrations in the engine can make 3 thousandth of an inch of jitter in a piston. Of course, we won't see all the jitter that has been alluded to. The Buick crankshaft sensor only produces
3 pulses per revolution and they are all lined up with piston activity. BTW, this jitter isn't really making the crankshaft
jerk back and forth. It doesn't stop and go backwards. It is small uneven variations in the RPM. When you use a synchronous strobe light it sure looks like it's jerking back and forth though..

I guess having a 12 cylinder ability is also something the oem lacks, but with this being a Trubo Buick site, I thought we would take it as a given we'd be buick specific. So the 4-5 bar stuff is just fluff with no real connection to the turbo buick world, IMO.

Your pricing seems way out of line. It's more like 600 vs $2K+.

OK, and if just having it work it OK, like what you mention the old DFI did, then using a switch for NOS control should gualify as being OK to use with the oem for NOS control. Your call about what leave of performance is good enough.

What specific guestion have I ignored?.
ECM specs? look at a wiring diagram and you can see the I/O, operates on 12v. You want more details like I said goggle, that's what I'd do. I don't have all the specs for trivia memorized. Your one of the people claiming to be so experienced with processors, show me any claim I've made about being an expert in anything.
Odd how you rant about some items, and are a classical example as what you see as being a problem.

And to me the WB is a single point failure item. Your opinion may vary on that. If you have to get the tune close to use it, then what work is it saving you?. And they are easy to kill. Not to mention a REPLACEMENT cost of about $400. $400 for a sensor is alot of money in my book. Especially since one can be wired up and running for a little over 1/2 of that and if that sensor dies it's only $170 to replace. Not to mention the cost of the WB option to begin with.

And your attempt at making 2 cables sound so complicated I find laughable. If someone finds having to use 2 cables so extremely complicated to use, they really ought not be tuning EFI to begin with, IMO. What difference is there really between swapping screens from DS to R_T? It just takes one click, I dunno but I doubt it's any easier to swap from logging to editing then one click.
But again this is getting off subject from what the intent of the thread was.

BTW with so few posts, did you just drop in for this thread?.

 

[baadgn]

I guess having a 12 cylinder ability is also something the oem lacks, but with this being a Trubo Buick site, I thought we would take it as a given we'd be buick specific. So the 4-5 bar stuff is just fluff with no real connection to the turbo buick world, IMO.

Bruce

Who Is talking 12 cylinder, and the 4-5 bar sensor thing WHAT does that have to do with a 6 or a 12 cylinder there are plenty buick V6's running over 32# of boost hence the need for a 4-5 bar sensor. Stick with the facts bruce one fact is you have not responded to my post about installing it in a aftermarket controlled car and tuning it to to its present level +or- 50 hp in a reasnable amount of time say 3. Bruce don't take this personal but if you know what you are talking about then you need to prove it by showing us how its done because others have shown us already on God's dyno good ole 1320ft Duttweiler, Job spetter, Cal hartline, Jack cotton and many other proven tuners.Some of who you are challenging WHY ? They have proved the aftermarket works you haven't prove how easy it is to tune and moniter and make changes then people will listen.Remember good ole 1320 dont lie the bench well thats like honest it made 900 hp on a motor dyno but the track must be uphill.

Tony Gomes
TSO OutLaw
8.53@164

 

[Laterrr]

Originally posted by bruce
I guess having a 12 cylinder ability is also something the oem lacks, but with this being a Trubo Buick site, I thought we would take it as a given we'd be buick specific. So the 4-5 bar stuff is just fluff with no real connection to the turbo buick world, IMO.

I don't know squat about other cars. Buicks are the only thing I've played with for the last 8-9 years. A 4 bar MAP is a distinct possibility in a racing Buick.

Your pricing seems way out of line. It's more like 600 vs $2K+.

The $500 was Sully's number. He thought your $600 was low too. A couple of people in this thread have pointed out they got their FAST ECMs well below $2k.

OK, and if just having it work it OK, like what you mention the old DFI did, then using a switch for NOS control should gualify as being OK to use with the oem for NOS control. Your call about what leave of performance is good enough.

I pointed out the old DFI had poor, pratically non-existant TCC support. I think the Gen vii+ does have TCC support now. Maybe somebody can correct me if I'm wrong there? I'd bet the OEM TCC algorithms are better at locking and unlocking for various loads though. How good do they have to be? I don't know, my daily driver has a non-lockup. Regardless, a manual switch is not the same as a programmable I/O feature in a ECM.

