Originally Posted by junkcltr

I gave up on reading the debate, but I noticed resolution was an argument.

If you want more resolution then do what I have been doing for years. Read the 1bar in one 0 to 5v a2d input, and another diesel MAP in another 0 to 5v input. It gives 0 to 10v volt range. The diesel sensor reads 80 kpa to 3 bar. Problem solved.
Find a better diesel sensor than I have and get better resolution.
Yeah, a lot of the coders around here are old school trying to jam 3 bar into 5 volts.

The V6 vs V8 argument on resolution is null.

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

Not really getting personal Joe, that would be impossible because I don't know him on a personal level. I only know what has been said on this website both by him, as well as by others. None of what he says is new. Callaway maintained the factory '7165 and switched to a MAP w/calibrated prom for their twin turbo B2K L98's in the late 80's, nothing new there in terms of dropping in a prom and converting MAF to MAP for boost.

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

RBob's EBL Flash is superior to that concept in every way, even Callaway would agree. In the early 2000's the idea for a flag switching from one MAP to another to increase resolution was presented by RBob, and others who were just as open to the ideas and creative genius in the DIY agreed, but nobody did anything with it. RBob did, was done years ago by him.

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

Also, let's get into recommending that members to run a tube the same size of the stock MAF to increase fueling by doubling injector size and adding resolution? What kind of tech advice is that? Would love to see the air intake routing just prior to the throttle body with that one, especially a boosted setup. Do they even make a silicone fitting for that concoction? Bottom line is he only posts to pat himself on the back, and to bad mouth other systems that "he" won't use because of his personal feelings, so I am not the one getting personal.

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

I think we can all agree that GM purposely used small TPI runners and peanut camshafts in conjunction with 8-bit processors because there was never really a need for a better system to control an already restricted engine, so why would GM need more resolution for a 200 horsepower engine.

Originally Posted by project89

Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ

80e is not the answer

Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ

Th400

Originally Posted by ZZ3Astro

Orr can you expand on that 80e thought process a bit? I'm planning to use my 80e on the iroc at some point. I want to run 1/2 mile events so I really need the 4th. Just curious what you have in mind 80e vs 400.

Originally Posted by project89

i would but a 400 isnt easy to come by were i live , 80e would be much easier to get my hands on, though i guess if i repaired the th350 if it is burning up i could prolly trade it off for a stock th400

my one friend has a 4l80 out of a gm diesel , those ones dont need an ecm to run , the hard part would be getting him to part with it as they were only made for 1 or 2 years and are hard to come by

Originally Posted by ZZ3Astro

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

Pretty sure he is running a 2.73 rear gear, so that and the larger tire makes up for it...

Originally Posted by anesthes

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

Yeah, turbo's love the additional load to help them spool faster, and the taller gear (lower numerically) will greatly increase trap speed so long as RPM is maintained, and with a faster spooling turbo, it will. This is why it is not uncommon to find 3-speed tranny's like the Turbo 400 easily trapping close to, and even over, 200-mph in the 1/4 mile.

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

Many people are still stuck in that 3.73/4.10 mentality, which is good of course for a short sprint with a naturally aspirated engine, but no match for a boosted setup with tall gear. Joe is also a Corvette guy like me, so he is familiar with the gearing that they run. My old White C4 that I was planning on supercharging came stock with a 2.54 rear gear, and a lot of the Grand National guys I know were suggesting a 3.55 at a minimum, and I told them no way. The 2.54 had a tremendous advantage in my old Corvette, you just needed to maintain RPM throughout, otherwise it will be a dog out of the hole...

Originally Posted by anesthes

Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ

Laggy as in turbo spool or you mean lazy while normally driving around because of the highway gear?

Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ

And 400" of sbc will move anything, even my 3800 lb street deal from a stop sign. Tall gearing is not a hindrance

Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ

Street is right, a good converter makes it work these days. I have somewhere near 4500-5500 stall depending what boost level its at. Off idle, it acts more like my old trans am's 3200 stall. Maybe even tighter. Its the best of all worlds.

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

I think after all this time I'm finally starting to understand Joe lol. I have never built a third gen with the intentions of rivaling a newer class of cars, and I finally see that this is what Joe is after. This is the reasoning behind an abundance of features being needed, as well as massive resolution, control and precision. He wants that new car feel from his third gen. Sadly though, ninety percent of the members on this board build their third gens the totally opposite way, they want the grunt. Funny thing is though, from what I read, the third gen was considered to be way more refine and ahead of its' time than all of its' predecessors, as well as its' rivals during that time. But Joe wants to build a 2016 third gen with what's readily available from the aftermarket, to take on a new set of rivals today. If that is the case though, I would lose the SBC and go crate 6.2 LT1...

