Cdeez

Can someone break it down for me, what all is involved when swapping a '7747 for a 16197427 ECM??

dimented24x7

Check this out: http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/tb...rting-tbi.html (Notes and information on converting to a TBI PCM)

Contains some good info on what you need to do to swap out the ECM for a PCM.

Cdeez

Thanks for the plug dim..

This swap really doesnt seem to be that bad...

__________________
'90 RCSB, .060 over 350, Crane 2030, Ultimate TBI mods&AdjFPR, port&polished swirlport heds, midlength heders, H-pipe, Dual 3" exhst, TB&Pod spacers, Home-made powercharger, E-Fan, T-56, '7747 ECM. 'the DIY mule'

GMEFIGUY

I've spent the last 3 days tuning a TPI system on a TBI Caprice 350 using the 16197427 PCM. The injector constants worked out like this. I have 19# 305 TPI injectors running at 52 PSI. They measured 20.8 #/hr so this works out. So with four 20.8 #/hr injectors per bank the injector constant that worked was 41.6 #/hr. You take the four injectors per bank which is 83.2 #/hr. Then divide by 2 due to the DRP scaling constant. That leaves 41.6 #/hr per bank. I have also verified this on a 6 cylinder MPFI and here is what worked. Say you have six 24#/hr injectors. That's 72 #/hr per bank divided by 1.5 DRP scaling factor for a 48#/hr injector constant. On a 4 cylinder MPFI the DRP scaling factor is 1 so you take the actual injector flow rate times two for a per bank injector constant. Anyone have any experience to dispute this?

gsjmtntman

Thanks, dimented24\7
http://s377.photobucket.com/albums/o...ent=pcmmod.jpg

dimented24x7

You might want to just jumper across the sense resistors directly with a wire. Each sense resistor is actually the ground path for the injectors. In saturated mode, there can be several amps of current on each driver for the duration of the injector firings. This may cause the contacts in the PC board jumpers to heat up. If the resistance is high enough, it may also cause the injector drivers to switch from saturated mode back to holding mode because the drivers will 'see' a large current. You want the wires used to jumper the resistors to have a low resistance so the drivers remain in saturated mode.

gsjmtntman

Good thought! Just wanted daily driver mode till I finish the pfi tune. Thanks again

sjaak84

Hi I am new in tuning, I starting to convert to the 16168625 pcm and have find the hack but don't understand what to change and where to get the 2pulse in the bin

; LAG FILTER CONSTANTS
;
L5A0F: FCB 64 ; 87 msec, RPM filter
L5A10: FCB 252 ; 6 msec, Input SPD FILTER
L5A11 FCB 252 ; 6 msec, XMISH INPUT SPD FILTER
L5A12: FCB 1 ; 20 msec MAX PERIOD BETWEEN XISH OUTPUT PULSES
L5A13: FDB 43691 ; 40 PULSES/REV OUTPUT SHAFT SPD
; 1092.3 usec/bit

L5A15 FCB 252 ; 6 msec, Xmish output spd filt

when i read this it must be in 5A13 and when i open the hex editer in tunerpro rt and i go to 5A13 then is ther standing AA what do i need to change to get 2 pulse

sorry for my limited knowledge, I hope sombody can get me in the right direction

thanks, Sjaak

dimented24x7

L5D13 and L5D18 are the values to change. L5D13 should be changed to 2 pulses/rev in your tuning def. L5D18 may also need to be changed depending on your vehicle configuration. The calculated MPH are dependant on the tire size and rear end numerical gear ratio. If these are not defined in the tuning definition, you can use the formulas to calculate the raw values, or add them in.

sjaak84

thanks for your time, only i am a little confused i have a e6 hack and it is adressing som different like yours!

************************************
* SPEED SENSOR CALIBRATION PARAM'S
* (2^14 TIME BASE)
************************************

;
; LAG FILTER CONSTANTS
;
L5A0F: FCB 64 ; 87 msec, RPM filter
L5A10: FCB 252 ; 6 msec, Input SPD FILTER
L5A11 FCB 252 ; 6 msec, XMISH INPUT SPD FILTER
L5A12: FCB 1 ; 20 msec MAX PERIOD BETWEEN XISH OUTPUT PULSES
L5A13: FDB 43691 ; 40 PULSES/REV OUTPUT SHAFT SPD
; 1092.3 usec/bit