What specific guestion have I ignored?.
ECM specs? look at a wiring diagram and you can see the I/O, operates on 12v. You want more details like I said goggle, that's what I'd do. I don't have all the specs for trivia memorized. Your one of the people claiming to be so experienced with processors, show me any claim I've made about being an expert in anything.
Odd how you rant about some items, and are a classical example as what you see as being a problem.

Specifically, you ignored my request for the PW resolution and range of the stock ECM. You brought up the PW and timing stuff and said you wanted to compare facts. I supplied facts for my aftermarket ECM. Bruce, you are the one claiming to be familiar with the OEM stuff. This is the Performance ECM forum. If we should listen to anything you have to say, shouldn't you answer the questions about pulse width and range? Go Google? That is my biggest complaint about the whole chip burning group. They have this elitist and protective attitude and rather than pool any knowledge to further the art, they say, "You need to go dig it out yourself, like I did." Science doesn't progress very well when everybody is forced to reinvent the wheel. Like I mentioned before, I see a different attitude among the aftermarket ECM people. They share specific detailed information and whole programs frequently.

And to me the WB is a single point failure item. Your opinion may vary on that. If you have to get the tune close to use it, then what work is it saving you?. And they are easy to kill. Not to mention a REPLACEMENT cost of about $400. $400 for a sensor is alot of money in my book. Especially since one can be wired up and running for a little over 1/2 of that and if that sensor dies it's only $170 to replace. Not to mention the cost of the WB option to begin with.

I don't think you read what I said about the WB as being a backup. You can set up the FAST to never take fuel out but add it if necessary. That sounds like a pretty nice safety feature. You make a run, overlay the run on the VE table and correct any deficiencies. Next run, you might have a WB failure. But, you updated your tables and nothing else broke. The WB said you were rich but you set it up so it wouldn't take out fuel so you're fine. How is that a single point failure? This is nothing like when I had a MAP failure and blew both head gaskets and wiped 3 cam lobes 400 miles from home -- with no trailer. :-(

And your attempt at making 2 cables sound so complicated I find laughable. If someone finds having to use 2 cables so extremely complicated to use, they really ought not be tuning EFI to begin with, IMO. What difference is there really between swapping screens from DS to R_T? It just takes one click, I dunno but I doubt it's any easier to swap from logging to editing then one click.
But again this is getting off subject from what the intent of the thread was.

I think Carl Ijames described 3 cables? When you're under the stress of the race track, anything can get away from you. I have been repeatedly frustrated by people I am helping to tune who can't even remember to arm their PC data logger after the burnout. This has happened with TurboLink, FAST and DFI. Any added complexity can be a significant problem under racing stress.

BTW with so few posts, did you just drop in for this thread?.

I'm usually a lurker. I signed up just to give you a hard time. No, not really. I actually have a lot of respect for your accomplishments. We just bought our 4th GN (got #1 8 years ago) and it has a FAST ECM so I was looking closer at what was out there. I actually found my original email from back in 1999 for the first time I signed up on turbobuick.com. They had a crash and I never really got in the habit. I'm not usually so talkative. I'll probably crawl back under my rock soon.


As a new topic pertaining to this thread, What is the maximum RPM a stock ECM can support? For that matter, I'd like to know what RPM a FAST and a Gen vii+ can support too. I've heard of a couple of Buicks that turned 8000+ but I don't know what they used for ECMs and ignition. I've also heard the stock ECM can't support 7500 RPM. I don't have any idea whether that is accurate. This is something a ECM bench could determine faster and safer than going to the track. (hint Bruce?) Of course, for a FAST or a Gen vii+ I can call up the manufacturer and ask. They would tell me, I'm sure. That's called support for the product. Something we don't get for a stock ECM.

Later,

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Laterrr

Specifically, you ignored my request for the PW resolution and range of the stock ECM. You brought up the PW and timing stuff and said you wanted to compare facts. I supplied facts for my aftermarket ECM. Bruce, you are the one claiming to be familiar with the OEM stuff.

I dont know, nor do I care, I was asking if anyone knew.

What ever, you still are turning this into something personal when all I was doing was ASKING GUESTIONS.

It too bad ASKING GUESTIONS just gets into personal trashing.

