Okay, maybe this idea is out ther (extremely), but I read a couple of posts about possibly replacing the stock ECM completely. I know one of them was started by Grumpy, and there was another about programming WBO2's into place. Anyways, here goes.

I don't know if anybody's seen these yet, but there's a computer system put out by Shuttle, which is about 7" square, with a P3 or P4 processor, and at least one I found comes standard with a DC (cigarette lighter) power cord. They sell for about $299 bare bones, and seeing this got me thinking. How possible is it to emulate the stock computer programming on a WinXP based machine, or at least allow it to do the same thing. I was thinking that if you were to use the parallel and serial ports for sensor input (one pin for one sensor ratio), there should be more than enough inputs. By doing this, (and this is where the idea gets a little insane), I would think you could theoretically place an O2 sensor in each tube of a set of headers, and have 8 seperate fuel curves, one for each cylinder. By doing this you'd be able to tune each cylinder to it's absolutely perfect ratio, rather than having to settle for tuning the whole left/right side as one each, and I would think the performance benefit would be amazing. I'll admit, I currently know nothing about programming except for very old QBasic, but I'm going to try to learn, and I'd be willing to help in any way I could with this. Also, I would think this would also make it possible to completely do away with prom's, just use a specific file on the hard drive to save the fuel curves on.

Anyways, let me know what anyone thinks of this, I'd be happy to be a test dummy, if nothing else.

 

The question is, due you trust your life with Bill Gates software??

 

I agree with SATURN5, and this topic came up on the GMECM list a few days back.

The problem is that WinXP is not designed as a real time operating system. Interfacing to analog sensors, etc is not easy task either.

Why spend $300 + WinXP licensing fees (I wouldn't know because I stopped using Microsoft software at Win95), when you have an ECM that does all you need already?

If you really wanted to try it, I would recommend using QNX or RealTimeLinux.

 

I was only mentioning WinXP because it's pretty much the standard, and there's already FreeScan and Datamaster, etc to build off of. Actually I've never had a problem with XP either, but it was just an example. Also, the other benefit is that you could also use it to control other things as well, such as have an entire hard drive of mp3's, no skipping, CD's, etc.

Are Linux, etc actually good with capturing sensor data? I've never really looked at them, but I will check into it. But actually, isn't capturing real-time sensors really what Datamaster does? I would think reverse-engineering it to do the same thing wouldn't be too hard.

 

Boot times, you need an "instant on" computer system for something like this. Or you'd need a VERY stable operating system that would go into hibernation mode and come out quickly, no matter how long it had been "asleep".
Also a P3 or P4 based system is about a thousand times more processing power than you'd ever need.

 

Yeah, I realized the P3 and P4 are more than adequate, that's one thing that made me think of using a seperate O2 for each sensor, as well as being able to control just about anything else. I had considered the "instant-on" also, but even when I was thinking of WinXP, it was the idea that realistically you can basically make it boot almost completely bare and a P4 would start-up like lightning. My desktop right now is a P4 2.26 GHz, and if not for the network I have setup with my roomates, it's able to boot to the dektop in about 5-10 seconds.

One question I do have, I was kind of playing with the idea of having the computer regulate the starter as well, using a very high-bit encryption passwrod of course, or even go the route of voice-command. (I know, I'm getting very James Bond/Batman her, but it'd be the ultimate trick mod!) Would this work, or would it be necessary to stick with the key ignition idea?

 

I would stick with the key ignition, but you could use a password lock to interrupt power to the starter until the P/W is entered. Just remember, the more gadgets like this you add to a system the more chances of something breaking.

 

Oh I understand, believe me I do, but that's also the nice thing about designing the system from the ground up, if it breaks, chances are I'd be able to fix it.

 

For the time and effort you could have much better results in developing source code for your ecm, and then rewritting it to do what you really want it to do.

The GM ecms are just marvels in engineering, it's just the games that they are forced to play that gets the code a lil goofy. Take all the BS out of the code, and the car really responds well.

Strip the code down, add an emulator, and you'd still be under $299. Thou more work. The more you work with the GM code and such the more you'll appreciate it. And when you can cross patch sections of code, well, things get really interesting.