L5A15 FCB 252 ; 6 msec, Xmish output spd filt

;
; GEAR RATIO'S
;
L5A16: FDB 44564 ; 2.72:1 4WD LO RATIO
; VAL = RATIO * 16,384
L5A18: FCB 45773 ; 44.7:1 NO/VS RATIO <------------****
; VAL = RATIO * 1024
L5A1A: FCB 252 ; 6 msec, Vss filter
***************************************************

And i try to get up my knowledge. I seek further and find on the tunerpro site from Mark Mansur the ''understanding hex'' and ''the basic of creating an ecu file'' Now i can read that stuff first before i come again with questions that ask for some thousend time's
I have only at this time one more question, are we looking on diffrent hack's becouse we have diffrent adresses for same things.

sorry for late replay, but we have some different time in the Netherlands

Regards, Sjaak

sjaak84

I think i make it, I take the 1092.3 and multiply it by 2 that give me 2184 decimal. then i convert it to hex that gives me 888 after the calculation i open L5A13 there was standing AAAB for the 40 pulse (43691) and i change it to 0888 for the (2184) wath is 2 pulse. My car is not running yet. I am now working on the pcm swap so I can't test drive yet. but for the Master, do you think I do it right???

Thanks, Sjaak

96LT4c4

subscribed

junkcltr

Between the LS1 MAF and 16 bit code, what was the max. gm/sec and gm/sec resolution you ended up with? This sounds like it would work well on a boosted engine.

dimented24x7

The max registerable airflow is 512 g/sec, which is more than what most of the MAFs can read. The MAFs typically max out at around 700-800 CFM.

Im also working on a PFI version for V8 engines, that will fire the injectors in bank fire. I also have code that basically adds a boost retard feature based on the cylinder airmass.

junkcltr

I am curious about the PFI V8 version. I have been running a 350ci TPI using the $0D code in batch fire mode with saturated injectors. It took a while to get the bit settings correct. The only thing I have left to tweak is the adaptive spark retard using the 4spd in the vehicle. It pulls too much timing during shifts and loses power. The bank fire code sounds interesting. It was on my to-do list before I got side tracked with other projects. It is one aspect I like about the 427 ECM hardware and code.

You bring up an interesting point I didn't think of with using a MAF and boost. With my MAP stuff I have a table to retard vs. boost pressure. I guess with the MAF it needs a table vs.airmass like you are adding.

There is a guy on the Power Adder forum looking to boost with the MAF so I got the thinking that your $0D MAF setup would be ideal.

junkcltr

How does one tune the spark retard vs. airmass? I am guessing you need to know the airmass when boost is present. I was thinking maybe using IAT, but using an IC and/or water/alky will nullify that. Interesting stuff when using boost with a MAF.

dimented24x7

That was borrowed from the '411 way back when someone wanted to try it in a SC setup. Since the MAF will max out with more than ~6 PSI or so on a 350, it was easier than redoing the MAP based stuff. This way, a standard 1-bar MAP can be used with a boosted setup, and the g/cyl retard table provides a basic way to control the SA under boost. And yes, you would need to datalog the airmass under boost to determine what values to begin retarding the timing. If you know the VE, then you can estimate what the airmass will be, but that also leads to the chicken and the egg dilema as you need to have datalogged values.

The '411 uses g/cyl airmass entirely for timing. I personally dont like it as its not intuative. I'll likely be looking for a way to get around it and use MAP instead.

ben73

Good to see this thread I started almost six years ago still have some interest! Some of the geniuses here have taken this further than I ever imagined.

I never did get the PCM to control the 700r4 tcc properly. Can anyone enlighten me as to how it's done?

__________________
Red/Red 84 Vette. 383 Crossfire 12.26 at 114mph

dimented24x7

There are several options when it comes to transmissions. The PCM can either be set to have shift light/governor only control (manual), standard auto w/ TCC, computer controlled auto with TCC, or computer controlled auto with newer type PWM TCC that allows partial slip. There are option bytes to select this. Its possible that you may have selected the CC auto with TCC. The logic is a lot different than the TCC only logic, which uses control logic similar to the older TBI ECMs. These alternate TCC only tables are normally not included in the earlier XDFs, so its likely that you where using the wrong option. AFAIK, they where not known to exist until I released my $0D hack.

dimented24x7

I have a working version of the PFI MAF code now. Its not quite complete as it needs some more fueling control logic, but if you want to work with it, I can send you a copy of the source so you can have a look.

ben73

Thanks for the reply. I'll have to go back over everything, it has been a few years.
I am still using $E6, with my own .xdf, but I did include practically everything related to the TCC.. I can't even remember what pin it should be connected to.. E10 or E11 rings a bell...