Originally Posted by anesthes

The gear. We discussed the other day that you are not in boost 90% of the time, yes? So I don't think the turbo would be a concern.



Interesting. I have a little more displacement, and I think the same heads as you, so I'd expect our motors to be similar n/a. I'd think my car would be laggy with any less gearing than I have.




Holy crap.. I have like a 2800 stall.

-- Joe

Originally Posted by anesthes

I've been experimenting (on my test bench) hybrid MAF/MAP, to both solve the resolution issue and allow for better tuning control during part throttle. What I'm torn about is what range MAF to use, but I'll expand on that in another thread.

Some of the guys on other sites have dual MAP sensors, but they are running a 1-bar MAP and then a pressure sensor for secondary fuel load.

With the 3.4.2 firmware, Project89 can pretty much do whatever he wants for fueling.

-- Joe

Originally Posted by Drac0nic

That makes a lot of sense, you effectively have a boost table and an off boost table. They make a version of the MPX4250 used in the Megasquirt that would work well for it, the MPX4250D. As an added bonus it should be good for over 30 PSI if you're into cranking stuff up on good fuel. I'd consider such a set up over MAF just because of simplicity in plumbing which is likely going to be a compromise with a MAF setup.

ED:Suckage on the TH-350. The 400s are pretty easy to build up to that power level and would let you re-use your current converter which is a plus.

Originally Posted by Drac0nic

That makes a lot of sense, you effectively have a boost table and an off boost table. They make a version of the MPX4250 used in the Megasquirt that would work well for it, the MPX4250D. As an added bonus it should be good for over 30 PSI if you're into cranking stuff up on good fuel. I'd consider such a set up over MAF just because of simplicity in plumbing which is likely going to be a compromise with a MAF setup.

ED:Suckage on the TH-350. The 400s are pretty easy to build up to that power level and would let you re-use your current converter which is a plus.

Originally Posted by anesthes

Originally Posted by project89

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

GM did this to save on cost, not because of harmony.

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

MAF sensors will be obsolete. An ideal factory system is MAP based, Wideband O2 corrected, EGT probed, and ION sensed. GM is aware of these types of systems, but chose not to invest in them. Hell they even went back to pushrods after playing with 32 valve w/multiple cam engines in the 90's, this right here should tell everyone how dedicated GM really is regarding tech...

Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

GM did this to save on cost, not because of harmony. MAF sensors will be obsolete. An ideal factory system is MAP based, Wideband O2 corrected, EGT probed, and ION sensed. GM is aware of these types of systems, but chose not to invest in them. Hell they even went back to pushrods after playing with 32 valve w/multiple cam engines in the 90's, this right here should tell everyone how dedicated GM really is regarding tech...

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

Draconic you are missing the point. I already said that GM experimented with 4 valve per cylinder multi camshaft engines in the 90's; LT5, Northstar, or even their six cylinder LQ1, etc, but nothing ever really came of it from a performance perspective, they chose to go back to the pushrod engines, because not only were they more cost efficient for them, it simply worked. They did not invest in the time to pursue other avenues that the other manufacturers were going in until they went global, and even then the pushrods remained, which many in the world view as detrimental. The GM brand does not sell well overseas. What I said was never intended to imply that GM products didn't compete, of course they did, and do, but there is a REASON why other manufacturers sell more vehicles than GM does and are considered to be levels above them...

GM sells to their dedicated base and loyal customers who grew up with the brand, but someone driving a BMW or Mercedes knows their is no comparison regarding tech, which is why BMW's and Mercedes cost more overall. GM does what they do based on feedback from their marketing teams, the techs have no say on what gets developed, only to develop what they are told to. It's about money with them, and there are short cuts involved. EPA requirements vary on many factors, and it is very costly, so even saying that things get done from an emission's perspective is only really part of the story. GM HAS the tech to rival the best out there, but they stretched out what they have been to make a buck, and that is the truth. There is a lot more in the GM toy box so to speak that never seen the light of day, and that is because they are cheap, because they know that further development into those systems will cost them MORE in the long run as opposed to what already works...

