Quote: Originally posted by kevm14 Since I'm also a regular user of Tunercat, I was hoping for a TDF, which would also presumably allow me to do RT TC when I get around to upgrading my TC software and buying the hardware (leaning toward the Xtronics Romulator). Thoughts on that? I find TC to be fairly robust, bug-free commercial-grade software. It sounds like Tunerpro is still in its infancy. I have been a user of TC for at least 4 years, ever since I started tuning. However, as I gained more experience I found myself gravitating more to TP and am now using TP RT in conjunction with the Moates Ostrich. They're made for each other. I wish TP had more support for cross application data migration like to and from MS .xls. The cut and paste capability still leaves something to be desired BUT Mangus has done a terrific job with this application. And its free except for a modest registration fee which I am more than happy to provide. Now if only there was the ability to run multiple sessions of TP and a cross-mapping of ECU tables, at least for things like VE and SA stuff.

Tunerpro is anything but in it's infancy, I use both TC and TP, I use TC for oddball ecm's that I can't get definition files for, and I use TP for everything else.

TierAngst and kevm14, yes, the EBL setup is compatable with the '6965 ECM. I've actually converted one and have run it.

No need to use a G2 adaptor with the EBL, it has a 28-pin socket on board. The 29C256 Flash chips work great.

RBob.

I have a question for everyone, does any one still use the 16kB chips? Such as the 27C128?

The reason I ask is that I am thinking to release the bin and ECU file as a 32kB setup. This would use the common '256 chip (27C256, 29C256, . . .) chip without the need to stack it.

One of the beta guys is doing this and after thinking about it, well, it's a good idea.

RBob.

One thing to keep in mind is that the 29C256 chips have been discontinued. I'd say they will be unavailable even from folks like me in about 6 months. So, the 27SF512 will be used as a drop-in replacement. So long as you have things wired up to keep that A15 line high, you should be OK when it comes to emulation and what-not. The 32k will get loaded to the high part of either the chip or the emu.

You could still keep/run it as a 16k setup, just put it at the top of the chip with A15/A14 held high. No need to stack, just put the bin at the top of the chip.

I've had much better luck with my Ostrich, then my Romulator.

Tunerpro's been around for a good while now.

So do I have convert my chip or am I just going to send my ecm to you have you solder in the board and slap a 28-pin flash chip and I'm ready to run?

What other hardware/software am I going to need? Originally Craig said I would need TunerCat since TunerPro wouldn't support my chip, is this still going to be the case, do I even need extra software? You'll have to forgive the slower folks such as myself I'm diving into the deep end of tuning without knowing how to swim.

Need to have the EBL board installed into the ECM. The original chip becomes a conversation piece. There is all new code to run the ECM. This gets burned or Flashed into a new chip (which is reusable).

A definition file is provided and can be used with tunerpro, GMEpro, WINBin, or other bin editors. I am working on a TunerCat version of the definition file (TDF).

So, you will need some chips (2 or 3 is OK), a bin editor, and a way to burn or flash the chips. Then a laptop for data logging. Make sense?

RBob.

{edit: couple more items. The CALPAK/NETRES gets reused. This is the small 16 pin package on the same board as the EPROM (see stickies on DFI & ECM board for pictures). Any number of C3 ECMs can be used with the EBL setup. Once converted they are all the same. So you can grab a '747, convert it, and use that. Or convert a '8063, or a '8746, or a 'nnnn and they will all be the same.}

I think I'm getting more lost.

What am I converting? Does that mean I have to rewire something, or reprogram or take a completely different ecm and use it? Basically can I use my ecm or to I have to go to a bone yard and pull one out of a truck, is it even in my ecm that I have to convert or is there somewhere else on the car that needs changing?

Converting the ECM is the act of removing the little board and installing the Embedded Lockers board. There are some pictures somewhere in this thread that shows the EBL installed in an ECM.

To get a better idea open up the small cover on your ECM. You will see the EPROM and CALPAK mounted to a small board that is above the main board.

That little board gets unsoldered and removed from the ECM. Then the EBL board is installed in its place. Boom, it's converted. Now burn an EPROM with the EBL TBI code on it and fire up the engine. Start data logging and refining the tune.

Depending upon your application (vehicle) you may need to disconnect some wires. The EGR, AIR, and CCP soleniod is no longer supported. Those ECM outputs are now used for N2O, electric fan, shift light, and WOT active support.

RBob.

So I can use my ecm? I didn't realize you were just saying installing the Locker. I don't use EGR or AIR, but I don't have a clue what CCP is or if my car has it. I'll be sending you my ecm (don't have the tools), would you be able to take out the pins or mark them off so I know which ones I'll have to disconnect? Hope I'm not being too big a PITA.

Is anybody actually using GMEPro anymore?

Yes, your ECM will work. CCP is the charcoal cannistor purge. Your car had it stock.

There are two basic version of the CCP setup: full time and solenoid controlled. The solenoid controlled is not supported with the EBL. Can use a full time unit that just plumbs to a ported vacuum connection on the TB. These are easy to find in junk yards.