SHOW me where I've made any claims about what I know. Your the darned 20 year expert. And where is this explaination of what the PW resolution is, the you keep mentioning, that your've explained.

Gee have you noticed the thread about the Bug in the FAST software?. Lots of Factory answers on that, ie NONE.

It's amazing how you look so far down on folks.
Personally, I'd rather have a few stressors when racing so as to develope a clear mind, and being able to deal with an emergency such as a loose cable, then come race day, and then get frustrated by something. And you act like it's a big deal, it might be a lose wire for cryinoutloud.

And you constantly act like the topic is geared for ONLY some 6 sec race car. 4 bar, LOL, yep gots lots of guys running those. What maybe 2 guys?. OK, I'll give you that. Those 2 guys NEED a FAST. Oh BTW, what kind of resolution hit do they take when they go to 4 bar?. Do they get large tables, or just get to rescale things?.

Does the stock ecm go to 7K?
I dunno, why dont you build and ecm bench and figure it out?.
You said it earier on how much expertise you have in electroncis. Shouldn't take an expert like you more then a few minutes to build one, and then do a simulator for it. After all your the one with so much expertise.

Nice also how you dodge actually taking responsibility by saying you used someone elses numbers.

So far, other then bragging, miss stating opinions as facts and putting others down, I haven't seen where you've brought anything to the thread.

So far it's back to the aftermarkets having pretty software, and the ability to use just ONE cable.
Oh and the ability to run 4-5 bar, and 7K RPM, whew, just for grins now that the threads been completely trashed, anyone know of any Buicks running 5 bar at 7K RPM?.
At Bowling Green it seems like everyone was running 24 PSI, LOL.

As for the resolution of the PW, who cares if it's .0000002 or .00003?. I don't.
If the VE table doesn't offer that same degree of resolution in what you can edit, who cares?.

 

[10SV6]

Originally posted by baadgn Tony Gomes
8.53 @164 @15psi of boost! MORE TO COME!!!
TSO outlaw's fastest car [/B]

And the car weighs 2525 also.

Paul

 

[Scott231]

Originally posted by bruce
Does the stock ecm go to 7K?

Define "go to 7k." The stock rev limiter cannot be set above 6,250 RPMs, but that limitation was removed with the first Thrasher chip back in ~1991. The bigger problem may be the level of resolution for the fueling, timing and boost tables. I gave up on modifiying stock ECM chips a long, long time ago and thus do not have the answer.

<snip> to run 4-5 bar, and 7K RPM, whew, just for grins now that the threads been completely trashed, anyone know of any Buicks running 5 bar at 7K RPM?

Kent Rudbeck, Jim Dotson and Billy Anderson come to mind quickly. Not that they run up to 5 bar, but having the extra resolution is much akin to running larger-than-necessary injectors (i.e. you don't want to run out of tune-ability.) Note that many people that have a Stage 2 motor that go fast (i.e. low-8s) will be launching at over 6k and will be shifting around ~7,500+.

Aftermarket ECMS typically contain the resolution/capability to operate at up to 12,000 RPMs. At least the ones I have seen.

 

[Two Lane]

Originally posted by baadgn




God's dyno... good ole 1320ft


Tony Gomes
TSO OutLaw's BAAADEST & FASTEST competitor
8.53@164 @15psi of Boost! MORE TO COME!!

Tony,

That's got to be the best line out of the last 10,000 posts!!

Amen and three cheers, bud!!

 

[ijames]

The stock ecm pw is 0.015 msec; i. e. you can have 3.891 msec or 3.906 msec. However, the various PE fueling tables are all 8 bit multiplier numbers if I recall correctly so a change of 1 is a relative change of 1/256=0.0039 or 0.39%, which is much coarser at wot pw's of 15-20 msec (.39% of 20 msec is 0.078 msec). I'll look up the timing table resolution tonight and edit it in here.

Okay, I'm back now. The timing values are data byte=deg*256/90, or deg=byte*90/256 so 56=19.6875 deg and 57=20.0391 deg for a resolution of 0.3516 deg.

The inj timing 16bitword=pw in msec*65.536, so pw=16bitword/65.536, so 1310=19.9890 msec and 1311=20.0043 msec for a resolution of 0.0153 msec.

Laterr, whoever you are, I think that if you asked questions in the chip forum you would find several people willing to answer questions and teach whatever we know. Like Bruce said, the stock ecm world has changed in the last several years.