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

... that is absolutely hilarious coming from someone with a home built ECM bench, oscilloscope in hand, yet with no code algorithm written under his belt, or anything of that nature. Nothing, nada, zip, just an idle video that I took the time to applaud, yet no real data to back up and view, no runs, nothing. What exactly is it that you know and that I don't lol? Seriously? Have you spoken to any Volvo and Harley techs in the past like I did to see the direction the industry is going? Do you know the cost to GM for revamping their entire ECU system, not to mention the amount of time it would have taken them to perfect while the other manufacturers already had a head start and wouldn't release the code? You think that just because you are an MS user you have some form of edge over everyone else? Think again, I'll bet money I have more experience than you do TUNING and DRIVING a MS powered vehicle. Don't lecture me about something you know nothing about, aside from sourcing and researching the techs from the former manufacturers previously mentioned, I also had to explain to many GM investors how said company was in needed to be bailed out by the tax payers due to poor decision making and flawed products, but by all means. let a handful of nobody's applaud their MAF w/MAP system while the rest of the world keeps pushing forward. That had to be the funniest thing I ever read from you. Gotta love those farm boys.

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

You would consider it more than an experiment lol? It was around a fraction in relation with GM's history, and more found their way at the dealers, and eventually the junkyards not too long after they stopped making them. I guess we have a different definition of what experimentation is, as one should not release a product until thoroughly tested and researched. The Northstar meant well and spawned ideas, but it itself was a flop...



That is your opinion as a buyer, not to mention an opinion based on a biased understanding. You won't admit it, but you told yourself the Cadillac was just as good before even comparing the two for yourself. That is just the way the world is, I will admit that other baseball teams are good, but none hold a candle to the Yankees, even if the Yankees having a losing season. This is why I mean when I say GM sells to their loyal base. Have you ever driven in a twin turbo BMW? Seriously, have you? GM cannot compare with what they currently sell. Endless rumors about a new Buick Avista hitting the scene and putting the Imports to shame, so why hasn't it yet? It's already developed and tested, so why not release it? There is more to production then you realize...



You're speaking on Joe's behalf, meanwhile it is HE who gives a damn about the tech you're criticizing lol. He wants precision, and MAF w/MAP is not the way to go. Ion sense tuning does it all, no more sensors needed, no more crank or cam sensors nor MAF sensors. I'm quite sure this will eliminate jobs, while costing GM a lot to research. Therein lies the reasoning, it is very political, not just because they don't want to...



... lol, there is a difference between cutting costs, only those with major share holders who are expecting a return stretch that buck. As a former Nissan GTR owner myself, I assure you not every company does, and this reflects on past and current sales brand history. People never forget.



You are confused in a narrowing world. It is more revolutionary because the early concepts of Ion sense tuning that you would find on an Isuzu or Saab are completely different systems. Not to mention, if it were so "evolutionary" why hasn't GM capitalized on it? Oh wait, they were squeezing their pennies until Lincoln screamed.

Originally Posted by Street Lethal

... that is absolutely hilarious coming from someone with a home built ECM bench, oscilloscope in hand, yet with no code algorithm written under his belt, or anything of that nature. Nothing, nada, zip, just an idle video that I took the time to applaud, yet no real data to back up and view, no runs, nothing. What exactly is it that you know and that I don't lol? Seriously?

Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ

Gm hasnt made any positive pressure v8 vehicles until recently.

Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ

Lt1 and ls1 had maf and map. I am not sure why they felt the need to do both, maybe an emissions thing? Both work well.

My favorite cars to tune are the maf tpi cars except for the datalog bugs in $6e. I just did heads cam intake on a L98, and base chip with just injectors changed and idle command speed set, it started right up. Idled on its own although needed some throttle screw adjustment.
Map is alittle more tricky to dial in. But you can dial in. Just about every ls1 car that comes thru the local shop gets speed density tuned

Originally Posted by anesthes

When I first saw this pop up on my phone earlier, I missed the "V8" and was thinking, man, what is he smoking.



The combo is because it's more adaptable. And we're not just talking GM, we're talking like EVERYONE.

I settled on a 2005+ MAF (Slot style), which I suspect is what the Blowerworks MAF is based on. (That all the Corvette C4 guys are not using).

Btw, have you settled on a management system for the new build? Steve has been using the Holley on his twin turbo camaro and so far I guess he's happy with it. The fuel map being DC based is a weird, but at the end of the day it works.

-- Joe