As for disconnecting stuff, the outputs and the one input that changed are covered in the document (it has a table of all of the ECM pins and what they are used for). Can either just unplug the connector from the device, or pop the pin out of the harness at the ECM connector.

RBob.

When I'm doing the stock type chips for the GN, I do.
And I have another pcm that I'll be playing with that I'll be using it on, sooner or later.

Do I really need a CCP? I've already ditched AIR, EGR, soon to be cats, why not throw it out too? If this is an important piece what vehicles do I find it in?

There are some advantages to the can. It does help recover fuel that evaporates off in the tank. Ive been contempating re-installing it on my car.

Making the most of the gas I have is a good thing, so what vehicles should I look for that have one of these setups? Is it a difficult conversion?

Look in the front of older GM Vans or say a 1988 Cadillac Sedan Deville Brougham RWD. They have two ports on the vapor canisters. On a TBI Van, one line goes to the tank, the other to the ported vacuum connection on the TBI.

Not to nitpick, but you keep saying "EBL." Do you mean "ELB" or does it stand for something else?

I look at Embedded Lockers as more of a system then just the board. So I've been using the letters from EmBedded Lockers, EBL. It also rolls off the tongue nice and easy

RBob.

i was wondering if one of the 1st owners of this amazing board could grab a friend, a laptop, and a video camera. and show us what this board is all about id love to see it in action
the realtime logging , mpg etc

How did you guys implement the MPG algorithm anyway? Just injector pulsewidth combined with the BPC?

BTW, one comment I had that I forgot about: TC already exposed a CTS vs AE multiplier in my '6965 mask ($62). People seemed to be talking about it as if it was a previously unimplemented feature in a C3 ECM. And I've been tuning with mine to help cold running drivability.

That table is definatly a necessity as the engine would lean-pop and stumble at cold temps without compensation.

So what all has to be done again?

EPROM board

Is there any new news on the devolopment progress??
Been really quite in this thread lately.

I've had some more pressing issues to take care of but have been working steady. I'll be meeting with RBob Sunday to hopefully have everything in check for a purchase release.

This sounds like a must have,, can you include a feature to allow using the 7747 to drive a port MAP setup? Thanks, Val

Its more an issue with the injector drivers than the software.

The EBL setup as-is can be used on a port setup. This would be with saturated injectors, or a maximum of 4 PnH injectors. The issue with port vs. TBI is that the TBI fires the injectors twice as often. Doing this on a port setup with saturated injectors cuts into the available injector flow time.

Saturated port injectors take twice as long to open and start flowing fuel then a TBI injector. On a lower RPM engine this works out OK. Going to port PnH injectors helps in this regard as they open faster then saturated injectors. A stock TBI ECM can drive 4 of those style injectors (they have twice the impedence of a TBI injector).

However, I have come up with a method of modifying the TBI ECM to be able to drive 4 TBI PnH injectors. This is for folks that want to run dual 2bbl's or a single 4bbl TBI unit. This same mod will allow it to drive 8 port PnH injectors.

I have parts to do this ordered and enroute. Once the parts arrive I am going to convert an ECM and try it out. Not quite sure how I am going to do the 4 TBI injectors on a live engine yet. But, I'll come up with something.

There are already commercial setups that use the '7747 TBI ECM with 8 saturated injectors. They are intended for truck appliations. So that is a viable setup. Using PnH port injectors will allow it to be used on a performance engine.

RBob.

If you can make this work it will open some options that some people were looking for

Wow.

Are you referring to the Edel MPFI conversion kits?

I'm sure he is.
Supporting port injection is a huge market. The problem with it is the conversion back to an older style wiring harness and externam ESC module. The good thing is the cost. Price out a memcal and adaptor... EBL is looking mighty good considering the extra features built-in.

I guess truck applications aren't supposed to have performance engines.

Anyone know if there PnH port injectors that will directly replace the pico injectors supplied with the Edel MPFI?

Theoretically the EBL could drive 2 TBI PnH injectors and 8 saturated injectors simultaneously, correct?

As far as running the above combo or dual 2bbl TBI's, could one set of injectors be commanded under boost?

I don't think the injectors will be able to fire seperatly. From my understanding they'll be driven all off the same fire pattern meaning sure, you could relay a pair of injectors off but when they're on they'll all have the same pulse widths.

Wouldn't that still solve our fueling problem at higher rpms without having a pulse width too short? Run dual TBI's and be able to hit 7k and 500hp or so. If thats the case we're all set as long as we've got room under the hood which I don't see being a problem (at least for me).

Dual TBIs, doubling the airflow and fuel flow potential would certainly open the door to 500fwhp. You wouldn't even need that large of an injector. In fact, using that utility I made, 4 68 lb/hr injectors (L05 9C1) running at 19psi should provide enough fuel for 500hp @ 7000rpm. Realistically I think the HP peak would be a little lower but close enough. 7000 is a nice round number.