__________________
Red/Red 84 Vette. 383 Crossfire 12.26 at 114mph

Fast355

E10 or E11 is correct...I cannot remember which one either....I have been using a 4L60E with PWM TCC for a while now that uses BOTH. I do remember that the 700r4 TCC is on the PWM TCC wire.

whitelightnin92

i think its E10 for a 4l60E tcc and E11 is pwm but dont hold me to it

junkcltr

That sure catches my interest. Are you referring to a carbon clutch and a woven clutch, respectively? I have been looking up the benefits of each. I thought only the 1996 (not this ECM) and up went with the woven and PWM TCC with partial slip (and second gear apply).

I just re-read it. You are referring to the early cellulose (paper) clutch with on/off TCC control and the 1995 carbon clutch with PWM TCC control. I am thinking of going with a woven clutch and changing the PWM tables to do a on/off probably. I really haven't looked at the TCC control and pressure control yet.

junkcltr

I would be interested in looking at the PFI part. I would like to compare my current PFI CAL byte setup to what you came up with. I know it took me a while to create the right equation in the XDF for the injection size for PFI.
Setting up the right 4000-4008 address values took some time too.

Fast355

I would also be interested in the PFI segment you are working on....I am back to a 7427 in the Van with a 4L60E behind it. I am working on swapping back to heavily worked 3817 base, SLP runners, and ported plenum.

Fast355

You can turn 2nd gear apply on in ANY TCC calibration....I ALWAYS run 2nd gear apply and get outstanding city mpg because of it. The converter in the van stalls around 3,000 rpm, but locks up as low as 20 mph in 2nd gear around town, which makes it actually drive better than a stock converter.

junkcltr

Right, but it doesn't do the constant partial slip that the later stuff did with the woven clutch. Are you running the PWM TCC apply with a carbon clutch?

I want to actually turn off the TCC apply under certain conditions. I don't think the TCC in a stock hi-perf converter with a woven or carbon clutch will handle 400 ft-lb torque at less than 50% TPS being applied during second

Fast355

That partial constant slip stuff is stupid...I made mine into a standard TCC in both the ECM and Valvebody, but have a LT1 carbon style clutch.

You can apply the TCC at whatever throttle position you want. I don't think my van locks the TCC over 30% throttle. PE comes in around 35% throttle as well.

dimented24x7

The constant slip stuff is for fuel economy. Directing part of the torque thru the clutch is more efficient than the converter alone. If you dont care about that extra MPG or two, its pointless to have, especially in a performance setup.

dimented24x7

Fast + junk, PM me with your emails, and Ill forward it along. My current code is mainly a beta. I put the injector control logic in the DRP interrupt and use the software controlled injector driver outputs. I fire the injectors with each bank firing once per rev in alternating fire. This makes the fuel calcs easier, and allows the min possible DC, but the low speed fueling suffers. I need to add in alternate firing logic at low speeds to fire the injectors more often so the fueling doesnt lag. Possibly like TBI firings at speeds below 2000 RPM, with the standard bank fire each rev. at higher speeds.

The feedback Im getting though, is that it actually works pretty well with each bank firing once per rev.

junkcltr

I would think it would work well. That is what I wanted to do with my PFI and big injectors. Batch fire with big injectors leads to small unstable PWs. Doing bank fire allows for doing a 2x on the PWs. But I want to switch to batch fire when the PWs start to get too long in bank fire mode.

junkcltr

I really don't think the 1996+TCC control is stupid. I think Dimented24x7's view is correct in that it is more efficient. Sure, the 1995 PWM is questionable, but does give a smoother lock-up feel but at the same time wears some VB parts. The line pressure is PWM too that wears parts also. No way around that.

It sounds like you installed the VB Isolator valve and possibly removed the PWMing of the TCC in the code. I think I am going with a woven instead of carbon filled torque converter. because they are more durable and not much more in cost. I still haven't decided if I will install the PWM TCC eliminator in the VB because it can be done in the code. That way I can try new PWM TCC algorithms. I need to change stuff anyway because turning on/off the TCC with 500 ft-lb of torque at around 3000 RPMs with less than 50% TPS is going to be a problem.