I assumed it would be that way. Just figured I'd ask anyways.

Yes and no. Youd still have problems at low RPMs/loads as the PWs would get too short. In reality, youd probably have to run the same overall ammount of injector as if it where a single TBI.

What you really need is to have a 4 bbl TBI and have only one set of injectors firing at idle, and then bring in all four injectors when theyre needed. One idea I had was to slave an ecm or pcm and transmit the needed pulsewidth to it via some sort of serial data connection. It would then drive the second set of injectors.

From a hand waving point of view, I figured doubling the number of injectors would help with the low rpm/load PW issue. I mean, do the batch fire multiport guys have a problem at idle? I figure the extra speed of TBI injectors might counteract the fact that there's only 4 instead of 8. On the other hand, I can easily see the problem. Twice as many injectors means you have twice as much fuel at that min PW, which is still a problem. I guess I don't understand how the high HP batch fire engines get away with it.

I imagine when you get some seriously large MPFI injectors it can become a problem as well.

This may all be useless but trying to throw some ideas out there:

Do 4bbl carbs work off of vacuum or throttle position? Like if we were to find a way to have or computer see either so much vacuum to turn on the second injectors or above a certain throttle position (I think this would be easier since we already read input from the TPS). I think no matter what we'd have both throttle blades opening which would give us a lot of extra air but I've never seen that as a problem with fuel injection. If we can go with the assumption that it'll work on TPS I wouldn't imagine it to be too hard to have an extra chip right near the actual TBI unit itself to have an on/off function based on the TPS output voltage. The one addition problem going this route may be tuning since all of a sudden you're getting twice as much fuel, unless of course we had it set low enough so that the second injectors would kick in at anything slightly above idle... just enough so that it would remove our idling PW problems.

That would be a nightmare to tune, as you'd have to alter the primary injectors' PW as the 2nd one come online to avoid a nasty rich bog.

4 68 lb injectors is sort of like 8 34 lb injectors. And if a given engine can idle acceptably on those running in batch fire, I don't see why there would be a problem with the dual TBIs running 68s in pairs.

Exactly, but there are some major differences. 1st is the fact that TBI injectors are heavier meaning they take longer to open and close than a lighter mpfi injector. 2nd is the P&H which gives a huge amount of current to get the injectors open quickly compensating for their heavy moving parts and producing less heat by using only enough current to keep them open . 3rd is the fuel pressure. Having lower fuel pressure like with a TBI system and having them not exposed to manifold vacuum makes it easier for them to open and close. All in all, when it's all said and done I don't think there will be any troubles with controlling the idle with 20psi and 4 45lb injectors.

I was under the impression that TBI injectors were faster. Maybe it's just that P&H injectors are faster, when all other variables are the same. As you mentioned, if the TBI injectors do have more inertia in the moving parts, then all other variables are NOT the same...I think that answers the low PW issue. Perhaps TBI injectors actually have a higher min PW, which is entirely the cause of the issue which we are discussing. Do you think 45s at 20psi would have a lower min PW than 90s running at 20? If so, then that's a possible solution.

And just for comprehension's sake...the purpose of running dual TBIs with quad 45 lb/hr injectors would also be for airflow, right? Obviously we can currently achieve that fuel flow with a single TBI - dual 90s at 20psi would do it. But I guess the problem is the single SBC TBI can't really flow enough air (without an appreciable pressure delta) for 355fwhp, though a BBC TBI could. Which leads us back to NOT using a complex manifold, linkage, ECM/tuning when we can get that air and fuel flow with existing GM parts.

I dont think it would be incredibly difficult with coding. The biggest issue could be determining when the second set of butterflies begins to open and coordinating transitions. Obviously youd have to shell out the big bucks for one of the fancy holly TBIs with the progressive linkages. Basically all the second ECM/PCM would need to know is how much PW and what firing mode is in use. Not much code would be in use on the slave so the loops could potentially run several times faster then the master ecm/pcm. This would provide very good dynamic range which could feed damn near anything.

FWIW, GM seems to imply that the time needed for the injectors to open/close is around 400 usecs. Any less then that and they clear the pulsewidth out completly.

And does that vary across the range of injector sizes?

It's my understanding that the reason tbi fires the injectors twice as much as a MPI setup is that the smaller more rapid pulses keep you from having big lumps of fuel running down the intake which causes all kinds of havoc with idle and part throttle drivability. Wouldn't switching over to single fire (if thats the correct term) mode at higher RPM's be a simplier solution. With the injectors not having to shut and reopen so much you should be able to deliver much more fuel.

I'm a bit high on nighquil so if this makes no sense please disregard.

hmmm... good question. I would assume no, since the nozzle is probably the only difference between each injector flowrate.

BMmonte,

Yes, one injector fires each cylinder firing. This keeps the manifold topped off and makes fueling easier, since the flow is calculated for one cylinder and makes the fueling independant of the number of cylinders.

The later TBIs run in async at 80 Hz most of the time when not idling. The reduced number of firings at high RPMs might be why its done.